DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by mhays

Sure you can. Growth boundaries mandated at the state level. It's common in the US.

Well, Colorado isn't on the Left Coast. Common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary#United_States

The U.S. states of Oregon, Washington and Tennessee require cities to establish urban growth boundaries. California requires each county to have a Local Agency Formation Commission, which sets urban growth boundaries for each city and town in the county.

Notable U.S. cities which have adopted UGBs include Portland, Oregon; Boulder, Colorado; Honolulu, Hawaii;[12] Virginia Beach, Virginia; Lexington, Kentucky; Seattle, Washington; and San Jose, California. Urban growth boundaries also exist in Miami-Dade County, Florida and the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metropolitan area of Minnesota.

So outside cities then... and everyone 'round these parts is familiar with the mess that Liberal Elitist Boulder is. With Miami it's about protecting the Everglades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Range_Urban_Corridor

The Front Range Urban Corridor stretches from Pueblo, Colorado, north along Interstate 25 to Cheyenne, Wyoming.

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I really didn't see anything in that Ridgegate video that seemed to suggest that it would be sprawling like Parker or Highlands Ranch.

The 8000 new detached homes hints at massive sprawl. It's great this community has a train station, but only a % of homeowners will use it. It's developments like this is that create traffic.

With this development $100 of millions of investment on infrastructure will be needed for new piping, roads etc. It would be more effective to spend that on renewing current infrastructure and find a location for these 8000 homes in existing urban areas, like that huge urban ranch people were talking about a few weeks back.

It's not elitist to commit to smart growth as long as economic accessibility is central.
There is a real debate on what smart growth looks like, but uninhibited suburban developments like this have proven not to be the solution. They are solely focused on the developers profits, not the tax payers cost effectiveness of maintaining the development or the cohesiveness of the greater Denver community.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well, Colorado isn't on the Left Coast. Common?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_growth_boundary#United_States

So outside cities then... and everyone 'round these parts is familiar with the mess that Liberal Elitist Boulder is. With Miami it's about protecting the Everglades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Front_Range_Urban_Corridor

A lot of people would argue that mountains, prairie, farmland, and rangeland are worth saving. There's a ton of US precedent as you've shown. It's simply a question of will.

BTW, Wikipedia appears to omit the essential role of counties in my state at least, because non-incorporated places are crucial. Far more than fully built-out central cities in this case.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

The 8000 new detached homes hints at massive sprawl. It's great this community has a train station, but only a % of homeowners will use it. It's developments like this is that create traffic.

With this development $100 of millions of investment on infrastructure will be needed for new piping, roads etc. It would be more effective to spend that on renewing current infrastructure and find a location for these 8000 homes in existing urban areas, like that huge urban ranch people were talking about a few weeks back.

It's not elitist to commit to smart growth as long as economic accessibility is central.
There is a real debate on what smart growth looks like, but uninhibited suburban developments like this have proven not to be the solution. They are solely focused on the developers profits, not the tax payers cost effectiveness of maintaining the development or the cohesiveness of the greater Denver community.

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

Well done. I instinctively guessed that Lone Tree might be denser than Denver; I was certain it would be denser than Denver outside the core city.

Best I can recall Parker to the east/SE is mostly upscale 'country' development. Certainly west of Parker it's standard suburban sprawl. Totally different from what Lone Tree will be.

Originally Posted by mhays

A lot of people would argue that mountains, prairie, farmland, and rangeland are worth saving. There's a ton of US precedent as you've shown. It's simply a question of will.

The western slope of Colorado, while growing is mostly dense development. Those mountains are sacred. There's no shortage of farmland or rangeland either although not nearly as revered.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Another important consideration is that Lone Tree is much less of a bedroom community than Parker, Highlands Ranch, or virtually any other Denver metro suburb. Charles Schwab, Sky Ridge Medical Center, Park Meadows, and soon Kiewitt are all massive employers. The eastern edge of Ridge Gate is going to be mixed use with a significant amount of office and retail space. I don't have a special attachment to Lone Tree beyond the fact that they seem to be growing more smartly than any other regional suburb that I can think of.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Well done. I instinctively guessed that Lone Tree might be denser than Denver; I was certain it would be denser than Denver outside the core city.

Best I can recall Parker to the east/SE is mostly upscale 'country' development. Certainly west of Parker it's standard suburban sprawl. Totally different from what Lone Tree will be.


The western slope of Colorado, while growing is mostly dense development. Those mountains are sacred. There's no shortage of farmland or rangeland either although not nearly as revered.

