The negative impacts of rural sprawl (Denver, Boulder: apartments, lease, condominiums)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by Scott5280

"My DH works in wildland fire, and the "WUI" (wildland urban interface) is a great threat to him. As more and more people build houses in the wildlands, he's expected to take more and more risks to defend these places."

and..."First of all, we had a racoon inside of our house last night (uninvited)! That tells you how rural we are. We have bear, fox, bald eagles, loons, deer and countless chipmunks who cross our acre of land regularly."



That sounds like most of Boulder County..I have seen all these species in the center of Boulder (downtown) from time to time. We can and do live with wildlife in our cities..so it's certainly possible to do so in more rural spaces... we just don't need to be taking cues from cities like Greenwood Village. Old time Colorado conservation was often displayed by firing shotguns at buffalo herds/wolf packs so hard that the barrels glowed red from the heat.

Except for the bear and possibly the loons, it's the same in Louisville. Lots of foxes; one day a deer was just crusing down my street, zillions of squirrels and whatnot running arouond.

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

The trend I notice both in CO and AZ is that "rural" areas are really turning into far flung real-estate burbs-- just another investment opportunity from big money city dwellers. In AZ, towns like Sedona, Prescott, and Flagstaff are rapidly becoming real-estate-ville. In CO, this is happening with Durango and pretty much every ski resort town. I think the best way to minimize your individual impact on the environment is to live in a major metro area, like Denver, but live close to your work, try to conserve energy, and find ways to keep yourself entertained and local places to go that don't involve filling up the tank each trip just to get there.

Here's my opinions on growth in SW Colorado:

Living close to your work in dense, infilled developments with 6 lane boulevards is not healthy or natural. The result is huge amounts of air pollution and increased commute times. Look at Boulder: scientists and IT workers still drive their cars from their townhomes to work. Boulder and Denver have huge amounts of air pollution and many for health reasons cannot live there, and must live in the mountains and commute into town. Smart growth air pollution increases: http://www.demographia.com/db-senatetext.htm

Southwest Colorado has no air pollution. Durango and towns in Northern Arizona such as Flagstaff have no significant issues with growth compared to Boulder and Denver. Durango, Flagstaff, Sedona, Prescott, are all in the middle of nowhere, and have plenty of room to expand until reaching the boundary of public lands.

Also, smaller towns such as Durango have less unemployment. Durango-5%. Pinedale, WY has only 3.7% unemployment.

What we need is clean energy to reduce oil consumption. We need more nuclear power and natural gas powering our vehicle fleet. We need more organic farms close to town.

The most sustainable thing to do is to have organic farms near town, w/o having to import produce from other states if not foreign countries. If "smart growth" was eliminated, properties would be 1-5 acres w/ large trees, like they are over much of the eastern US. Look at Cary, NC, a town like Boulder w/ high tech where you can rent a 5 bedroom, 5 acre house on Craigs List for $900 a month. Then, you could have chickens and veggies in your own backyard.

Right now, with dense infilling of townhomes, there's not room for gardens, and chickens are often prohibited in HOA's. The most important gauge of how "sustainable" a community is - whether or not they allow chickens. Those who know me know that I'm a Libertarian environmentalist, who listens faithfully to Mike Rosen, and not a communal environmentalist, so Boulderites will disagree with my comments, and we can agree to disagree! LOL

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by mhouse2001

I live in Phoenix. I just started a job that I can walk to in 7 minutes. The place I chose in Colorado was 23 paved miles from town where the nearest grocery and gas station would be. Am I to be made to feel guilty for wanting the kind of lifestyle that promises spiritual growth? Are there others who feel this way? I've got to start somewhere. Sitting behind a computer locked into air-conditioned cubicles isn't doing it for me! (truncated)

Phoenix and many other towns have smart growth meaning they have very small lot sizes. I grew up in suburban Seattle in an area of 1 to 5 acre lot sizes. We saw nature every day. Therefore, all this stuff about "urban growth boundaries" is nonsense to me. On my street, there were seasonal streams running across the street, and just about every type of native plant and animal for the Puget Sound region. There were several creeks with salmon nearby, along with Puget Sound.

People didn't really complain that much about growth on large 1 acre parcels, EXCEPT for NEW SUBDIVISIONS with REZONED SMALL LOT SIZES. So, that's my vantage point: I look at Phoenix, Boulder, Vegas, Denver, and laugh at these 1/8th acre lots and the infilling. However, infilling is financially a good thing, since the housing is cheaper than 4000 square foot homes.

Phoenix, Vegas, and Denver are not natural, and what we could have is 1 to 5 acre lots, like they do over much of the Pacific NW, Midwest, South, and East Coast. In my experience, most people who do own large tracts of property do care about the environment, contrary to popular belief. Often times, these far-left professors write their books, and have never lived outside their University town.

I want to be able to buy a 1 to 50 acre tract someday for vegetables and fruits (perhaps in SW Colorado!), so my generation (18-35) of organic gardeners needs to vote out of office all of the status quo, pro-smart growth politicians.

