DENVER | Transportation Thread

[mhays]

This is probably good for economic development, but the "tentacles of development spreading out from the airport" sounds like horrific sprawl.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is probably good for economic development, but the "tentacles of development spreading out from the airport" sounds like horrific sprawl.

Actually there's a reason for that comment. Perhaps others aren't aware of the backstory either.

When Denver wanted to build a new airport they had to work a deal with Adams County (and Aurora?) to annex land. It was the 1st time they had an opportunity to annex land since the Poundstone Amendment passed in 1974 which made it virtually impossible for Denver to grow.

Most of the land Denver got is set aside for airport use but they did get some additional land close in and along Pena Blvd. That comment about tentacles presumably applies to land belonging specifically to Denver and there was one 'slide' that seemed to showed that. In reality there's a 'alot' of land available for development but most of it belongs to Adams County and/or Aurora.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

This is probably good for economic development, but the "tentacles of development spreading out from the airport" sounds like horrific sprawl.

With respect to 'horrific sprawl,' context is always important.

Not only is DIA 25 miles from downtown but growth in Denver has favored the north, the south, especially the SE and especially NOT the NE where DIA is. Going back 25-30 years they had visions of sugarplums dancing in their heads not unlike the area around DFW. It's only been recently that demand is finally reaching the outback.

Because (city of) Denver has limited land to develop they do want to maximise the value with density. As for the vast majority of prairie in the vicinity I'm sure there will be plenty of contemporary sprawl.

[mhays]

So...it sounds like horrific sprawl.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

So...it sounds like horrific sprawl.

Should they be successful in building single family homes they'll be much more affordable than what you might find where you live. For many families who still prefer a house and neighborhood schools, finding an affordable home is part of the equation.

[jbssfelix]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Should they be successful in building single family homes they'll be much more affordable than what you might find where you live. For many families who still prefer a house and neighborhood schools, finding an affordable home is part of the equation.

At the expense of disastrous sprawl.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Should they be successful in building single family homes they'll be much more affordable than what you might find where you live. For many families who still prefer a house and neighborhood schools, finding an affordable home is part of the equation.

Hey, the serfs... errr, those who think they're middle class.... have to go somewhere.

[CharlesCO]

Some of the low density sprawl that's popping up the airport is unfortunate, and the Gaylord project was a complete swindle. But at the end of the day, DIA's location was still the best solution to the Stapleton problem. There was really no other place to put it. Denver's passenger numbers are now nearly triple of what they were when Stapleton closed and is a huge economic engine for the state. Minneapolis was a comparable airport to Stapleton with similar passenger numbers and land issues, and MSP's air traffic has stayed relatively stagnant.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Some of the low density sprawl that's popping up the airport is unfortunate, and the Gaylord project was a complete swindle. But at the end of the day, DIA's location was still the best solution to the Stapleton problem. There was really no other place to put it. Denver's passenger numbers are now nearly triple of what they were when Stapleton closed and is a huge economic engine for the state. Minneapolis was a comparable airport to Stapleton with similar passenger numbers and land issues, and MSP's air traffic has stayed relatively stagnant.

I still wish there had been a way to put the airport in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and run 225 up to the terminals.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by BG918

I still wish there had been a way to put the airport in the Rocky Mountain Arsenal and run 225 up to the terminals.

That be kind of cool. Run 225 right through the heart of Montbello and annihilate another of Denver's working class neighborhoods. Would have certainly been an ugly process.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hey, the serfs... errr, those who think they're middle class.... have to go somewhere.

The world is full of mid-priced housing that doesn't sprawl, or controls it much better than big-lot SFRs. Townhouses, multi-family...this isn't rocket science.

We're also talking about businesses BTW. All leapfrogging way outward.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Some of the low density sprawl that's popping up the airport is unfortunate, and the Gaylord project was a complete swindle. But at the end of the day, DIA's location was still the best solution to the Stapleton problem. There was really no other place to put it. Denver's passenger numbers are now nearly triple of what they were when Stapleton closed and is a huge economic engine for the state. Minneapolis was a comparable airport to Stapleton with similar passenger numbers and land issues, and MSP's air traffic has stayed relatively stagnant.

