Vicky Uhland here. Thanks for the report, Karen. Something that struck me was the excellent comment from an attendee that the Kensington plan mentions a big box, and aren't big boxes antiquated? Edgar didn't really have a response to that.
As far as I know, Kensington doesn't manage properties; it just builds them. So if it builds a big box site that no one wants or that fails sooner rather later, that would be the city's tax revenue problem, not Kensington's.
Good observation! And we would have another empty big box. The adaptable commercial designation in the comp plan is supposed to help with this type of situation but I don't know that it will.
Thank you as always for your clear information. I’m headed to Wisconsin and I’ll be in Brookfield and will make it a point to check out The Corners. It sounded familiar to me and I may have been there in the past.
I like Guy’s suggestion for traffic circles. How do we make that happen instead of more traffic signals?
I love that we will have a report from one of the developments! Thank you. ;-)
Two traffic circles are associated with the Willoughby Corner project at Emma and 120th. The idea is that they will help to guide the Peak to Peak school traffic more toward 120th instead of through Old Town. There will be a traffic light at 120th and Emma to help keep the traffic from backing up so much.
Staff explains that the more traffic can be dispersed the fewer problems arise. In the case of Willoughby Corner the P2P traffic was already a problem for the people bringing their kids to school and the surrounding neighborhoods. This was considered during the design phase and another exit onto 120th was created through Willoughby with only a right-turn option.
They can be used in certain locations but they are hard to put in after the fact as they take up quite a bit of space and emergency vehicles have to be able to negotiate them.
1. The median home price in these here parts is north of $700K -- which is more than I paid for my above median home 14 years ago. People claim to be concerned about home affordability but it seems like NIMBY is still very powerful. That is not meant to trivialize the concerns being voiced about traffic, residential access or water control issues, those are very real. We all need to think about our priorities. How do we migrate to a situation where affordable homes are a reality. The things the cities are doing are useful but theyʻre just bandaids. We need higher density and that doesnʻt fit well with the other things we want like open space, mountain views, restricted traffic, etc.
2. When I moved here in ʻ11, there was a traffic light at 111th and at 287. Now there are those two plus the two new lights into Nine Mile Corner. As traffic increases (projections are like 2xish in the next ten years), we should not be putting traffic lights at every single intersection. Traffic lights are expensive to buy, to install, and to maintain. We need to commit to traffic circles which can easily be cheaper than lights and are definitely cheaper to own, and they donʻt stop working when it snows. They are also safer and more environmentally friendly.
Guy, someone asked about affordable housing in this development. Edgar said that would probably happen, but didn't discuss numbers or specifics. However, in Erie behind Nine Mile Corner, the developer recently promised "affordable" housing at 80% area median income, which is not affordable by any realistic measure. According to the Boulder County Housing Authority, the 2024 80% AMI for a single person is $81,760. If a one-bedroom 80% AMI apartment is rented at the recommended 30% of income, that works out to $2,043 a month.
Higher-density developments built by developers have not resulted in affordable rents in Lafayette or Erie. Case in point, Erie's Nine Mile Corner apartments, which start at $1,580 a month for a one bedroom and $2,050 for a two-bed. https://www.equityapartments.com/denver/erie/savanna-nine-mile-apartments. Also, the 600-apartment Sundar being built at 287 and Dillon Road in Lafayette is touted as "luxury" apartments. The only affordable high-density development currently being built or on the drawing board is Willoughby Corner, which is paid for by BCHA and the city of Lafayette, and rents at AMIs of 30-60%.
Your points are all good, but the fact is that no single "affordable" development is going to force prices down -- it has to be a general increase in the number of units built. I used high density, but it would equally be lower density but many more developments. Itʻs not an easy answer any way we look at it. I like the views of the mountains just as much as anyone. I like the lower density housing with open space and parks. I do not like living in Manhattan (which I did for a year). But people keep moving here (itʻs a nice place to live) and that drives up the price of housing. The solution to the price of housing may involve it becoming less of a nice place to live. Government subsidies, as is the case with rent control, are not a long term solution -- people arenʻt wired to accept that solution. This is a genuinely hard problem.
Guy, what are the rents in Manhattan? That's high density, did it bring the costs down?
Vicky, thanks for providing the numbers! One more number to throw in is the city's total contribution to Willoughby Corner. When it is built out it's estimated to be over 11 million taxpayers' dollars.
I agree this is genuinely a hard problem and I am not sure build, build, build is the answer.
Karen , my wife and I lived in an apartment on West 110th Street between Amsterdam and Broadway in 1969/70. The rent was a little over half my takehome from the Navy -- about $250/month. Since then, that building has been renovated and is higher end apartment.
