DENVER | Main Development Thread #7

[mr1138]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

This is exactly right.

Only the Office of Management and Budget (the creator of the CSA/MSA scheme) and the Census Bureau do not count Boulder as part of the Denver metro. In every other context that I can recall in the 30 years I've lived here, Boulder is ALWAYS considered part of the Denver metro area. http://www.metrodenver.org/do-busine...cs/population/

The OMB's CSA/MSA definitions are based on a complicated formula involving worker commuting patterns between a "central county" and "outlying counties" and that's it. The OMB even cautions in their documents defining the CSA/MSA system that the use of their CSA and MSA defined areas are "intended to provide nationally consistent delineations for collecting, tabulating, and publishing Federal statistics" and that "in reviewing and revising these areas, OMB does not take into account or attempt to anticipate any public or private sector uses that may be made of the delineations."

Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are not only good peers for Denver population-wise, but there are cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political attributes that the four cities have in common that we don't share as strongly with Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Nashville, and Austin. One attribute that Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis share that contributes to many of their similarities is the miles and miles of "good urban bones" historic neighborhoods formed in the mid/late 1800s based on a walkable grid of rectilinear blocks surrounding a dense thriving core downtown that is the undisputed heart of the city and region.

Thanks Ken.

I definitely think of Seattle as Denver's closest peer, even though they are arguably "ahead" of us in many ways. The first time I visited, I expected it to feel more like San Francisco simply because of the "stats" I had seen - but its culture and lifestyle really are a lot more like Denver.

I suppose in the end a lot of this is semantics and doesn't really change the reality of what's going on. It can just be a little frustrating seeing claims like Houston being the "4th largest city in America." This is really more a fault of the political balkanization of the American metro area in the second half of the 20th century than of the Census. Imagine if NYC's five boroughs had remained independent cities as that urban area grew. The use of counties by the Census to provide consistency also has flaws from the very start, because East Coast states don't have counties the size of Weld (or San Bernardino county in California). I suppose the only way of getting more granular, as I said above, would be to use Census tracts rather than counties.

That said, the culture shock going between Denver and Boulder is real! When I go between the two, oftentimes I'm struck by how many Boulderites (my parents included) clearly rarely leave their own city. And for that matter, how many Denverites are probably rarely ever in Boulder.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are not only good peers for Denver population-wise, but there are cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political attributes that the four cities have in common that we don't share as strongly with Phoenix, Las Vegas, Salt Lake City, Nashville, and Austin. One attribute that Denver, Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis share that contributes to many of their similarities is the miles and miles of "good urban bones" historic neighborhoods formed in the mid/late 1800s based on a walkable grid of rectilinear blocks surrounding a dense thriving core downtown that is the undisputed heart of the city and region.

I agree! People use "peer cities" in lots of different ways, so its helpful to identify a definition that you are relying upon when you use the term. I think your definition is really good - similar "cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political" characteristics. I might add: similar in population and historical development paths.

Also, honestly, I think when most people identify a "peer city" they are in part speaking aspirationally - what city do they admire and WANT to be like.

By these definitions, Denver is nothing like Phoenix or Las Vegas, even though those are large, booming western cities. In 1910, when Denver had already developed into one of the largest cities in the West with 213,000 people, Phoenix was about the size of Alamosa and Las Vegas was similar to current day Fairplay. That history matters in the development of a culture, mindset, and way of life.

The cities you mention - Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis - have much more in common with Denver in terms of culture, history and lifestyle, not to mention their look and feel ('bones') and/or have features that many people in Denver would like to emulate. Kansas City? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Phoenix? Nashville? Charlotte?

Not so much.

San Francisco, though not a Denver peer city, still has more in common with Denver than does Phoenix or Las Vegas.

I would also not include Dallas as a peer city, given the huge population differences between Dallas and Denver and the VAST, VAST cultural differences between the cities and between Colorado and Texas. (Marijuana is STILL seriously ILLEGAL in Texas.. WTF?).

Austin is a little trickier and, although I would not currently think of it as a "peer city", it may well become one with the rapid changes and growth happening there.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree! People use "peer cities" in lots of different ways, so its helpful to identify a definition that you are relying upon when you use the term. I think your definition is really good - similar "cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political" characteristics. I might add: similar in population and historical development paths.

Also, honestly, I think when most people identify a "peer city" they are in part speaking aspirationally - what city do they admire and WANT to be like.

Excellent; nicely articulated.

My approach to peer cities was decidedly different and I tried to clarify as well as I could the differences.

speaking aspirationally - what city do they admire and WANT to be like.

