U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-22-2017, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Gilbert, AZ
3,143 posts, read 1,933,065 times
Reputation: 3266

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
Except that Boulder can't control what Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, or any other nearby cities decide to do about growth.
True, but Boulder could at least attempt to provide a housing stock commensurate with employment. Instead it has chosen to increasingly push the burden of providing housing outside of its own border. From the city's own numbers, employment has doubled since 1980, while the number of housing units has increased by only 50%.

I do appreciate it's a difficult problem. No matter how much housing is created, there will always be a surplus of people who want to live in a desirable place like Boulder. Still, I have a hard time personally giving Boulder high marks for being "green", since it seems the city welcomes the additional revenue from increased employment and retail activity, even if it means many thousands are driving long distances every day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-22-2017, 08:53 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,889 posts, read 102,319,187 times
Reputation: 32951
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
Except that Boulder can't control what Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, or any other nearby cities decide to do about growth. Any of those places could decide that they want unfettered growth or they could decide to be even more restrictive than Boulder. Without some sort of regional cooperation it would be a zero-sum game for any one city to base it's own policies on what its leaders/planners think or hope the neighboring cities are going to do. And I don't see the metro Denver cities and counties agreeing on (or the state mandating) a single, all-encompassing, comprehensive, and legally-binding growth management policy (at least in the near future).
In the 70s/80s, just as the Boomers were entering their family starting/home buying phase of life, Boulder started passing all sorts of restrictions on home building. I wasn't here in the 70s, and from 1980-82 lived in Denver, but when I got to Boulder County I became aware of this. There was some sort of "point" system for a while that gave developers points for various things, I can't remember what now, but it encouraged building a lot of tiny condos. And stuff like that. This was way before Google was anything but a gleam in some techie's eyes, BTW. Houses started going up like dandelions in the spring in Louisville, Lafayette, Niwot, Longmont, with Superior and then Erie to follow. More recently, restricting jobs was suggested as a way to deal with the "surplus population" (Credit to Charles Dickens. If you don't understand it, look it up.) I recall a letter in the Boulder Daily Camera where some Boulderite said what was really necessary was a recession! Well, we got one, and you don't hear that blather any more.

Growth control, as in limiting population, would be unconstitutional.

See this:
A Modest Proposal
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-22-2017, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,449 posts, read 2,356,350 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
In the 70s/80s, just as the Boomers were entering their family starting/home buying phase of life, Boulder started passing all sorts of restrictions on home building. I wasn't here in the 70s, and from 1980-82 lived in Denver, but when I got to Boulder County I became aware of this. There was some sort of "point" system for a while that gave developers points for various things, I can't remember what now, but it encouraged building a lot of tiny condos. And stuff like that. This was way before Google was anything but a gleam in some techie's eyes, BTW. Houses started going up like dandelions in the spring in Louisville, Lafayette, Niwot, Longmont, with Superior and then Erie to follow. More recently, restricting jobs was suggested as a way to deal with the "surplus population" (Credit to Charles Dickens. If you don't understand it, look it up.) I recall a letter in the Boulder Daily Camera where some Boulderite said what was really necessary was a recession! Well, we got one, and you don't hear that blather any more.

Growth control, as in limiting population, would be unconstitutional.

See this:
A Modest Proposal
I'm familiar with all of the arguments - I lived there in the 80s too. What I don't understand is the implication that not controlling growth (ie. builidng permits approved per year) has produced a better outcome. Look at the formerly small towns in the Denver 's orbit - they've suffered the same fate as the Boulder bedroom communities but without any physical seperation from the original city. Growth control has driven up prices more in Boulder then in the rest of the Denver area, but not having growth control has not kept the desirable areas in the rest of the metro area from becoming unaffordable to the average person. And again, where is it written that if Boulder limits building permits, that Superior, Lafayette, or Louisville have to make up the slack. What's in it for these towns to increase their growth rates beyond what would "naturally" occur except that certain industries make a lot of money off of development.

As for the keeping non-natives out - I've never been sympathetic to that argument. But neither do I agree that cities can't put the brakes on unfettered growth by regulating building permits. From what I've seen, there are very few cities in the US that have tried this approach. It's not a perfect system and there are certainly good arguments against it but it's no more flawed than the standard development model and I give this small collection of cities credit for trying something different.

