Density vs. The Neighborhood Balancing Affordable Housing And Community Safety
by Amanda Sawyer, Candidate for Denver City Council, District 5

All eyes have been on the November elections, but now the focus shifts to May 2019, when Denver will choose who should fill the 15 spots that will make up our next Mayor, City Council and County Clerk. There are already 45 candidates running for those 15 positions, so you can tell people in Denver are not happy with the current leadership. And the biggest issue on everyone’s mind is affordable housing.

When it comes to the cost of living in Denver, we are a city in crisis. Historically, “affordable housing” is defined as one third of average median income. This is a particularly big deal in neighborhoods with high incomes, because middle income earners like teachers and first responders can’t afford to live there. And there are not enough local housing options for retirees on fixed incomes when they are ready to cash out of their homes and move. We need more affordable housing, especially in these neighborhoods. But where should it go? And, what are the other unintended consequences such as traffic and infrastructure issues?

City planners will tell you that the solution is to build high-density developments along transit corridors. We have already seen this in East Denver in developments like 9th & Colorado and Boulevard One. The problem with this solution is the streets that the City considers to be “transit corridors.”

Let’s look at Holly Street. It is considered a transit corridor, so planners want to add density there. To be fair, there may be places on Holly where added density could work. But to make a blanket generalization that all of Holly Street — a two lane road that runs through neighborhoods filled with families, small businesses and schools — should be developed because the City considers it a transit corridor? That doesn’t make sense.

Take, for example, the Green Flats proposal, on Holly between Cedar and Alameda. The design is attractive, and I appreciate the developer’s attention to green building. He has also been generous with regards to privacy, setbacks, and the number of parking spaces. In another location, this is an excellent project. But, it’s not a good fit for this particular block.

The current development plan provides for 35 parking spaces, accessed solely via the alley that runs from Alameda to Cedar. There are approximately 11 vehicles using that space now, so this would add 24 cars. According to neighbors, the southern entrance to the alley is dangerous because people drive Alameda at high speeds and the alley isn’t clearly visible. They already have to wait for a red light at Alameda and Holly before they can pull out. Their other option is to use the northern entrance to the alley at Cedar between Hudson and Holly. The businesses on that block offer amenities specifically to draw families to the location, so there are always kids at that entrance. The bike racks and cornhole games are located no more than 20 feet from the alley that would be the only vehicle access to this development. It’s already a dangerous situation and 24 more cars will make it worse.

Adding more cross-traffic at Cedar and Holly is also a bad idea. There is no logical way to put a stoplight at this intersection. It would cause a bottleneck that would back up northbound traffic on Holly down onto Alameda and Leetsdale. The City already acknowledged there is essentially no solution to this problem when it installed a flashing crosswalk at this intersection. I’ve personally seen multiple people almost killed in that crosswalk. The proposed development and the additional 24 more cars it will bring to this already highly congested area don’t make sense.

Holly will also be virtually unusable dur-ing the construction phase of this project. While that is temporary, it will force drivers to use the neighborhood streets as our main north-south roads. This will create a safety risk for the neighborhood kids, especially on streets like Fairfax and Dahlia that connect Alameda to 6th Avenue. And, remember, this project is proposed three blocks from the playground of a Denver Public Elementary School which families with young children use every day as their main entrance to the school grounds.

In addition to traffic and safety issues, the proposed development has had the unfortunate effect of driving out other residents. One neighbor has already moved. The property immediately to the south is for sale. Other neighbors have told me they will move if the project is approved. In this case, even the beginning proposal stage has already caused at least two residents to leave the neighborhood, which is a shame.

Finally, I’m concerned that this developer wants to seem like he’s compromising without actually compromising. I experienced this attitude personally while researching the Green Flats project. and I’m not alone. When concerns about the project size were brought up in mediation, the developer’s concession was to lower the number of units from 27 to 23. This seems like a fair compromise; except as I understand it, he intends to combine units that were originally designed as single units into larger units with more bedrooms. If true, this would lower the officially measured density of the project without actually altering its size. As I write this no one has seen revised plans for the project so the truth of that remains unclear. But if the information is correct, the post-mediation “change” is a distinction without a difference.

And, more importantly, it is indicative of a concerning business culture among the development community, where a spirit of camaraderie and partnership with the neighborhoods seems to be lacking. It’s time to change the conversation. Solving Denver’s housing crisis is the most important issue we face. Denver has to add density. We need to come together to find creative solutions. But do we have to add to our existing traffic issues, give up the character of our neighborhoods and the safety of our children, to do it? The final hearing for the Green Flats Project is scheduled for November 7.

To comment, attend the final hearing for the Green Flats Project November 7 at 3 p.m. at 1437 Bannock St. #379. Amanda Sawyer is a licensed Colorado attorney and MBA. She and her husband are raising their kids in East Denver, and she is running for Denver City Council District 5 because she believes we need fresh eyes on the issues that face our neighborhoods. You can find out more about her platform at www.sawyerforfive.org.

Share This