DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[semiurban]

Impressive that the author was able to track down and get a quote from the one resident in RiNo who doesn't have access to Google Maps.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The article does do one great service- its shows what a one-sided program CU's Program in Environmental Design is and how it captures the Boulder ethos perfectly. Ken, perhaps you can —-slap your colleagues up there with some urban design enlightenment?

As a recent graduate of that program, I have to push back on this assertion. From my experience, the ENVD program is heavily pro-urban in the way it teaches urban design, and absolutely stresses the benefits of urban density in the grand scheme of things. Each professor of course has their own personal opinions on things, but I didn't experience anything that would make me think the program pushes the kind of anti-urbanism expressed in Boulder Daily Camera editorials. In fact quite the opposite.

That said, the program also places a strong emphasis on green infrastructure and studies of impervious surfaces are well within the scope of what they teach and study. Good, progressive urbanism SHOULD be concerned with modern approaches to water drainage, and density is not inherently incompatible with the need for impervious surfaces. But there are a LOT of ways to go after impervious surfaces, and many are perfectly compatible with urban density - just look at 14th Street. I would caution about making sweeping generalizations about the program based on a few quotes that were very likely taken out of context by the reporter.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by mr1138

That said, the program also places a strong emphasis on green infrastructure and studies of impervious surfaces are well within the scope of what they teach and study. Good, progressive urbanism SHOULD be concerned with modern approaches to water drainage, and density is not inherently incompatible with the need for impervious surfaces. But there are a LOT of ways to go after impervious surfaces, and many are perfectly compatible with urban density - just look at 14th Street. I would caution about making sweeping generalizations about the program based on a few quotes that were very likely taken out of context by the reporter.

Fair point there. I was certainly letting my anti-CU basis be displayed.

[Stonemans_rowJ]

The girl in Rino says she would have to, like, drive to Wash Park. Can't she walk, jog, or bike into Commons Park/Riverfront park or Cuernavaca Park? It's a bit misleading to ask someone in Rino about Green Space. Also what relevance is her rent of $1,400 month besides to point out that she could easily rent a unit in Wash Park/Speer for the same price and be next to the park.

This is article is a piece of garbage.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

This article is so misleading. It says:

Excluding the undeveloped area around the airport, nearly half the land in Denver’s city limits is now paved or built over — up from less than 20 percent in the mid-1970s.


This may be true (not sure of the source), but the impression being given is that what was once lovely "green space" that residents previously had access to, and was part of their amazing lifestyle that made Denver so livable, has now been "paved over" or "built over."

But isn't this decrease in undeveloped land largely a function of the massive spaces that became available for re-development from (a) Stapleton; (b) Lowery; and (c) the Central Platte Valley/RiNo?

All of those areas contained large amounts of "undeveloped land" (thank god, for Denver), that has now largely been developed. But this wasn't "green space" that citizens had access to, this was "an airport", a "military base", and "abandoned rail yards/industrial lands" (to the southwest, west, and northwest of downtown).

Of those three, none of them presented actually accessible "green space" to the general public. Hell, I used to regularly ride my mountain bike in the abandoned industrial lands that now constitute Elitch's, the Pepsi Center, Union Station, River Front and Ballpark, and would largely have the entire massive acreage to myself (and a few homeless people camping along river) on a gorgeous Sunday afternoon.

Other than lovers of industrial waste land like myself, this was not "green space" used by the public. The developed space today represents a HUGE increase in actually usable "green space" in those areas (Elitch's, Riverfront Park) than what was there in the 1970s. Ditto for the developed lands that constitute Lowery and Stapleton.

What a croc.

I live in Stapleton and we have a ton of green space. Lowry has quite a bit too. I'm not seeing a "green space" problem in Denver at all.

[mhays]

I'm impressed that Denver built its "Commons." We tried in Seattle but failed at the polls twice in the mid-1990s. Along with Civic Center, you're doing better than we are with sizable parks walkable from both ends of the CBD.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I live in Stapleton and we have a ton of green space. Lowry has quite a bit too. I'm not seeing a "green space" problem in Denver at all.

Hey fellow park-surrounded neighbor!

[Agent Orange]

Post’s Finely doubles down on the “concrete metropolis” narrative.