[CCCVDUR]

Originally Posted by CosmicWizard

If Kunstlers dream comes to pass, that may well become the new version of rural sprawl when energy prices spike upwards again. They'll be knocking down the vacant buildings and turning the vacant land back into farmland.

Yes that would be quite accurate. Petroleum geologists are scared to death of Peak Oil. That's why future land use planning will increase lot sizes up to 5 acres, to allow room for backyard vegetable gardens, chickens, and permaculture. Infill developments will continue, but will also include rooftop greenhouses. Again, the true measure of how sustainable a City is = whether or not the City Council allow chickens. Also take a look at linear city concepts web site for High Rise Greenhouses. I'd love to see Boulder, Flagstaff, or Durango build one of these
The Need Is Great We are facing ever increasing problems from global warming and the ability to produce food in sheltered places may be among the most important of all the things we can do to prepare ourselves for the future. Studies have shown skysc

[sterlinggirl]

Originally Posted by Tom Lane

Yes that would be quite accurate. Petroleum geologists are scared to death of Peak Oil. That's why future land use planning will increase lot sizes up to 5 acres, to allow room for backyard vegetable gardens, chickens, and permaculture.

Your argument assumes a plentiful water supply, which isn't applicable to desert environments like Colorado.

When you can tell us how to give everybody enough water to grow chickens and vegetables on their own 1-5 acres, we'll be happy to listen.

[Katiana]

Also, smaller towns such as Durango have less unemployment. Durango-5%.

It's a college town. They're fairly immune to unemployment. When people lose their jobs, they go back to school.

[jazzlover]

Tom Lane's arguments are illogical in the extreme. The biggest problem with sprawl is automobile dependency. That is a purely unsustainable living arrangement, and no amount of solar collectors, backyard gardens, and chickens will fix that. What makes more sense is a return to the walkable communities of the past. Those homes, on lots of say, 100'x125' or 125'x150', had sufficient space for a small backyard garden, but were within walking distance of shopping and other necessities. The areas surrounding such communities supported what were then known as "truck farms"--acreages of 40-100 acres or more that were intensively cultivated and managed to produce food. Local dairies were also common. That was an arrangement that adequately fed the population without the ridiculous amount of energy use that we "enjoy" today. Now, that model doesn't work quite as well in an arid environment with a short growing season--a la Durango, but it even was practiced with some success there in times past. Lane's model has no future because it is necessarily based on an assumption--plentiful and cheap energy for automobiles--that is blatantly false. His scenario is nothing but a wish for things to be able to continue as they are, but--wish or not--they won't. He is a "growth apologist"--nothing more.

I laugh when he says the Sedona, Flagstaff, Durango, etc. can grow indefinitely. All have some level of serious water issues--including some communities with dependencies on non-renewable aquifers. Of course, someone from the waterlogged northwest coast wouldn't be in tune with that at all, I guess. Nor would he be aware that many arid areas of southwest Colorado contain native plant life that once disturbed can take years or even decades to return to natural condition, due to the elevation and aridity of the area. Unlike him, the authors of the book actually understand those dynamics.

Southwest Colorado has no air pollution? Dream on. There are very serious issues with air pollution in that region--caused by several very large coal-fired power plants in NE Arizona and NW New Mexico. If you don't believe it, take a look at some satellite imagery--it is often clearly visible from space. I have been going to Durango for over 40 years. The air quality of that area has significantly deteriorated in that time. LA Basin smog? No. But, pure? Oftentimes not. Most of the power generated in the Four Corners area is "wheeled" to the sprawling mess of Phoenix and southern California. And there are more plants on the drawing board. So, southwest Colorado gets to pay for sprawl and energy waste in places many hundreds of miles away. Nice.

One last thing about Durango. The mental giants in planning there, in concert with the slimeball developers, promoted a lot of growth of just the kind Lane loves in the Animas Valley from Durango north to Hermosa. That was some of the most agriculturally productive land in La Plata County. No more. It is also in the flood plain of the Animas River. In 1970, the water was 6' deep where many of those trophy houses are now. And it will be again. Since that flood, the Animas has not gone on a similar rampage. That is the longest time since the area was settled without a major flood. It's overdue. Consider the flood history: 1909, 1911 (the biggest), 1927, 1949, 1957, 1970. Of course, those who are "history ignorant" can't be bothered with such facts. I will side with one very Libertarian view when it comes to flooding. I don't think the taxpayers of the United States should be stuck with the rebuilding bill when idiots choose to live in a flood plain. When the Aminas floods again, those people should be firmly told that it is THEIR PROBLEM that they built in a flood plain, not the taxpayers. That would probably stop a lot of that nonsense. Same for building in a tinderbox forest. It shouldn't be the US Forest Service's (read: taxpayers') responsiblity for protecting the private property of people who build in idiotic locations.

