DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mhays]

Those city comparisons aren't a justification for allowing a lot of sprawl. Portland's transit share and density aren't that much different from Denver's, and they do a very good job on sprawl. They're also more affordable than most (infill is harder than it needs to be).

[TakeFive]

Source

Originally Posted by mhays

Those city comparisons aren't a justification for allowing a lot of sprawl. Portland's transit share and density aren't that much different from Denver's, and they do a very good job on sprawl. They're also more affordable than most (infill is harder than it needs to be).

Today's "Urban Sprawl" is not your grandfather's sprawl.

There's a lot of neighborhoods that will (finally) be growing up out near the airport. Most will be mixed-use and mixed-density which means they're likely much denser than older neighborhoods in either Portland or Denver.

Thousands of new jobs are being created out there and tens of thousands of jobs will be added over the next decade and beyond. Many will live close enough to walk to work; others will be within a ten minute drive. The new housing will be quite affordable, some of it very affordable especially compared to the city or the S/SE corridors.

Tell me, if they didn't build this housing, where would people come from and how would they get to all these jobs being created?

[mhays]

Infill could handle most of it. See the discussion above.

PS, I don't recall advocating for zero outward growth, or calling all outward growth sprawl. You might be confusing me with someone else.

[cocomms]

[QUOTE=TakeFive;9373381]
Identify a roughly four-block area - presumably north of Canyon Blvd and west of 28th street - to be a designated City Center that would allow structures up to 80 to 100 feet at its core, then stepping down to 40 to 60 feet (also a good area for some affordable housing).

I agree with these development suggestions. The 28th corridor is frustrating from a pedestrian perspective to say the least. Single family directly along Table Mesa feels out of character every time I go along it. I'd like to see new development mirror the multi-use trail system instead of the street corridors to entice a change in behavior, but that seems overly optimistic.

As this is the Denver Development forum, I'll switch back to issues there. I was curious about the anti-Boulder rhetoric as I've walked or biked most of the Denver Metro region and found the vast majority of it to be a more despair inducing low-density wasteland than my experience in Boulder. With the exception of the South Platte corridor, which is great as a urban biking experience and only getting better.

[Cementglow]

Originally Posted by i4isoar

My question to everyone in general is this: if NIMBYs are the problem, then how do we break their influence? Not just in Boulder, but across the metro area? Are there examples of other major cities that have successfully engaged in "NIMBY-busting", and what can we learn from them? What can ordinary citizens like you or I do to fight back against NIMBYs? Are there specific, useful, and practical things we can do to fix the problems we so often rant and rave about on this forum?

Have it be considered sinfully illiberal among the AOC contingent of the democratic party to deny working class people of a place to live in favor of aristocratic things like views, water-wasting lawns and not having to have your Tesla share the road with too many other cars. And let's not forget about that big line of backed up, polluting cars going all the way down 52 from IBM to Dacono every rush hour. Environmentalists are supposed to be against those kinds of things.

[BG918]

Interesting to see which neighborhoods gained and lost population over the last decade. I would bet over half of Denver’s gains were in Central Park and Green Valley Ranch

[TakeFive]

Last comment on this topic

Originally Posted by mhays

Infill could handle most of it. See the discussion above.

PS, I don't recall advocating for zero outward growth, or calling all outward growth sprawl. You might be confusing me with someone else.

That was some fancy footwork.

I love the way downtown Denver is developing as much as anyone but there's a whole other world out there.

This country could not survive without immigrant labor

For example, American Express recently finished it's 4th building of 350,000 Sq Ft on its campus directly west of Mayor Clinic which itself is doubling its capacity. AmEx will employ over 8,000 employees in Phoenix while the Mayo Clinic will employ nearly 5,000 people. Then on the other side of Mayo, ASU is building its new medical campus which will provide degrees for biology students and other medical related degrees to support the healthcare industry.

A big share of employees at AmEx and frankly Mayo will be immigrants primarily from India.

Intel employs over 11,000 people in Chandler AZ. Again many of them are from India. These employees do make a decent living, at least.