“We need more open spaces”: Denver residents feeling stifled by city’s building boom seek room to roam

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/14/denver-development-lacks-parks-open-spaces

Again, what “open spaces” were people frolicking in that are now off limits due to development? Were people letting their children do gymnastics in syringe riddled parking lots? Practicing parkour in abandoned warehouses? Letting their dogs run around in strangers’ backyards while they were at work?

Somehow Denver has lost its way. The fact that our city can no longer be mistaken for a rural pueblo in the Mexican highlands is a travesty.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I live in Stapleton and we have a ton of green space. Lowry has quite a bit too. I'm not seeing a "green space" problem in Denver at all.

Exactly. The article is claiming a reduction in "green space" and"open space" in Denver since 1970s. Since no parks or parkways or dedicated open space have been closed, and numerous parks and green space have been added (Stapleton, Platte River, River Front, etc.), their characterizations don't add up.

It's pretty clear they are treating the old airport, the old military base, the hundreds of acres of abandoned (and now re-developed) industrial lands as lost "green space," even though those areas were never public green space in the 1970s!!! Thus the truth is the opposite of the entire premise of the article: Denver has significantly MORE green space today than it did in the 1970s.

[LooksLikeForever]

Originally Posted by COtoOC

I live in Stapleton and we have a ton of green space. Lowry has quite a bit too. I'm not seeing a "green space" problem in Denver at all.

Exactly. As a fellow Stapleton resident I've heard complaints that Stapleton 'has too many parks.' Sure, we can debate the shortcomings of Stapleton (relative lack of walkability, not as dense/mixed-use as originally envisioned etc.) but one thing Forest City really committed to was open space.

Additionally, as a few others have mentioned, what open space of value is being paved over? As I head north out of Stapleton along Quebec Street and toward the Wildlife Refuge, or east along 56th Avenue toward Pena, I see tons of open space that for all intents and purposes is not usable by the public. Take a look at this Google Maps street view of a location in Northfield Stapleton.. This location will surely be developed sooner rather than later, but I guarantee nobody other than a few homeless people have ever really utilized this space. In fact, I suspect if you tried taking a hike or a picnic in this space you'd probably receive a visit from law enforcement for trespassing.

True, the high plains landscape is valuable habitat for prairie dogs and other wildlife, as well as for drainage and runoff, but the article in question equates this patch of land with valuable green space for the enjoyment of Denver residents. Look at what Stapleton was before its redevelopment: open areas of high plains grassland. Today, in addition to housing thousands of residents, there are also significant open spaces (Central Park, Westerly Creek, etc). Leaving aside the debate over manufactured open space vs natural open space, I think the article in question conflates the two.

I am in no way suggesting that we should develop all of our arid landscape into lush green city parks, but to suggest that development within the city has reduced USABLE acreage for recreation I have to disagree.

[Cirrus]

Hey I've got an idea. Let's create new parkland on every block in the city by retrofitting the on-street parking lanes as parklets. You can take the bus instead.

What's that? Suddenly you think the city's park situation isn't that dire? Shocker.

[mr1138]

As I said yesterday, I don't think the author of that article was talking about public park space very much at all. As I re-scanned the article, it appeared that the idea of public access was a cursory concern at best.

One line in particular stuck out to me: "They replaced Denver’s original pattern of settlement amid green space with an increasingly dense format."

Even dismissing his assertion that this is the "original pattern of settlement" (apparently he has never seen an image of central Denver prior to DURA), it is seems from this statement that he is not talking about parks. What he is really talking about is the "Figure/Ground" (to use architecture speak). And what he is saying is that he thinks Denver is supposed look more like this:

(http://vigorousapathy.com/blog/2014/5/31/durham-figure-ground-map found in a Google image search).

And not like this:

(https://www.behance.net/gallery/4981365/Mixed-Use-Development-Southwark).

He seems to ignore (or perhaps not understand) that it is in fact the goal of urbanists and of urbanist-inspired regulations, such as form-based districts with no setback requirements, to achieve an urban form more like the latter and less like the former. Rather than acknowledge the urban planning profession and its perspective on this matter, instead he talks about "elected leaders and developers" as the primary actors.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

Hey fellow park-surrounded neighbor!

Howdy! I've been in Stapleton (Eastbridge) for over 13 years now, and can walk to 6 different parks, the rec center, the Stanley and the town center. I realize not all of Denver has this much green space, but I still don't see any problem overall. I lived in the City Park neighborhood in the mid 90s and regularly utilized City Park and then the Congress Park pool in summer.