[brightdoglover]

Regarding Durango, when people lose their jobs, they're unlikely to go "back to school," to Fort Lewis College, a private ($$) college without any particular vocational focus. People who lose their jobs in a town where it might be the only job for hundreds of miles around are out of luck, and with luck, have enough money to go somewhere else where they have housing or a job.
I decided not to move to Durango when I saw that the one job that had my name on it was the only job in town (a new medical service). I sure didn't want the only job for hundreds of miles around and see it get unfunded or something.
(Disclaimer- I live in Massachusetts, visit SW Colorado regularly, bought and sold property outside Ridgway twice in a daydream, and am still working on finding a way to make the area a significant part of my life. But I don't want to work there).
Where I live 35 miles NW of Boston, there are still some beautiful farms in the town. There is a "buy local" movement going on, and the farms have begun to produce not only greenhouse vegetables and field crops, but produce and sell their own beef and pork- there's a small slaughterhouse ten miles away. (No animal factory farming/transport/feedlot/antibiotics here). The farm stores also bring in as locally as possible anything like dairy, eggs, and whatever they aren't producing themselves. My favorite farm does produce its own eggs, but had them packaged in cardboard egg crates with the words "Trader Joe's" crossed out.
I noticed how much more expensive, say, a bunch of spinach was than the supermarket (organic). But the bunch last easily two weeks before aging, being so fresh.
I feel fortunate that there are "buy local" options. I also ditched Bank of America for a local bank.
I noticed that, in Ridgway restaurant listings, they are using local beef and so on for their offerings. I so hope that will work well.

[Katiana]

While I agree with a lot of your previous post, jazzlover (!), I take issue with this part:

What makes more sense is a return to the walkable communities of the past. Those homes, on lots of say, 100'x125' or 125'x150', had sufficient space for a small backyard garden, but were within walking distance of shopping and other necessities. The areas surrounding such communities supported what were then known as "truck farms"--acreages of 40-100 acres or more that were intensively cultivated and managed to produce food. Local dairies were also common. That was an arrangement that adequately fed the population without the ridiculous amount of energy use that we "enjoy" today.

This idyllic paradise never really existed, except in a few small midwestern and New England farm towns. It leaves out the factories, office parks, and the like where most people work. I grew up in a factory town. It was considered undesirable to live near a steel mill or a cork works. People wanted to move up the hill, literally in this case, away from the pollution. So most people didn't live close enough to the downtown to walk there (though the dt itself was walkable). Those closer-in had bus service (we did), but many people had to drive there. As more families became two-car, bus ridership declined and the bus service was discontined. There were a few "truck farms" near my hometown, in fact, my dad's uncles owned a couple, but they by no means fed the whole population of the area. You can't grow coffee, most citrus fruit, and a number of other things in Pennsylvania, for one thing, and unless you know how and have the time to preserve food (which my mom did), you can't even eat what does grow there out of season. Most of these truck farmers did not grow animals for meat or egg production, either.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Katiana

While I agree with a lot of your previous post, jazzlover (!), I take issue with this part:

What makes more sense is a return to the walkable communities of the past. Those homes, on lots of say, 100'x125' or 125'x150', had sufficient space for a small backyard garden, but were within walking distance of shopping and other necessities. The areas surrounding such communities supported what were then known as "truck farms"--acreages of 40-100 acres or more that were intensively cultivated and managed to produce food. Local dairies were also common. That was an arrangement that adequately fed the population without the ridiculous amount of energy use that we "enjoy" today.

This idyllic paradise never really existed, except in a few small midwestern and New England farm towns. It leaves out the factories, office parks, and the like where most people work. I grew up in a factory town. It was considered undesirable to live near a steel mill or a cork works. People wanted to move up the hill, literally in this case, away from the pollution. So most people didn't live close enough to the downtown to walk there (though the dt itself was walkable). Those closer-in had bus service (we did), but many people had to drive there. As more families became two-car, bus ridership declined and the bus service was discontined. There were a few "truck farms" near my hometown, in fact, my dad's uncles owned a couple, but they by no means fed the whole population of the area. You can't grow coffee, most citrus fruit, and a number of other things in Pennsylvania, for one thing, and unless you know how and have the time to preserve food (which my mom did), you can't even eat what does grow there out of season. Most of these truck farmers did not grow animals for meat or egg production, either.

I will disagree with some of this, and I will use Denver as an example. Three quarters of a century ago, Denver had many walkable neighborhoods with local shopping areas. The remnants of those places can still be found in the older parts of Denver and some of the old sections of its then small town suburbs like Englewood, Littleton, etc. Denver had a well-developed trolley and interurban train system (privately operated, I might add--not at taxpayer expense) then that augmented neighborhood walkability. (If you can find a copy of the long-out-of-print book, "Mile High Trolleys," that part of Denver history is well-documented.) Surrounding Denver were numerous truck-farming areas that produced a huge amount of produce, livestock, and milk. Anybody remember the Royal Crest dairy just off of Colorado Boulevard in southeast Denver, for example? Truck farms were common around what is now Wheat Ridge, Arvada, Henderson, Brighton, Englewood, Littleton, etc. Cripes, what is Highlands Ranch suburban horse**** today was the several thousand acre Phipps Ranch--complete with a huge cattle herd. The Highline Canal watered thousands of acres of farmland is what is now the suburban blob of southeast metro Denver.

Denver in that earlier era was no utopia, but I think it offers some good lessons that a city does not have to be a sprawled mess to be quite livable. Too bad that got paved over.