BINGO

Politics and who do 'I' identify most with were both excluded from my own mindset approach to peer cities. But given most people are political animals it's always difficult be non-political.

Demographics? I'm never sure what that means to people and I'm reluctant to make incorrect assumptions. In the interest of being 'politically correct' I don't care about demographics. Even data generalizations about education and and income, for example, could essentially indicate a distaste for lower socioeconomic people. That's not important to me.

Btw, I did like mr1138's first comment as well as his followup.

[DenverInfill]

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

I agree! People use "peer cities" in lots of different ways, so its helpful to identify a definition that you are relying upon when you use the term. I think your definition is really good - similar "cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political" characteristics. I might add: similar in population and historical development paths.

Also, honestly, I think when most people identify a "peer city" they are in part speaking aspirationally - what city do they admire and WANT to be like.

By these definitions, Denver is nothing like Phoenix or Las Vegas, even though those are large, booming western cities. In 1910, when Denver had already developed into one of the largest cities in the West with 213,000 people, Phoenix was about the size of Alamosa and Las Vegas was similar to current day Fairplay. That history matters in the development of a culture, mindset, and way of life.

The cities you mention - Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis - have much more in common with Denver in terms of culture, history and lifestyle, not to mention their look and feel ('bones') and/or have features that many people in Denver would like to emulate. Kansas City? St. Louis? Las Vegas? Phoenix? Nashville? Charlotte?

Not so much.

San Francisco, though not a Denver peer city, still has more in common with Denver than does Phoenix or Las Vegas.

I would also not include Dallas as a peer city, given the huge population differences between Dallas and Denver and the VAST, VAST cultural differences between the cities and between Colorado and Texas. (Marijuana is STILL seriously ILLEGAL in Texas.. WTF?).

Austin is a little trickier and, although I would not currently think of it as a "peer city", it may well become one with the rapid changes and growth happening there.

I agree with every single word you wrote as if I wrote it myself. You too, mr1138.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by CastleScott

^ Very well said-thanks Ken.

I agree!! I always enjoy Ken's well articulated urban view of life.

Originally Posted by DenverInfill

Portland, Seattle, and Minneapolis are not only good peers for Denver population-wise, but there are cultural, lifestyle, demographic, environmental, and political attributes that the four cities have in common...

Yes, I assumed that politics was at the root of a lot of our differences as well as 'central city' versus the more general metro area.

From my POV when I think of going places whether Seattle or Omaha, I wouldn't have the foggiest idea where boundaries are so I took more of a metro view of things.

Let me talk about two cities to better explain "my" thinking.

Seattle is not one of them but I never stated Seattle should not be considered a peer city. I would note that Seattle does have some significant differences from Denver. With respect to bones a quick look at a map indicates how/why Seattle's bones are very different from Denver's. Seattle has also had uniquely different economic drivers. Companies like Microsoft, Starbucks, Nordstrom, Costco and ofc Amazon are all household names. Arrow Electronics may be a very good company but I'd venture that most people in Denver have no clue what they do. Both places are very liberal though so there's that.

Why not San Diego?
San Diego has a lot in common with Denver. Both city/metros have grown in a linear fashion: San Diego along the ocean; Denver along the mountains. Both cities have then spread out to the east. Both cities have prominent downtowns although San Diego's is perhaps more historically interesting. Both cities have well-diversified economies; while San Diego may rate higher both places benefit from tourism and are good convention cities.

So while I never said Seattle shouldn't be a peer city I did have San Diego higher on "my list." Only negative with San Diego is perhaps the politics is too conservative for some people?

Portland? Meh
IMO Denver is head and shoulders above Portland. There are some interesting companies like Intel and Nike which aren't actually in Portland. Portland's airport pales in comparison to DIA. Portland has professional NBA and MLS teams but no NFL, MLB or NHL. Denver is much more of a tourism and convention city that Portland.

Is Portland a nice city and place to live? That's my understanding and it presumably fits CherryCreek's point of "cities I like."

Btw, I did agree with Minneapolis being a good peer city if one read what I previously stated.

[wong21fr]

Originally Posted by TakeFive

I agree!! I always enjoy Ken's well articulated urban view of life.

Why not San Diego?
San Diego has a lot in common with Denver. Both city/metros have grown in a linear fashion: San Diego along the ocean; Denver along the mountains. Both cities have then spread out to the east. Both cities have prominent downtowns although San Diego's is perhaps more historically interesting. Both cities have well-diversified economies; while San Diego may rate higher both places benefit from tourism and are good convention cities.

So while I never said Seattle shouldn't be a peer city I did have San Diego higher on "my list." Only negative with San Diego is perhaps the politics is too conservative for some people?