But there's a large gaggle of immigrants that make a very modest living. In Phoenix there are over 20,000 landscapers, for example. Then there's the restaurant and hospitality industries. On and On.

For the hundreds of thousands of people that work very hard but make a modest living they deserve affordable housing. They're typically good family people that want to raise families of their own. You can't make expensive urban construction affordable for them; that's a fantasy.

Maybe learn to live with the reality that not everybody is like you or thinks like you.

[mhays]

PUT THE PIPE DOWN TAKEFIVE. What in the hell does that have to do with anything I've posted here or anywhere?

Sometimes I think you're just looking for an excuse to babble on about Phoenix.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

Correct - But this isn't a gotcha like you think it is and only affirms everything that people are arguing for on here. Because that 100 sq. miles of non-DIA Denver is mostly suburban-style sprawl - places like Bear Valley and Virginia Village and Montbello. Denver is not some super-dense megacity and also could benefit from more densification. So yes, Boulder should stay within its current boundaries and double or treble in population. There should be more high rises and apartments and townhomes and less single-family homes.

Boulder has done more than any other comparable city in Colorado to increase density.

Good thing Boulder's policies aren't like Pueblo's.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by mojiferous

And this does not solve anything. They're going to build a few more houses on a tiny sliver of land that isn't within easy walking distance to anything and has poor transit connections. The only housing shortage this is going to solve is for upper-middle-class families looking for a Boulder address.

"Restrictions on density and intensity of future development" and "Restrictions controlling height and massing of future buildings" mean this will be codified as yet more suburban sprawl forever. An open field turned into single-family homes does nothing to actually solve Boulder's housing issues.

Let the Boulder powers-that-be know that CU Boulder South will do nothing.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

It's understandably important to preserve the heart of Boulder with the Flatirons serving as backdrop.

That's why there's a low height limit, which you promptly discard:

City Center

Identify a roughly four-block area - presumably north of Canyon Blvd and west of 28th street - to be a designated City Center that would allow structures up to 80 to 100 feet at its core, then stepping down to 40 to 60 feet (also a good area for some affordable housing).

Boulder could easily benefit from and learn to love a real city center. Surely it's grown enough that even the city could use some new digs for serving its citizens.

Why does Boulder need to ape Denver and have a new and arbitrary "city center" apart from the area around Pearl/Broadway? Both sides of Canyon from about 19th-20th almost all the way to 28th are high-density residential (apartments and the like).

And 100 foot towers are a total non-starter. Never gonna happen.

Urban Sprawl

Ridge Gate is great for Ridge Gate. It's not a model for Boulder.

It should be easy to designate stretches of Table Mesa Drive (as one example) with Main Street zoning for 3 to 5 stories. East of 28th street there has be areas ideal for zoning for as much as 5 to 7 stories. Within North Boulder there has to be areas or pockets where designated affordable housing could be built.

Again, Table Mesa is residential both sides from Moorhead to Broadway, then outside of the shopping center west of Broadway, also residential.

A commercial zone along Table Mesa makes that whole stretch completely gridlocked worse than it already is.

[SirLucasTheGreat]

I'm not sure if I'm lost but I thought this forum was about development in Denver. Did I take a wrong turn anywhere? Does anybody have any construction photos or news about groundbreakings?

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by SirLucasTheGreat

I'm not sure if I'm lost but I thought this forum was about development in Denver. Did I take a wrong turn anywhere? Does anybody have any construction photos or news about groundbreakings?

You didn't take a wrong turn, you just happen to be sitting in the middle seat of the middle row of a Boeing 747 that's been hijacked!

Has anyone seen a rendering or massing of Society Denver for the ABC news building site? Have they submitted for any of concept, SDP, permits? Seems a few news articles are showing the Racine's development as the Society development, so I'm confuzzled...

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Not bad for an UrbanistSadly, your obsession with sprawl is once again misguided and incorrect..