Lone Tree is certainly less dense currently but half of their land is Park Meadows Mall. The east side of Ridge Gate will be more dense than Denver and will bring Lone Tree's overall density, including the mall's land, to just under Denver's density.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

These figures seem somewhat dubious. The average household size in Lone Tree is 2.49 residents, not 3.0. 3.0 would be higher than any other surrounding community by a good distance. Ridgegate is more likely to have a buildout population of 25,000 and a population density of 4,553 residents per square mile- excluding that giant gash that I-25 makes through it, which artificially drives up the population density. Denver currently has about the same population density at ~4,500 including a giant airport. Pull the airport land out and Denver's density is at 6,863/mi^2.

It's not that Ridgegate is bad planning, it's going to be a nice urban/suburban development with a population density about two to three times as much as the surrounding suburbs. But it's really just a rehash of Stapleton, minus the ginormous industrial parks, rather than anything super progressive given that Stapleton was planned out 20 years ago (better urban planning than Denver it's not, but at least it's actually gotten projects to break dirt). At least Ridgegate had some solid success getting the office component off the ground....

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

Another important consideration is that Lone Tree is much less of a bedroom community than Parker, Highlands Ranch, or virtually any other Denver metro suburb. Charles Schwab, Sky Ridge Medical Center, Park Meadows, and soon Kiewitt are all massive employers. The eastern edge of Ridge Gate is going to be mixed use with a significant amount of office and retail space. I don't have a special attachment to Lone Tree beyond the fact that they seem to be growing more smartly than any other regional suburb that I can think of.

Exactly. Compare LT to Thornton or Erie or Firestone or even C Springs. LT is light years ahead and an example of how sprawl, if we have to have it, should sprawl.

As to MHAYS - we have some urban growth boundaries in Colorado. Boulder, Castle Rock, mountain communities, FoCo. The trouble with these is that the boundaries aren't accompanied by an increased density elsewhere and I'm unsure how you could legally link the two at the State level. The only functional method I can see handling growth boundaries and offsetting the supply impact is to toggle funding for local communities to zoning reforms. Don't give money to communities and they will bend over backwards to get dense zoning - it's that simple but boy oh boy is that a tough sell. We are going backwards in Colorado at the moment, not forwards on this issue...

[DenvertoLA]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

We're looking at it from different angles. You're seeing a well thought out development with aspirations of high density that has a train. I'm seeing another 1,800 acre of ranch land turning into boxcutter homes, offices, and apartment complexes that place people farther and farther away from downtown or other places of interest.

If you look at SE Denver's development over the past 2 decades it has been full of this style of development. It's bad for the environment, it's requires looong commutes, and does not promote living, working, and eating locally. If anything this project is going to promote sprawl deeper into the middle of nowhere.

In a 2014 study on sprawl it ranked 229 with a sprawl index scores. 1 having the most dense and connected metro, 229 having the most sprawl. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield ranked 92nd. That's not very good, and it's projects like this have led to that high number.

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/measuring-sprawl-2014.pdf

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

We're looking at it from different angles. You're seeing a well thought out development with aspirations of high density that has a train. I'm seeing another 1,800 acre of ranch land turning into boxcutter homes, offices, and apartment complexes that place people farther and farther away from downtown or other places of interest.

If you look at SE Denver's development over the past 2 decades it has been full of this style of development. It's bad for the environment, it's requires looong commutes, and does not promote living, working, and eating locally. If anything this project is going to promote sprawl deeper into the middle of nowhere.

In a 2014 study on sprawl it ranked 229 with a sprawl index scores. 1 having the most dense and connected metro, 229 having the most sprawl. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield ranked 92nd. That's not very good, and it's projects like this have led to that high number.

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/measuring-sprawl-2014.pdf

You make fair points and I would rather see the downtown Denver population double rather than see that population further clog up the I-25 commute. However, given the economic realities that create the inevitability of sprawl, this development is well-suited for people to eat, work, and play in Lone Tree. As it stands, Lone Tree's population doubles from 15,000 to 30,000 during the daytime. I'm sure many people commute downtown from Lone Tree but it is significantly less of a bedroom community than the towns around it.

[mhays]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I fear that one of us is not fully aware of the facts, and it could certainly be me. When looking at their website, the City of Lone Tree expects that the entire master-planned Ridge Gate community will have 10,000 units housing approximately 30,000 people. 8,000 of those units, that I'm just going to mathematically assume will house 24,000 people, will be spread out on 1,800 acres of land on the undeveloped eastern side. That results in a population density of over 8,000 people per square mile on the eastern development that we are talking about. Not only is that a greater density than Denver, it's even more dense than Seattle. How is that uninhibited suburban sprawl?