I'd also say it's economic that keeps SD and Denver from being compared together as close peers- San Diego has more in common with Colorado Spring than Denver due to both cities heavy reliance on military spending. I believe that studies have shown that both have ~25% of local GDP is attributable to direct spending that is defense related for both cities. For example, San Diego has about 125K of it's workforce either uniformed or DOD-civilian, which is a large percentage of the overall workforce. You probably have to take Denver back to the 1980's with the extractive resource sector to find a time time when the city was so reliant on one industry.

The comparison of the two was historically valid and still is today from a tourism perspective, but I would say that the economic diversification that Denver has undergone versus SD's continued reliance of DoD dollars reduces the peer relationship here.

[CherryCreek]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

I'd also say it's economic that keeps SD and Denver from being compared together as close peers- San Diego has more in common with Colorado Spring than Denver due to both cities heavy reliance on military spending. I believe that studies have shown that both have ~25% of local GDP is attributable to direct spending that is defense related for both cities. For example, San Diego has about 125K of it's workforce either uniformed or DOD-civilian, which is a large percentage of the overall workforce. You probably have to take Denver back to the 1980's with the extractive resource sector to find a time time when the city was so reliant on one industry.

The comparison of the two was historically valid and still is today from a tourism perspective, but I would say that the economic diversification that Denver has undergone versus SD's continued reliance of DoD dollars reduces the peer relationship here.

I would add that San Diego is often thought of as a satellite city in the massive Southern California (LA) urban mega-plex. This makes it harder to have its own identity (other than the Navy town/tourist town one you mentioned).

The other cities mentioned (Seattle, Minneapolis, Portland) as peers are clearly kings of the domains with which they are associated and operate.

[TakeFive]

Originally Posted by wong21fr

The comparison of the two was historically valid and still is today from a tourism perspective, but I would say that the economic diversification that Denver has undergone versus SD's continued reliance of DoD dollars reduces the peer relationship here.

Solid point.


It occurs to me
that many people don't understand or appreciate Denver's DNA. Certainly local icon Dana Crawford does and I'm also here to help.

All photos credit: RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post














If you don't understand Denver's western heritage then maybe Someday Soon.

[TakeFive]

Just admit it; I can

Originally Posted by CherryCreek

The other cities mentioned (Seattle, Minneapolis, Portland) as peers are clearly kings of the domains with which they are associated and operate.

I absolutely acknowledge that I'm easily outnumbered by (tainted) liberals and urbanists. This is afterall an 'urban' oriented blog and since I take more of a Chamber of Commerce view of things I can stand out like a sore thumb.

The biggest commonalities of those three cities and Denver is their liberal politics and urban (multimodal) TRANSIT. Portland and Seattle do have a more idyllic urban cores compared to many cities although a lot of that goes to personal preferences.

The irony is that I'm a Big Fan of RTD's light rail bones but that's not a commonly shared sentiment by urbanists. No question that Seattle is well on its way to becoming one of the best transit cities in the country so it would certainly fit the 'aspirational' model. But as they say: Denver can wish in one hand... and see what happens.

[fleury]

Interesting...

https://businessden.com/2019/01/10/3...ell-park-site/

[CastleScott]

^ Interesting indeed hopefully this one's a go..

[CastleScott]

The irony is that I'm a Big Fan of RTD's light rail bones but that's not a commonly shared sentiment by urbanists.

Very true as in the past when I was on the "West Corridor light rail Committee" Portland was mentioned a lot, Minneapolis some and even Salt Lake City, St Louis and Dallas where mentioned more than Denver for their light rail endeavors. Even though Denver has good 'light rail bones" it did come with some big missed opportunities which urbanists around the country seem to know about.

[BG918]

Originally Posted by fleury

Interesting...

https://businessden.com/2019/01/10/3...ell-park-site/

Isn’t this another one of those Denver recession indicators? If you start hearing about Tabor 2, Bell Tower and/or El Jebel Shrine you should start to think about cashing out of your stocks.

[InfillJunkie]

Originally Posted by BG918

Isn’t this another one of those Denver recession indicators? If you start hearing about Tabor 2, Bell Tower and/or El Jebel Shrine you should start to think about cashing out of your stocks.

Exactly!!

[CastleScott]

^ As a Federal employee who's working "with out pay" I surely agree (I cashed out of most of my stocks right after the Fed shutdown-rainy day funds when you need it)!

[InfillJunkie]

Any thoughts on this bullshit anti development article from the Denver Post?