Last edited by xeric; 08-22-2017 at 11:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 12:01 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,889 posts, read 102,319,187 times
Reputation: 32951
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
I'm familiar with all of the arguments - I lived there in the 80s too. What I don't understand is the implication that not controlling growth (ie. builidng permits approved per year) has produced a better outcome. Look at the formerly small towns in the Denver 's orbit - they've suffered the same fate as the Boulder bedroom communities but without any physical seperation from the original city. Growth control has driven up prices more in Boulder then in the rest of the Denver area, but not having growth control has not kept the desirable areas in the rest of the metro area from becoming unaffordable to the average person. And again, where is it written that if Boulder limits building permits, that Superior, Lafayette, or Louisville have to make up the slack. What's in it for these towns to increase their growth rates beyond what would "naturally" occur except that certain industries make a lot of money off of development.

As for the keeping non-natives out - I've never been sympathetic to that argument. But neither do I agree that cities can't put the brakes on unfettered growth by regulating building permits. From what I've seen, there are very few cities in the US that have tried this approach. It's not a perfect system and there are certainly good arguments against it but it's no more flawed than the standard development model and I give this small collection of cities credit for trying something different.
^^I don't know what formerly small towns in the (?) Denver's orbit you're talking about. Many have contiguous borders with Denver, e.g. Arvada (sort of, where it meets Wheat Ridge at Sheridan Blvd), Wheat Ridge (Sheridan), Lakewood (mostly Sheridan), Bow Mar (Sheridan), Sheridan (highway 85 on the west, Dartmouth Ave on the north, Lowell on the west, Union on the south), Englewood (north as far as Evans, east as far as University, west as far as Zuni), Greenwood Village (all the way north to a little street named Mansfield, most of northern border is Bellview, Aurora (wiggly northern border, goes up to E. 40th Ave, also wiggly western border, goes as far west as Quebec street in places). Golden is farther out, yes, still a suburb, but really, so is Boulder.

Re: the bold, what caused it is what hikernut said: "True, but Boulder could at least attempt to provide a housing stock commensurate with employment. Instead it has chosen to increasingly push the burden of providing housing outside of its own border. From the city's own numbers, employment has doubled since 1980, while the number of housing units has increased by only 50%." Yes, developers have made a lot of money from the housing growth; they would have made it no matter where the housing was built. Yes, stores came to Louisville, Lafayette, and Superior that would not have been there otherwise. When we moved to Louisville in 1982, there was really no downtown Lafayette left, Louisville was mostly restaurants (still is, just different ones and more trendy brew-pubs, etc); Superior couldn't even supply water to the few houses in old town! One had to do most of one's shopping in Boulder or Westminster. But again, people need/desire the products sold in those stores and restaurants, Superior needed a water supply (which Richmond Homes provided).

In a nutshell, people gotta live somewhere. Should someone work in Boulder and commute from Littleton? Would you prefer that? Google is only going to make it worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 07:23 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,449 posts, read 2,356,350 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
^^I don't know what formerly small towns in the (?) Denver's orbit you're talking about. Many have contiguous borders with Denver, e.g. Arvada (sort of, where it meets Wheat Ridge at Sheridan Blvd), Wheat Ridge (Sheridan), Lakewood (mostly Sheridan), Bow Mar (Sheridan), Sheridan (highway 85 on the west, Dartmouth Ave on the north, Lowell on the west, Union on the south), Englewood (north as far as Evans, east as far as University, west as far as Zuni), Greenwood Village (all the way north to a little street named Mansfield, most of northern border is Bellview, Aurora (wiggly northern border, goes up to E. 40th Ave, also wiggly western border, goes as far west as Quebec street in places). Golden is farther out, yes, still a suburb, but really, so is Boulder.

Re: the bold, what caused it is what hikernut said: "True, but Boulder could at least attempt to provide a housing stock commensurate with employment. Instead it has chosen to increasingly push the burden of providing housing outside of its own border. From the city's own numbers, employment has doubled since 1980, while the number of housing units has increased by only 50%." Yes, developers have made a lot of money from the housing growth; they would have made it no matter where the housing was built. Yes, stores came to Louisville, Lafayette, and Superior that would not have been there otherwise. When we moved to Louisville in 1982, there was really no downtown Lafayette left, Louisville was mostly restaurants (still is, just different ones and more trendy brew-pubs, etc); Superior couldn't even supply water to the few houses in old town! One had to do most of one's shopping in Boulder or Westminster. But again, people need/desire the products sold in those stores and restaurants, Superior needed a water supply (which Richmond Homes provided).

