North End Sprawl (Colorado Springs, Boulder, Victor: apartments, new house, neighborhoods)

[Vision67]

Colorado Springs' north-side retail centers offer more than just shopping and eating | Colorado Springs Gazette, News

The article describes the development now happening near I-25 and Interquest.

Colorado Springs' retail frontier continues to expand northward, but it's no longer just about adding more bricks-and-mortar stores and restaurants.

Sure, consumers will find several new places to shop, eat and drink at Polaris Pointe, InterQuest Marketplace, InterQuest Commons and other high-profile retail centers that are in various stages of development on the Springs' fast-growing, far north side.

But newer retail centers increasingly boast a variety of amenities and uses.



When land is relatively cheap and abundant, cities sprawl. As the older areas decline those who can afford it move to the new areas. They get new roads, new houses, new schools, new restaurants and retailers.

I think Colorado Springs has way too much area. The tax base is insufficient to support the roads that we already have. But the developers run the joint. So we get more sprawl.

[DrDog]

Originally Posted by Vision67

Colorado Springs' north-side retail centers offer more than just shopping and eating | Colorado Springs Gazette, News

The article describes the development now happening near I-25 and Interquest.

Colorado Springs' retail frontier continues to expand northward, but it's no longer just about adding more bricks-and-mortar stores and restaurants.

Sure, consumers will find several new places to shop, eat and drink at Polaris Pointe, InterQuest Marketplace, InterQuest Commons and other high-profile retail centers that are in various stages of development on the Springs' fast-growing, far north side.

But newer retail centers increasingly boast a variety of amenities and uses.



When land is relatively cheap and abundant, cities sprawl. As the older areas decline those who can afford it move to the new areas. They get new roads, new houses, new schools, new restaurants and retailers.

I think Colorado Springs has way too much area. The tax base is insufficient to support the roads that we already have. But the developers run the joint. So we get more sprawl.

In an odd way all that development is kinda in-fill as there is already plenty of housing both north and south of it.
It would be nice if a grocery store could be part of all that.

[Vision67]

Originally Posted by DrDog

In an odd way all that development is kinda in-fill as there is already plenty of housing both north and south of it.
It would be nice if a grocery store could be part of all that.

I think there is a new Sprouts near North Gate and Voyager.

I'll bet a Safeway or Soopers will soon follow.

[BornintheSprings]

We need a hard cap on expansion in the Springs. We have enough land lets develop density not sprawl.

[abcdefg567]

Originally Posted by DrDog

In an odd way all that development is kinda in-fill as there is already plenty of housing both north and south of it.
It would be nice if a grocery store could be part of all that.

Yes....that's what I thought too.

[orngkat]

Haven't been here long enough to figure out but seems like the city encourages much of the development in that one area primarily. It is mostly if not all chain stores which does not a great city make. It would be good if they incentivized and talked about more re-development in other areas. Otherwise, it just seems like a far-flung suburb on the way north to other places.

[abcdefg567]

Originally Posted by orngkat

Haven't been here long enough to figure out but seems like the city encourages much of the development in that one area primarily. It is mostly if not all chain stores which does not a great city make. It would be good if they incentivized and talked about more re-development in other areas. Otherwise, it just seems like a far-flung suburb on the way north to other places.

I feel like they encourage it out East too. It'll be interesting to see what happens when all the development east of Marksheffel is finished.

When we first moved here, an employee at a bouncy house told us, "That's what they do! Desert one area and then on to the next!" When we asked about neighborhoods to live in. Not sure how valid that is, but the next 50 years should be interesting.

[TCHP]

Lets look at it from this perspective; from 1959 to around 1985 the largest, smartest, most athletic, and most awarded schools in the Pikes Peak region where Mitchell and Wasson and their network of feeders. The Audobon, Wasson, Cos Country Club, Rustic Hills, Villa Loma, and south Village Seven and neighborhoods where the pre-eminate addresses to live in. Yards were large, houses were at least semi-custom to full custom on fully modern ranch, bi-level, and tri-level designs. Areas in Villa Loma and Rustic Hills offered 2-5 acre horse properties within the city limits. The money of the area bred the development of Circle Eat Mall, then Rustic Hills Mall, then the Citadel Mall not to mention huge swaths of retail, restaurants, and apartments along Academy Blvd. By comparison D20 was single school for AFA base personnel. D38 and D49 were for farmer's kids in the northern and eastern parts of the county. Their populations were low, their scores were lackluster, the land was cheap, and lots were measured in acres.