Aw, Seattle in real time should be in the 9,100 range, or about 8,900 16 months ago per the Census Dept. (Gotta fight the important battles here.)

Orderly, planned, semi-densish sprawl is better than disorderly sprawl, but infill is far better.

Take Five, the other half of the equation needs to be a requirement that local areas accept infill. This is also how it's done in some areas...the Northwest states do this much better than California. The key is state control, because people will vote for things statewide that they wouldn't vote for locally, and because only the state can rein in the non-complying localities.

[Sam Hill]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

We're looking at it from different angles. You're seeing a well thought out development with aspirations of high density that has a train. I'm seeing another 1,800 acre of ranch land turning into boxcutter homes, offices, and apartment complexes that place people farther and farther away from downtown or other places of interest.

If you look at SE Denver's development over the past 2 decades it has been full of this style of development. It's bad for the environment, it's requires looong commutes, and does not promote living, working, and eating locally. If anything this project is going to promote sprawl deeper into the middle of nowhere.

In a 2014 study on sprawl it ranked 229 with a sprawl index scores. 1 having the most dense and connected metro, 229 having the most sprawl. Denver-Aurora-Broomfield ranked 92nd. That's not very good, and it's projects like this have led to that high number.

https://www.smartgrowthamerica.org/app/legacy/documents/measuring-sprawl-2014.pdf

I hate sprawl as much as the next guy, but there's no stopping it without literally outlawing it. Lone tree is going to boom and build out whether anyone likes it or not. There's tremendous demand to live and work in that area and developers develop where the demand is. I'm afraid this "urban" suburb is the best we could hope for.

Nevertheless, I understand the sentiment and agree with every word of your post. Well, except for one part. This isn't the middle of nowhere. The stretch of suburban development along highway 83 from Parker to Franktown is quickly stretching west and south, and filling in the gap between Parker/Franktown and Castle Rock / Castle Pines - which are quickly stretching east and north. In fact, I can't think of any part of the suburbs/exurbs developing faster than the stretch of Highway 86 between those two areas. If Lone Tree never got developed, it would quickly get surrounded and become a big hole in the suburban fabric. Sad, I know.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by DenvertoLA

We're looking at it from different angles. You're seeing a well thought out development with aspirations of high density that has a train. I'm seeing another 1,800 acre of ranch land turning into boxcutter homes, offices, and apartment complexes that place people farther and farther away from downtown or other places of interest.

SirLucasTheGreat pretty much nails it but to amplify a little is how much of an employment center Lone Tree will be; that's the primary and huge difference maker with plain vanilla sprawl. Some of the city center details sound impressive to me.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...aster-planner-lone-tree-city-center.html

Developers estimate the expansion will create 40,000 new jobs and a new downtown to work, live and play for the city of Lone Tree.

City Center on the east side will be a true grid of street with block sizes almost identical to Cherry Creek North, which will make it very walkable. The west side is [made up of] more big blocks for those campus-types of users, so it’ll be really quite different.

We built in plenty of public spaces in the plan. One of them is a four-acre plaza right at the rail station — that’ll be an important public space for events, activities, concerts … We’re going to have Festival Street come off the plaza and that will be an enhanced streetscape with special pavers so that you could close the street off for nighttime and weekend events.

We also plan to have a really interesting bicycle network that goes through City Center … The bicycle trail will be out of the road bed and separate from the sidewalks. There’s a similar network in Indianapolis.

The city of Lone Tree is also looking to build a new City Hall, which would be part of City Center.

We’ll have about 2,500 residential units — most as multi-family properties. We plan to have a residential district in City Center, which would be around a park, but there would be hotels, offices and retail also embedded.

[HighRanch]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

SirLucasTheGreat pretty much nails it but to amplify a little is how much of an employment center Lone Tree will be; that's the primary and huge difference maker with plain vanilla sprawl. Some of the city center details sound impressive to me.

https://www.bizjournals.com/denver/news/...aster-planner-lone-tree-city-center.html

Also find it interesting the loose definition of "sprawl" as pretty much any development that does not fit into the small box of acceptable growth with less 100 steps to the nearest public transportation.

As defined by Wiki "Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl mainly refers to the unrestricted growth in many urban areas of housing, commercial development, and roads over large expanses of land, with little concern for urban planning.

I believe that most of these southern central suburbs that are being referred to as "sprawl" were highly managed/planned communities that had defined borders, development, and infrastructure.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by HighRanch

Also find it interesting the loose definition of "sprawl" as pretty much any development that does not fit into the small box of acceptable growth with less 100 steps to the nearest public transportation.