It is not misguided. Why ruin natural habitat for sprawl, which uses exponentially more water than development within our existing footprint. We have ample water to support ALL urban development out west, it just comes at the expense of telling farmers they can no longer make a living growing almonds in california or alfalfa in arizona. 75%-80% of all water resources in the west go towards agriculture. Change that allocation and we've got loads of water for another couple centuries of population growth.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by cocomms

...As for defending Boulder, yeah I enjoy the anti-growth policies and large surrounding open spaces that protect Boulder proper from suburban sprawl...

As a lifelong admonisher of the Boulder republic, I cannot explain the disdain most of Colorado has except to say that Boulder doesn't solve problems, they simply push them onto/into other areas so that they become other people's problems - very NIMBY from a broad perspective.

What I will say is that things like open space/greenbelt and population growth are not mutually exclusive. Both can co-exist AT THE SAME TIME! Boulder would still be an awesome place if three story brownstones, townhomes, and apartments were spread over the entirety of the City. That would actually make Boulder INCLUSIVE and they wouldn't have to develop the greenbelt (which every Colorado city/county should have at this point).

Above all else (and the overwhelming reason I think people don't like Boulder) is because we are sick and tired of hearing Boulderites (specifically), but also transplants new and old decry population growth. It happens and people just need to accept it. These are not problems we can't solve, they are problems we've created and exacerbated because the average person is so afraid of any change to their otherwise fragile existence.

[laniroj]

Originally Posted by cocomms

...Boulder has plenty of hypocrisy and problems to address. No doubt about it. But I still don't clearly understand why Boulder's policies are to blame for the exurb sprawl across the Front Range...

To give you a specific example of why Boulder is to blame, here's a scenario for you:

Developer: "pitches development in Longmont, Erie, Lafayette, Broomfield, Loveland"
Investor: "how far is that from Boulder"

Does that answer your question? Boulder is the economic engine of the NW front range south of Ft Collins and West of I25. Is it alone in that, no, but it's the major driver.

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by laniroj

As a lifelong admonisher of the Boulder republic, I cannot explain the disdain most of Colorado has except to say that Boulder doesn't solve problems, they simply push them onto/into other areas so that they become other people's problems - very NIMBY from a broad perspective.

All cities push the problems created by their existence outside their boundaries.

Boulder isn't unique - it's typical.

What I will say is that things like open space/greenbelt and population growth are not mutually exclusive. Both can co-exist AT THE SAME TIME! Boulder would still be an awesome place if three story brownstones, townhomes, and apartments were spread over the entirety of the City. That would actually make Boulder INCLUSIVE and they wouldn't have to develop the greenbelt (which every Colorado city/county should have at this point).

Every Colorado city should have a greenbelt but only Boulder's is a problem?

What's the proper mix of housing types that Boulder should have and how is it different than the current mix?

Above all else (and the overwhelming reason I think people don't like Boulder) is because we are sick and tired of hearing Boulderites (specifically), but also transplants new and old decry population growth. It happens and people just need to accept it.

A development is being built next door to you that will hold 10,000 people.

Enjoy.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

A development is being built next door to you that will hold 10,000 people.

Enjoy.

Happens all the time. It's happening right up the street from me. But I'll take the opportunity for more of my fellow citizens from all walks of life to join my community and contribute their unique perspectives. Don't want the monoculture of Boulder and it's insular thinking here.

Now if Boulder started a population control program to provide a steady cycle of openings in the community that would help with issues we're discussing. Let's say an age 75 cut-off. After all, Boulder is the natural setting and definitely not the people.....

[AlSmithee]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Happens all the time. It's happening right up the street from me. But I'll take the opportunity for more of my fellow citizens from all walks of life to join my community and contribute their unique perspectives. Don't want the monoculture of Boulder and it's insular thinking here

.

Let's send all growth to your neighborhood, then. When will you reach your limit?

Now if Boulder started a population control program to provide a steady cycle of openings in the community that would help with issues we're discussing. Let's say an age 75 cut-off. After all, Boulder is the natural setting and definitely not the people.....

There is a steady supply of openings - Boulderites do die. Maybe a lottery - you could sign up and hope for a place.

[Brainpathology]

Originally Posted by AlSmithee

.

Let's send all growth to your neighborhood, then. When will you reach your limit?

One of the most Boulder things a Boulderite has ever said.