[Cirrus]

Denver does look more like the top figure ground map. So much more like the top.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by mr1138

As I said yesterday, I don't think the author of that article was talking about public park space very much at all. As I re-scanned the article, it appeared that the idea of public access was a cursory concern at best.

One line in particular stuck out to me: "They replaced Denver’s original pattern of settlement amid green space with an increasingly dense format."

Even dismissing his assertion that this is the "original pattern of settlement" (apparently he has never seen an image of central Denver prior to DURA), it is seems from this statement that he is not talking about parks. What he is really talking about is the "Figure/Ground" (to use architecture speak). And what he is saying is that he thinks Denver is supposed look more like this:

(http://vigorousapathy.com/blog/2014/5/31/durham-figure-ground-map found in a Google image search).

And not like this:

(https://www.behance.net/gallery/4981365/Mixed-Use-Development-Southwark).

He seems to ignore (or perhaps not understand) that it is in fact the goal of urbanists and of urbanist-inspired regulations, such as form-based districts with no setback requirements, to achieve an urban form more like the latter and less like the former. Rather than acknowledge the urban planning profession and its perspective on this matter, instead he talks about "elected leaders and developers" as the primary actors.

Interesting comments and information. Thanks!

Even more fundamentally I think the article simply panders to the basic complaint that Denver is getting too crowded! Too much, growth, too many people! The story cloaks what really is nothing more than that ongoing rant with a claim about how much better it used to be with all of the "green space" for people to enjoy. Although Denver indeed is sigfnicantly more crowded than it was in the 1970s (by the late 1970s Denver's population dropped below 500K), as we know, the part about how much green space there used to be is , to coin a phrase, "fake news."

A more relevant question would have been is the "real" publicly available "open space" (mostly parklands, but also stuff like the Platte River trail, Highline Canal, etc.) less or more per capita in 2019 as compared to the 1970s. If you assumed a mid 70s population of 500K and 2019 population of 700k, Denver city has grown by 40% since then. Have our Parklands and open space kept up? Not sure about that, but a LOT of parkland and open space has been added within the city limits since then.

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by LooksLikeForever

Exactly. As a fellow Stapleton resident I've heard complaints that Stapleton 'has too many parks.' Sure, we can debate the shortcomings of Stapleton (relative lack of walkability, not as dense/mixed-use as originally envisioned etc.) but one thing Forest City really committed to was open space.

Additionally, as a few others have mentioned, what open space of value is being paved over? As I head north out of Stapleton along Quebec Street and toward the Wildlife Refuge, or east along 56th Avenue toward Pena, I see tons of open space that for all intents and purposes is not usable by the public. Take a look at this Google Maps street view of a location in Northfield Stapleton.. This location will surely be developed sooner rather than later, but I guarantee nobody other than a few homeless people have ever really utilized this space. In fact, I suspect if you tried taking a hike or a picnic in this space you'd probably receive a visit from law enforcement for trespassing.

True, the high plains landscape is valuable habitat for prairie dogs and other wildlife, as well as for drainage and runoff, but the article in question equates this patch of land with valuable green space for the enjoyment of Denver residents. Look at what Stapleton was before its redevelopment: open areas of high plains grassland. Today, in addition to housing thousands of residents, there are also significant open spaces (Central Park, Westerly Creek, etc). Leaving aside the debate over manufactured open space vs natural open space, I think the article in question conflates the two.

I am in no way suggesting that we should develop all of our arid landscape into lush green city parks, but to suggest that development within the city has reduced USABLE acreage for recreation I have to disagree.

Yeah, Stapleton still has quite a bit of infill to go. I've wondered if Stapleton doesn't have too much green space as well. My location in Stapleton has turned out to be very walkable, (although it took over a decade to get that way) and that's what we wanted. A small lot with little grass to mow and something (including parks) to walk to.

I grew up in the KC metro area and if you're in love with green, non-impervious space, that's the place for you. Everything is much more spaced out, almost annoyingly deep setbacks in the suburbs, and houses (even in the urban areas) are on huge lots. It seems to me like KC has way fewer parks, but overall more green space due to the huge lots and setbacks. It also makes for a very unwalkable environment in most of the metro area, so you really don't see people out and about much, other than in cars. I'll take Denver any day over that environment.