As development eats away at Denver’s green space, the “city within a park” is becoming a concrete metropolis

Bruce Finley
January 13, 2019 at 6:00 am

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...urban-density/

[mojiferous]

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

Any thoughts on this bullshit anti development article from the Denver Post?

As development eats away at Denver’s green space, the “city within a park” is becoming a concrete metropolis

Bruce Finley
January 13, 2019 at 6:00 am

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...urban-density/

It's such an abuse of statistics... I'd like to see the increase in impervious area in the city of Denver correlated with the increase in population, but with Stapleton and Lowry removed as well as DIA - I would bet that the population increased significantly with a smaller associated change in impervious area than someplace like Aurora. And if the article was actually concerned about decreasing green space, that kind of analysis would likely show that densification preserves more green space than it destroys.

But really this written for people to yell about development and for the people that think that limiting growth is going to magically prevent people from moving here. The people that don't understand how housing prices relate to density and demand, and wrap their complaints with a layer of "environmentalism" that isn't actually concerned with any environment other than their own.

And the fact that the article features an anti-Hancock button shows how ignorant these people are of what is actually driving and causing the issues they're concerned with - suburban places like Aurora are gobbling up so much more green space than Denver and deposing Hancock won't do a damn thing about it. Stopping high rise construction downtown isn't going to magically prevent those people from moving here, they'll just buy single family homes and destroy more green space.

I'm actually most surprised that the city and/or the development community doesn't have a better counter-argument to this kind of junk. I mean just a simple "Oh, you're concerned about the environment? So are we, that's why we want as many people to live near downtown and on transit as possible, so we preserve the forests and prairies that surround us. Maybe if more people could walk to work and commute without cars we would have less pollution. It's cheaper to live and we're building to exceed demand etc. etc. etc." Instead there is always talk about what is allowed through zoning and visions for the future and some talk about policy change, but never an attempt to sell urbanization as a part of the solution. I guess that probably indicates that no one actually believes that densification is better...

[RyanD]

To give you guys a good perspective of where Bell Tower is potentially going, here's an aerial we posted on DenverInfill today. The lot is in the middle-right of this photo with 1401/1144/4S behind it.

https://denverinfill.com/blog/2019/0...es-office.html

[twister244]

Originally Posted by InfillJunkie

Any thoughts on this bullshit anti development article from the Denver Post?

As development eats away at Denver’s green space, the “city within a park” is becoming a concrete metropolis

Bruce Finley
January 13, 2019 at 6:00 am

https://www.denverpost.com/2019/01/1...urban-density/

God I get sick of hearing this crap. This is the same attitude that lead to Boulder becoming what it is today.... a gated community only for those who can afford a 1$ million houses or be a college student at CU. I love how these folks wrap their whole NIMBY attitude with an environmental bow pretending to care about the environment. These folks also don't realize the unintended actions that occur when you begin to place caps in place for development. Take Boulder for example. They could easily adopt progressive smart growth policies that would preserve the green space around town, while creating a dense urban core in a college town. That would be pretty cool actually, and make Boulder a unique city in the nation. But..... no...... so what do we get? Thousands of folks that work in Boulder, but live elsewhere, pouring in during morning rush hour, and out during the evening, polluting the air with their cars. Good job Boulder! The last thing I want is that to occur to Denver. Folks will move elsewhere in the metro, leading to a sunbelt sprawl model like what you see in Phoenix. No thanks......

[COtoOC]

Originally Posted by twister244

God I get sick of hearing this crap. This is the same attitude that lead to Boulder becoming what it is today.... a gated community only for those who can afford a 1$ million houses or be a college student at CU. I love how these folks wrap their whole NIMBY attitude with an environmental bow pretending to care about the environment. These folks also don't realize the unintended actions that occur when you begin to place caps in place for development. Take Boulder for example. They could easily adopt progressive smart growth policies that would preserve the green space around town, while creating a dense urban core in a college town. That would be pretty cool actually, and make Boulder a unique city in the nation. But..... no...... so what do we get? Thousands of folks that work in Boulder, but live elsewhere, pouring in during morning rush hour, and out during the evening, polluting the air with their cars. Good job Boulder! The last thing I want is that to occur to Denver. Folks will move elsewhere in the metro, leading to a sunbelt sprawl model like what you see in Phoenix. No thanks......

I totally agree. I read part of this article and was wondering what green space they're talking about. No parks have been paved over. The only green space being "paved over" is on the outskirts of the metro area. I live in Denver and my impression is that we have a decent parks system.

And the beginning of the article is a complete joke. Really? Living in a city doesn't offer peace, quite and views of wilderness? Sounds like an idiot who needs to move out of the city!