DENVER | Main Development Thread #7 - Page 353

vblack · #**7041** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 12:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

That's seems like an odd question but maybe not entirely. Infill versus sprawl or maybe infill sprawl versus further out sprawl?

Will it prevent sprawl in general or further out? If demand continues to exceed supply then perhaps not. Infill better than out-fill? Most always.

At best, infill may slow down "out-fill" some, for a while.

But infill eventually runs out. Then what?

vblack · #**7042** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 12:55 AM**

Growth concerns on metro Denver’s fringe spark effort to recall Elizabeth’s entire elected government

So much for avoiding sprawl.

wong21fr · #**7043** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 1:47 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vblack

At best, infill may slow down "out-fill" some, for a while.

But infill eventually runs out. Then what?

Nuclear war, cannibalism, and the worship of false gods.

Sam Hill · #**7044** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 2:22 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

That’s hundreds of car dependent homes being built in the suburbs. I think it is the the definition of sprawl.

What's your point? My point was that it makes for less sprawl - which it obviously does. Subdivisions leapfroging farms is less ecological and far more "sprawly" than contiguous development. We don't need a damn farm in the middle of suburbia.

Sam Hill · #**7045** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 2:40 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vblack

Does infilling prevent or even lessen sprawl? The evidence is far from clear, to say the least.

In some ways, infilling is like putting people in ever-larger office floors, to the point where people are very far away from any windows. That sort of thinking has fallen out of favor, because as it turns out, we like to see and experience some vestige of a non-built-up world around us.

It would be unfortunate to have the nearest parcel bigger than a playground miles and miles away.

We're talking about a farm - not a park or a playground. That's someone's private property. Perhaps with the exception of the constant hum of nearby traffic, it's rather peaceful on that farm - but all any of us will ever do is speed past it in our cars.

SnyderBock · #**7046** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 2:44 AM**

Though, a giant farm in suburbia could be used to grow food for the homeless. The farm could be ringed with tiny houses for the homeless. The farm could be tended by the homeless. Grow orchards, foraging shrubs and berries, vegetable gardens and various edible herbs and plants.

corey · #**7047** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 2:53 AM**

One thing about farms, and even living adjacent to them, is that mice and rats are a HUGE nuisance. I’ve lived 1/2 block from a farm in Wheat Ridge and from a farm in Oregon and we would get swarms of mice a few times a year. The houses nearer the farms were even much worse. It could really suck.

mhays · #**7048** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 4:09 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vblack

At best, infill may slow down "out-fill" some, for a while.

But infill eventually runs out. Then what?

It's ok to do stuff that's helps, even if it doesn't solve the entire problem.

vblack · #**7049** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 12:33 PM**

How about making the whole thing open space?

How much acreage is consumed by development in the Denver metro every year?

Will *not* developing this 150 acres make any difference?

vblack · #**7050** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 1:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

A little searching reminds me Medtronic bought out Covidien in 2015 which was/is located in Louisville. Medtronic has over 98,000 employees world wide.

[...]

While it wouldn't be the end of the world it would be nice to keep Medtronic's presence and hopefully growth in Colorado with this proposed project.

Medtronic ought to be paying Louisville, to make up for the impact on the infrastructure and the commonwealth their activities will create.

I simply don't care for "incentives" for massive multinational corporations that don't need them.

Robert.hampton · #**7051** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 3:28 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sam Hill

What's your point? My point was that it makes for less sprawl - which it obviously does. Subdivisions leapfroging farms is less ecological and far more "sprawly" than contiguous development. We don't need a damn farm in the middle of suburbia.

My point was promoting sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.

Denvergotback · #**7052** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 3:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

My point was promoting sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.

I don’t think he was saying “sprawl is the solution to sprawl”, instead I think, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, but they way I took it was that it your going to sprawl anyways, then why not build it more compact (meaning on open fields and thousands of empty acreage between developed neighborhoods) to at least reduce the amount of driving a bit for commuters, and reduce current wasted land around the metro. This would also be easier on residents tax money as you won’t need to build so many extra roads going out further, as well as extending the cities utilities and sewer lines... it’s more of just a waste of tax dollars when in reality you could just build the newer developments on large patches of empty lots already along the current road system and closer to the cities utility tracks. (Assuming of course if sprawl is going to happen no matter what, then why not be a little smarter with how it happens)

I believe fully in a free market, and unfortunately sometimes there are things like sprawl that can be a result... I also believe in zoning (to an extent) and wish that the city would offer more incentives with building permits to developers who choose to build on already available land within the metro, without just building further and further out.