As defined by Wiki "Urban sprawl or suburban sprawl mainly refers to the unrestricted growth in many urban areas of housing, commercial development, and roads over large expanses of land, with little concern for urban planning.

I believe that most of these southern central suburbs that are being referred to as "sprawl" were highly managed/planned communities that had defined borders, development, and infrastructure.

There is another level to "highly managed/planned" that I see becoming more pervasive. The suburban communities are quickly trying to fundamentally change how we live, work, play. Many of our suburbs are trying to become job centers, think Westminster, Lone Tree, Superior/South Broomfield, Stapleton. While it's tricky to get it right (they need more ample density to support the retail and office uses they are planning, those places are at least heading in the right direction and in the long term I fundamentally see our City changing. By changing I mean some people like urban cores and some people like suburbs. Now the folks in the suburbs increasingly have an opportunity to work where they live, which is closer to a lot of the things they enjoy than Downtown. Much like the central city of old Denver has pockets of blocks and street corners for each neighborhood (and back in the day those were the employment centers). We are doing that in the suburbs on a much larger scale right now. It will take time to unfold, but if the job supporting suburbs like Lone Tree can get MORE density, I sort of think we'll have less traffic in the long run as more and more people live closer to where they work. Everything in between the suburbs and the Central core is completely f***** though with it's 1940's - 1950's density. Then there is the central core which, as it becomes much more dense (assuming our City Council doesn't turn completely commie), will really help to transform how our city fundamentally functions > 30 year timeframe.

[mhays]

Sprawl refers to outward expansion. There are a million gray areas...density, whether there's room to infill instead, mix of uses, and so on.

In this one, jobs are a double-edge sword...better sprawl, but also inducing demand for more residential sprawl further out, if it's allowed.

[The Dirt]

All you have to do is count the number of parking spots added for all of this development in LT. I'm guessing 2.5 per house and 1.25 per office. That'll tell you if it's anything but a rehash of the same old shit. But keep fudging the numbers to make yourself feel okay about this.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

Originally Posted by The Dirt

All you have to do is count the number of parking spots added for all of this development in LT. I'm guessing 2.5 per house and 1.25 per office. That'll tell you if it's anything but a rehash of the same old shit. But keep fudging the numbers to make yourself feel okay about this.

I've been talking about the planned development on the east side of I-25. The plans for the east side are not the same as for what has already been built on the west side. Aside from the RTD extension, nothing has really been developed on the east side yet so there are no useful parking spaces for one to count. Some of the homes might break ground in 2020 or 2021. They are planning to build 8,000 homes on 1,800 acres of land. They are planning to build their mixed-use City center, which they project will house 5,000 residents, on a 400 acre plot of land anchored by a light rail station.

As of now, LT has five light rail stations, a free shuttle, and local bus service. I've been going off their website for virtually every number that I have mentioned. Which numbers have been fudged and can you provide any example of any other metro development with comparable density and transit connectivity? I would rather talk about Denver developments like Market Station or the Gates District but this LT conversation has seemed to captivate interest.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

IAs of now, LT has five light rail stations, a free shuttle, and local bus service. I've been going off their website for virtually every number that I have mentioned. Which numbers have been fudged and can you provide any example of any other metro development with comparable density and transit connectivity? I would rather talk about Denver developments like Market Station or the Gates District but this LT conversation has seemed to captivate interest.

The fudged numbers are the population density arguments. This place won't have 8K/sq mile. It's more in the 4K/sq mile range assuming that Lone Tree's average household size translates to the eastern portion. If there's a lot of apartment and condos on the east side, than the population density might just go down. It's comparable to a Stapleton, but it's not exactly groundbreaking in my mind, rather it's a density that all new suburban development should aim for.

Other local developments that are on par (asides from size) are Downtown Westminster, Stapleton, and the Gates District- which blows Ridgegate out of the water in terms of development density. That Rigegate has three light rail stations is great, but how much will these lines be used to get people to to and around Ridgegate? Given where Ridgeate is likely to draw workers from, that being Parker and Castle Rock, most of them will simply drive and park. The plus is they won't be chocking I-25 further north, but Lincoln and Ridgegate Parkway will become messes.

It's not that this is a horrible development, it's not. Rather it's a sad reflection that it took a development all the way out at I-25 and Lincoln to finally get it right while you have such superb suburban shitholes such as Park Meadows, Inverness, and the Tech Center that missed the mark and contributed to suburban sprawl in some of the worst possible ways.