As often is the case this time of year I look forward to official passenger counts around the country. DEN continues to amaze.

Living in Phoenix/Scottsdale I see Gaylord as finally representing something that can compete with the Valley's convention/meeting business. While downtown Phoenix's quite nice convention center has credible business, it's the larger, nicer resort hotels that appeal to corporate meetings and trade shows. Even their 'off-season' summer business is growing nicely as they offer more competitive rates. Gaylord fills a huge hole in what Denver had to offer.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by CharlesCO

Some of the low density sprawl that's popping up the airport is unfortunate, and the Gaylord project was a complete swindle. But at the end of the day, DIA's location was still the best solution to the Stapleton problem. There was really no other place to put it. Denver's passenger numbers are now nearly triple of what they were when Stapleton closed and is a huge economic engine for the state. Minneapolis was a comparable airport to Stapleton with similar passenger numbers and land issues, and MSP's air traffic has stayed relatively stagnant.

Sea-Tac did 49.9 million last year with 2,500 acres, barely cramming in dual runway operations, and probably 500-1000 of those acres are an addition a decade ago. DIA did 61.3 in 33,500 acres. Stapleton had 4,700 acres.

Obviously the specific issues with Stapleton went beyond its acreage, and I don't know them all. But it seems possible that it could have gotten to the current traffic levels with upgrades rather than a replacement. My guess is it would have needed to relocate the N-S runways to space them out much further, which would have involved imminent domain. And of course it would have needed reconfigured/added terminals. All of that might have cost as much as DIA, with a lot of challenges. And Sea-Tac might always have noise issues. But Stapleton would have meant less sprawl.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

The world is full of mid-priced housing that doesn't sprawl, or controls it much better than big-lot SFRs. Townhouses, multi-family...this isn't rocket science.

We're also talking about businesses BTW. All leapfrogging way outward.

It's nice that Amazon has added to the Seattle skyline. Btw, how many Amazon fulfillment centers are there in downtown Seattle?

The east I-70 corridor provides room for all those necessary things in life that we take for granted. It's called industrial/warehouse and yeah, that's still a thing.

Originally Posted by jbssfelix

At the expense of disastrous sprawl.

Life doesn't end at Denver's borders. In fact there's half a dozen different counties and many cities that thanks to free markets and free choice are allowed to decide for themselves what is best.

Last I checked the neighborhoods in Cherry Creek School District as well as DougCo schools are happy families and love their neighborhoods and schools. If you prefer something different they're also fine with that.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

As often is the case this time of year I look forward to official passenger counts around the country. DEN continues to amaze.

Living in Phoenix/Scottsdale I see Gaylord as finally representing something that can compete with the Valley's convention/meeting business. While downtown Phoenix's quite nice convention center has credible business, it's the larger, nicer resort hotels that appeal to corporate meetings and trade shows. Even their 'off-season' summer business is growing nicely as they offer more competitive rates. Gaylord fills a huge hole in what Denver had to offer.

The Phoenix Convention Center is a piss-ant center in the scope of major convention center locations while Denver is a top twenty location- there's no comparison and they don't really compete. While Gaylord does get the Denver Metro Area into the rotating convention center business, it is generally for the small fry crap like the "Southeast Proctologist Hole Gazing Association" where CS had a monopoly in Colorado with the Broadmoor.

Interestingly the Broadmoor is training it's guns on Gaylord Rockies with a proposal to more than double it's exhibition hall. That's probably the first shot fired in a new round of resort wars in Colorado.

Originally Posted by TakeFive

ILast I checked the neighborhoods in Cherry Creek School District as well as DougCo schools are happy families and love their neighborhoods and schools. If you prefer something different they're also fine with that.

Hey TakeFive, what are your thoughts on the state looking at K-12 funding structures and possibly redoing them to reduce the subsidy level that rich-kid suburban districts like Cherry Creeek and Douglas County are getting? Looks like the districts would have to get significant local property tax increases to maintain their current funding levels.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

But Stapleton would have meant less sprawl.