Sorry, I realize a lot of this probably sounds like rambling, I just woke up ha

Sam Hill · #**7053** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 5:00 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

My point was promoting sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.

Hmmm. Seems like the opposite of promoting sprawl to me. Filling it in will result in less sprawl than leaving it empty.

Sam Hill · #**7054** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Denvergotback

I don’t think he was saying “sprawl is the solution to sprawl”, instead I think, and he can correct me if I’m wrong, but they way I took it was that it your going to sprawl anyways, then why not build it more compact (meaning on open fields and thousands of empty acreage between developed neighborhoods) to at least reduce the amount of driving a bit for commuters, and reduce current wasted land around the metro. This would also be easier on residents tax money as you won’t need to build so many extra roads going out further, as well as extending the cities utilities and sewer lines... it’s more of just a waste of tax dollars when in reality you could just build the newer developments on large patches of empty lots already along the current road system and closer to the cities utility tracks. (Assuming of course if sprawl is going to happen no matter what, then why not be a little smarter with how it happens)

I believe fully in a free market, and unfortunately sometimes there are things like sprawl that can be a result... I also believe in zoning (to an extent) and wish that the city would offer more incentives with building permits to developers who choose to build on already available land within the metro, without just building further and further out.

Yep. This. ^

Filling in existing sprawl is better than creating new and worse sprawl by leapfroging farms. The market will demand more suburban, single-family homes be built somewhere. I'd rather fill in this farm with them than having them end up in Erie or Frederick. It's not a solution to sprawl, but it does ultimately result in less sprawl than the alternative.

TakeFive · #**7055** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 5:14 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wong21fr

Nuclear war, cannibalism, and the worship of false gods.

Exactly!

I suspect most people don't realize how accurate you are here. I think it's called the Circle of Life

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robert.hampton

My point was promoting sprawl is not a solution to sprawl.

When you post such a simple (if accurate) idea, it goes right over everybody's head.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vblack

Medtronic ought to be paying Louisville, to make up for the impact on the infrastructure and the commonwealth their activities will create.

I simply don't care for "incentives" for massive multinational corporations that don't need them.

Governments have been subsidizing their cities in one form or fashion since Hector was a pup.

Here, it's merely a small contribution to what looks to be a quality, compact (aside from open space) development. 2,500 new well-paid employees plus the multiplier affect will pay back the city many times over in various city taxes. It's a win-win approach to growth.

vblack · #**7056** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 5:59 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by TakeFive

Governments have been subsidizing their cities in one form or fashion since Hector was a pup.

Here, it's merely a small contribution to what looks to be a quality, compact (aside from open space) development. 2,500 new well-paid employees plus the multiplier affect will pay back the city many times over in various city taxes. It's a win-win approach to growth.

Tradition doesn't also mean right.

"Small" is relative. $1.5 million is $70 a head, as Louisville is only 21k people.

An even smaller contribution would be $0.

mhays · #**7057** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 6:33 PM**

The only way to really stop sprawl is to legislate specifically against it, and many US cities and much of the rest of the world does. But infill clearly plays a big role in reducing the demand for sprawl.

vblack · #**7058** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 6:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhays

The only way to really stop sprawl is to legislate specifically against it, and many US cities and much of the rest of the world does. But infill clearly plays a big role in reducing the demand for sprawl.

I believe that in the Denver metro, over the last 10-15 years, infill has made almost no impact on sprawl.

They're building subdivisions in Elizabeth, fer chrissakes, and next to Rocky Flats.

mhays · #**7059** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 9:52 PM**

Do you have evidence of some kind, any kind?

TakeFive · #**7060** Posted **Oct 13, 2019, 10:57 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by vblack

I believe that in the Denver metro, over the last 10-15 years, infill has made almost no impact on sprawl.

They're building subdivisions in Elizabeth, fer chrissakes, and next to Rocky Flats.

Yes, sprawl is coming along with infill.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...are-cashing-in

Quote:

Last month, a risky, new deal hit the municipal-bond market. It came from a small borrower in Colorado that was looking to finance the construction of 1,200 luxury homes in the foothills of the Rocky Mountains.
...
moreover, rival developers had already raised record sums to turn vast tracts of land into new communities. “There’s no houses to see,” said Nicholas Foley, a municipal-bond fund manager at Segall Bryant & Hamill in Denver. “It’s just dirt.”

Last year, such Colorado land districts sold $1.3 billion in bonds, the most since at least 2005.