[Cirrus]

Honestly I fundamentally disagree with the basic notion that more green space (or open space) is inherently better. You can have too much of a good thing.

Not only is it undeniably true that dense cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawly ones since dense cities preserve more land as actual nature, and since they result in less pollution per person, but also I think more people would be happier more often if we had a smaller number of higher-quality public spaces, rather than a bunch of empty leftovers all over everywhere that we called green space.

It's OK with me if some people prefer to live in a sprawly environment with a lot of look-but-don't-touch "open space," but it's frustrating that such concepts are so often presented as universally superior/desirable. They definitely are not.

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

Honestly I fundamentally disagree with the basic notion that more green space (or open space) is inherently better. You can have too much of a good thing.

Not only is it undeniably true that dense cities are more environmentally friendly than sprawly ones since dense cities preserve more land as actual nature, and since they result in less pollution per person, but also I think more people would be happier more often if we had a smaller number of higher-quality public spaces, rather than a bunch of empty leftovers all over everywhere that we called green space.

It's OK with me if some people prefer to live in a sprawly environment with a lot of look-but-don't-touch "open space," but it's frustrating that such concepts are so often presented as universally superior/desirable. They definitely are not.

Agreed, and I think this is exactly what most of us are saying as well. Just because Denver currently looks more like the suburban figure-ground map doesn't mean that that is a good, or as you say "universally superior" environment. Nor does it mean that it is the city's "original settlement pattern."

The intellectual dishonesty of the author of this Denver Post series is that he fails to articulate exactly why all of that "open space" is a good thing, other than half-thought-out platitudes about nature being important in people's lives. Or for that matter to even articulate the difference between public open space vs. the empty space on everybody's private lots. Furthermore, he fails to acknowledge or engage with the argument - like the one you just expressed - that dense cities are in fact MORE environmentally friendly, not less. He simply omits this line of reasoning entirely from his writing and fails to talk to anybody in the planning profession who might present this alternative point of view.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by Agent Orange

Post’s Finely doubles down on the “concrete metropolis” narrative.

“We need more open spaces”: Denver residents feeling stifled by city’s building boom seek room to roam

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/14/denver-development-lacks-parks-open-spaces

I would speculate this kind of "[non]fact [opinion] piece" is why half the country is constantly blurting out fake news. I've always believed intelligent people see through this kind of garbage or maybe I just have too much faith in my neighbors. I'd offer a different perspective based on facts. The State of Colorado during the 2010's is growing at one of the slowest rates since the Great Depression - but you wouldn't think that based on anyone you've spoken to in the last decade or any piece of media you've consumed. Aside from the local oil depression in the 1980's combined with massive tax reform and an S&L crisis, which suppressed growth statewide, Colorado has experienced more rapid growth than the 2010's are seeing in every other post great depression decade - this according to US Census data. If I can figure out how to upload a picture I'll post the infographic.

Sources:
https://www.census.gov/dmd/www/resapport/states/colorado.pdf

https://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-08.pdf

https://www.census.gov/data/datasets/time-series/demo/popest/2010s-national-total.html

Since we're on the topic of greenspace and parks, I've long thought that the City should pony up the money to buy up an entire city block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a City park. The investment it would immediately spur would pay for the park via property taxes within a decade and the City could create a downtown adjacent, high density residential mecca. Minneapolis essentially accomplished this in less than 5 years in an area almost identical to A-Square, granted they built a new football stadium adjacent to the new park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minnea...fc16029af9!8m2!3d44.954644!4d-93.3847969

[jhwk]

Originally Posted by laniroj

Since we're on the topic of greenspace and parks, I've long thought that the City should pony up the money to buy up an entire city block in Arapahoe Square and turn it into a City park. The investment it would immediately spur would pay for the park via property taxes within a decade and the City could create a downtown adjacent, high density residential mecca. Minneapolis essentially accomplished this in less than 5 years in an area almost identical to A-Square, granted they built a new football stadium adjacent to the new park.

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Minnea...fc16029af9!8m2!3d44.954644!4d-93.3847969

Civic Center Park, our big urban park, is unusable because of vagrancy. I'd have to imagine anything in Araphahoe Square would be too unless you had a SWAT team patrolling it