Fast forward 30 years. Everything that was once true about those areas above, are now what people say of Briargate, Pine Creek, North Gate, Tri-Lakes, D38 and 49, and the Powers corridor. In another 30 years, where will these areas be?

IMO, good schools beget good neighborhoods. D11 struggles. D20 and 38 are where the money is. They attract growth. Yes, we need to do better at developing in-fill and revitalizing neighborhoods. But to do so takes a significant mindset change at the local governmental level to drive policy and development, which is very, very unlikely to happen giventhe developer friendly environment that is Cos. So that leaves it at a grassroots level to develop areas that will attract those young families to institute change. Simply look at all the inquiries and recommendations we see on this forum...it won't happen at a grass roots level either.

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by BornintheSprings

We need a hard cap on expansion in the Springs. We have enough land lets develop density not sprawl.

IIRC the city of Boulder did something like this years ago and now you need close to $1M to buy a nice home there. But in a majority-conservative city like COLO SPGS that votes 60% GOP the idea of going the route of Boulder is a non-starter. The somewhat libertarian mindset of the voting majority will shout the usual bumper sticker slogans about 'nanny states' and 'people's republic' and 'ain't no gubmint gonna tell me what I can do with my own land' yadda yadda.

The city seems to always side with developers. I've sat in zoning meetings and heard a councilman or two make remarks like 'when are we going to get serious about infill' and other such lamentations. As long as the city is developer friendly it'll never happen. IIRC the developers are among the largest and most regular donors to various city elections, as we saw in the most recent election where a coalition of developers and builders tried to foist a whole slate of their cronies on the voters but IIRC only one of them got elected.

It was the developers who paid the million dollar advertising tab to foist a "strong mayor" form of government on the city. The first strong mayor, Bach, tried to pay back the developers with a multi-million dollar taxpayer gift to the cabal of developers known as the "City of Champions." This nonsense has largely sputtered out and hopefully dies in toto, but the USOC Museum may yet come to fruition.

We lost the battle on sprawl about 90 years ago when the Feds and states started using taxpayer money to build roads and put the railroads and trolley lines out of business. There's a lot more to it than that, but for 90 years we've stacked the deck against density and infill while subsidizing sprawl and suburbia.

Lastly, though I'm for density, it has to be walkable but even more important there has to be either mass transit or a very strong bus system. COLO SPGS has neither, has no money for either, and has no political willpower to raise taxes for either. All this being said, Semper Sprawl Y'all.

[BornintheSprings]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

IIRC the city of Boulder did something like this years ago and now you need close to $1M to buy a nice home there. But in a majority-conservative city like COLO SPGS that votes 60% GOP the idea of going the route of Boulder is a non-starter. The somewhat libertarian mindset of the voting majority will shout the usual bumper sticker slogans about 'nanny states' and 'people's republic' and 'ain't no gubmint gonna tell me what I can do with my own land' yadda yadda.

The city seems to always side with developers. I've sat in zoning meetings and heard a councilman or two make remarks like 'when are we going to get serious about infill' and other such lamentations. As long as the city is developer friendly it'll never happen. IIRC the developers are among the largest and most regular donors to various city elections, as we saw in the most recent election where a coalition of developers and builders tried to foist a whole slate of their cronies on the voters but IIRC only one of them got elected.

It was the developers who paid the million dollar advertising tab to foist a "strong mayor" form of government on the city. The first strong mayor, Bach, tried to pay back the developers with a multi-million dollar taxpayer gift to the cabal of developers known as the "City of Champions." This nonsense has largely sputtered out and hopefully dies in toto, but the USOC Museum may yet come to fruition.

We lost the battle on sprawl about 90 years ago when the Feds and states started using taxpayer money to build roads and put the railroads and trolley lines out of business. There's a lot more to it than that, but for 90 years we've stacked the deck against density and infill while subsidizing sprawl and suburbia.

Lastly, though I'm for density, it has to be walkable but even more important there has to be either mass transit or a very strong bus system. COLO SPGS has neither, has no money for either, and has no political willpower to raise taxes for either. All this being said, Semper Sprawl Y'all.

Its interesting you bring up City For Chumps lots of people I know are strongly against basically socializing the cost and privatizing the profits. It does not surprise me that was done to help the developer class. I mostly agree with your assessment about sprawl as well its just sad. Recently I was up in the mountains in Victor Colorado and that town way back 100 years ago had mass transist or those old timey trolleys in some ways far more forward thinking than our current auto dependent culture.