Vicky Uhland here. Thanks for the report, Karen. Something that struck me was the excellent comment from an attendee that the Kensington plan mentions a big box, and aren't big boxes antiquated? Edgar didn't really have a response to that.
As far as I know, Kensington doesn't manage properties; it just builds them. So if it builds a big box site that no one wants or that fails sooner rather later, that would be the city's tax revenue problem, not Kensington's.
Good observation! And we would have another empty big box. The adaptable commercial designation in the comp plan is supposed to help with this type of situation but I don't know that it will.
Thank you as always for your clear information. I’m headed to Wisconsin and I’ll be in Brookfield and will make it a point to check out The Corners. It sounded familiar to me and I may have been there in the past.
I like Guy’s suggestion for traffic circles. How do we make that happen instead of more traffic signals?
I love that we will have a report from one of the developments! Thank you. ;-)
Two traffic circles are associated with the Willoughby Corner project at Emma and 120th. The idea is that they will help to guide the Peak to Peak school traffic more toward 120th instead of through Old Town. There will be a traffic light at 120th and Emma to help keep the traffic from backing up so much.
Staff explains that the more traffic can be dispersed the fewer problems arise. In the case of Willoughby Corner the P2P traffic was already a problem for the people bringing their kids to school and the surrounding neighborhoods. This was considered during the design phase and another exit onto 120th was created through Willoughby with only a right-turn option.
They can be used in certain locations but they are hard to put in after the fact as they take up quite a bit of space and emergency vehicles have to be able to negotiate them.
Just a couple thoughts:
1. The median home price in these here parts is north of $700K -- which is more than I paid for my above median home 14 years ago. People claim to be concerned about home affordability but it seems like NIMBY is still very powerful. That is not meant to trivialize the concerns being voiced about traffic, residential access or water control issues, those are very real. We all need to think about our priorities. How do we migrate to a situation where affordable homes are a reality. The things the cities are doing are useful but theyʻre just bandaids. We need higher density and that doesnʻt fit well with the other things we want like open space, mountain views, restricted traffic, etc.
2. When I moved here in ʻ11, there was a traffic light at 111th and at 287. Now there are those two plus the two new lights into Nine Mile Corner. As traffic increases (projections are like 2xish in the next ten years), we should not be putting traffic lights at every single intersection. Traffic lights are expensive to buy, to install, and to maintain. We need to commit to traffic circles which can easily be cheaper than lights and are definitely cheaper to own, and they donʻt stop working when it snows. They are also safer and more environmentally friendly.
Guy, someone asked about affordable housing in this development. Edgar said that would probably happen, but didn't discuss numbers or specifics. However, in Erie behind Nine Mile Corner, the developer recently promised "affordable" housing at 80% area median income, which is not affordable by any realistic measure. According to the Boulder County Housing Authority, the 2024 80% AMI for a single person is $81,760. If a one-bedroom 80% AMI apartment is rented at the recommended 30% of income, that works out to $2,043 a month.
Higher-density developments built by developers have not resulted in affordable rents in Lafayette or Erie. Case in point, Erie's Nine Mile Corner apartments, which start at $1,580 a month for a one bedroom and $2,050 for a two-bed. https://www.equityapartments.com/denver/erie/savanna-nine-mile-apartments. Also, the 600-apartment Sundar being built at 287 and Dillon Road in Lafayette is touted as "luxury" apartments. The only affordable high-density development currently being built or on the drawing board is Willoughby Corner, which is paid for by BCHA and the city of Lafayette, and rents at AMIs of 30-60%.
Your points are all good, but the fact is that no single "affordable" development is going to force prices down -- it has to be a general increase in the number of units built. I used high density, but it would equally be lower density but many more developments. Itʻs not an easy answer any way we look at it. I like the views of the mountains just as much as anyone. I like the lower density housing with open space and parks. I do not like living in Manhattan (which I did for a year). But people keep moving here (itʻs a nice place to live) and that drives up the price of housing. The solution to the price of housing may involve it becoming less of a nice place to live. Government subsidies, as is the case with rent control, are not a long term solution -- people arenʻt wired to accept that solution. This is a genuinely hard problem.
Guy, what are the rents in Manhattan? That's high density, did it bring the costs down?
Vicky, thanks for providing the numbers! One more number to throw in is the city's total contribution to Willoughby Corner. When it is built out it's estimated to be over 11 million taxpayers' dollars.
I agree this is genuinely a hard problem and I am not sure build, build, build is the answer.
Karen , my wife and I lived in an apartment on West 110th Street between Amsterdam and Broadway in 1969/70. The rent was a little over half my takehome from the Navy -- about $250/month. Since then, that building has been renovated and is higher end apartment.