DIA was the most brilliant infrastructure project that Denver metro has ever seen. It cost all of $5 billion when it was built. The thin air speaks partly to their need for long runways.

Speaking of transportation, most here are familiar with the now under construction Central 70 project to replace old viaducts with below grade freeway with a deck park cover for a part of it.

Seattle for its part replaced their viaducts with a two-mile ~$4 billion tunnel that just opened. Where the viaducts once were there will be six lanes which includes two for parking. Not sure how much that 'avenue' will cost? Denver doesn't have that kind of money to blow on urbanism.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The Phoenix Convention Center is a piss-ant center in the scope of major convention center locations while Denver is a top twenty location- there's no comparison and they don't really compete.

According to Meetings Mag, Denver is rated 11th and Phoenix is rated 13th. According to Cvent, Phoenix is rated 10th while Denver is rated 12th and Scottsdale is rated 19th.

Denver's IMO is much nicer; Phoenix center is in three buildings. The two newer building are nice. Phoenix is more likely to get low-brow conventions like NRA, Baptists, nurses, teachers etc. Honestly I don't follow it other than the news.

Interestingly, two of Scottsdale's nicest convention resort hotels by address are actually located within Phoenix city limits. In any case it's their resort hotels where they clean up; huge business.

I don't doubt Gaylord competes with the Broadmoor. There's room for both. Phoenix-Scottsdale has a half-dozen very nice and another half-dozen good enough for corporate meetings. None are as big as Gaylord however.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's nice that Amazon has added to the Seattle skyline. Btw, how many Amazon fulfillment centers are there in downtown Seattle?

The east I-70 corridor provides room for all those necessary things in life that we take for granted. It's called industrial/warehouse and yeah, that's still a thing.

Life doesn't end at Denver's borders. In fact there's half a dozen different counties and many cities that thanks to free markets and free choice are allowed to decide for themselves what is best.

Sometimes you just mystify me. Do you think warehouses only get built in unlimited-sprawl areas?

Many cities have voter-approved restrictions on sprawl including mine. Many also have water, hills, etc., in the way. And it works pretty well, with the main limiting factor being how much infill is restricted, which affects price.

As for warehouses, even though my area gets a lot of traditional single-story additions they can fit much tighter spaces when they need to. A couple more area planned in my area.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Hey TakeFive, what are your thoughts on the state looking at K-12 funding structures and possibly redoing them to reduce the subsidy level that rich-kid suburban districts like Cherry Creeek and Douglas County are getting? Looks like the districts would have to get significant local property tax increases to maintain their current funding levels.

Cherry Creek is substantially self-funded. They've failed to pass a bond issue like one time - back in the 1970's

The majority of CCSD students live in your favorite city. I'd guess east of Parker that about 25% are upscale/rich. Centennial residents are generally middle-class. Cherry Hills and Greenwood Village is what you're thinking of but probably make up no more than 15%. The number of languages spoken is similar to Denver and like Denver even lower socioeconomic residents love and support their schools by voting for bond issues.

I don't care about DougCo.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

According to Meetings Mag, Denver is rated 11th and Phoenix is rated 13th. According to Cvent, Phoenix is rated 10th while Denver is rated 12th and Scottsdale is rated 19th.

Denver's IMO is much nicer; Phoenix center is in three buildings. The two newer building are nice. Phoenix is more likely to get low-brow conventions like NRA, Baptists, nurses, teachers etc. Honestly I don't follow it other than the news.

That's because Phoenix's convention center is 2M sq ft. (300K sq ft of contiguous exhibit space) and can only accommodate these smaller conventions. Denver's is 2.2M sq ft (584K sq ft of contiguous exhibit space). Denver's ceiling of the kind of convention that can be accommodated is far higher than Phoenix's. They overlap, but don't really compete.

Why in the hell would Phoenix spend money building a new convention center and separate it into two buildings and two totally separate exhibit halls? Getting any kind of major exhibition outside of an NRA lovefest would be extremely difficult.