In a nutshell, people gotta live somewhere. Should someone work in Boulder and commute from Littleton? Would you prefer that? Google is only going to make it worse.
All of those towns were formerly small. My point is that they grew and developed and have now added to the Denver metro sprawl to a much greater degree than the bedroom communities of Boulder. Perhaps growth limitation in one city is not the sprawl trigger that you think it is.

If I lived in Boulder, I wouldn't be opposed to loosening the growth limitations to deal with the booming economy, but I think the best of the worst options for them would be to leave the city growth boundary as is and build up. Consider, however, that the average commute in the Denver area is 11 miles (which is comparable to the distance from Boulder to Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Lyons). Obviously a lot of people in the metro area are not choosing to live particularly close to their work, even when their cities have no growth restrictions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 07:44 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,889 posts, read 102,319,187 times
Reputation: 32951
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
All of those towns were formerly small. My point is that they grew and developed and have now added to the Denver metro sprawl to a much greater degree than the bedroom communities of Boulder. Perhaps growth limitation in one city is not the sprawl trigger that you think it is.

If I lived in Boulder, I wouldn't be opposed to loosening the growth limitations to deal with the booming economy, but I think the best of the worst options for them would be to leave the city growth boundary as is and build up. Consider, however, that the average commute in the Denver area is 11 miles (which is comparable to the distance from Boulder to Lafayette, Louisville, Superior, and Lyons). Obviously a lot of people in the metro area are not choosing to live particularly close to their work, even when their cities have no growth restrictions.
Yes, all the towns were formerly small. Louisville's population was 5000 in 1980. Now it's about 20,000 and mostly built out, though there are some condos being built downtown. The population of the US has grown by about 50% since 1980. So just natural increase alone would mean that Louisville would have a population of 7500 now.

To the Pearl St. Mall from:
Lafayette: 12.2 miles
Louisville: 9.6 miles
Superior: 9 miles
Lyons: 16 miles.

I don't see what's so "obvious" about the statement in bold. 11 miles isn't that much, takes about 20 min. (That's assuming ~30 mph, the speed limit on many non-residential roads around here.) Do you expect people to move every time they change jobs, which happens a lot in tech?

There is no way I would ever support population restrictions. I believe you would find that's unconstitutional. People have a right to relocate.

You have not answered my question about where you think the people who work in Boulder should live.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2017, 07:58 PM
 
Location: Fort Collins, USA
1,449 posts, read 2,356,350 times
Reputation: 1775
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katarina Witt View Post
Yes, all the towns were formerly small. Louisville's population was 5000 in 1980. Now it's about 20,000 and mostly built out, though there are some condos being built downtown. The population of the US has grown by about 50% since 1980. So just natural increase alone would mean that Louisville would have a population of 7500 now.

To the Pearl St. Mall from:
Lafayette: 12.2 miles
Louisville: 9.6 miles
Superior: 9 miles
Lyons: 16 miles.

I don't see what's so "obvious" about the statement in bold. 11 miles isn't that much, takes about 20 min. (That's assuming ~30 mph, the speed limit on many non-residential roads around here.) Do you expect people to move every time they change jobs, which happens a lot in tech?

There is no way I would ever support population restrictions. I believe you would find that's unconstitutional. People have a right to relocate.
If 11 miles isn't that much then why do you think it's such a big deal that so many people are commuting that distance into Boulder? And when did I ever say that I was in favor of population restrictions? That's not what Boulder is doing, they are simply working within their legally-allowed framework to regulate development.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 10:00 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,889 posts, read 102,319,187 times
Reputation: 32951
Quote:
Originally Posted by xeric View Post
If 11 miles isn't that much then why do you think it's such a big deal that so many people are commuting that distance into Boulder? And when did I ever say that I was in favor of population restrictions? That's not what Boulder is doing, they are simply working within their legally-allowed framework to regulate development.
Why are you being so argumentative?

I never said it was such a big deal that people are commuting into Boulder, from a "green" POV. My issue goes back to agreeing with hikernut and pikabike saying that Boulder exported its sprawl. These people have to live somewhere. I would say it's preferable that they're not driving even farther. You seem to be arguing that Boulder's restrictions did nothing to increase the growth in these other communities, that one doesn't follow the other. I frankly think it's good these towns and cities grew, giving Boulder a little competition for the tax revenue, etc.

You still have not said where you think these people should live. You think Boulder did/is doing the right things, you seem to blame the growth in the surrounding communities on developer greed, no matter there was an increased demand for middle class single family housing that Boulder was refusing to meet all the while allowing for an increase in jobs.

If you think population control isn't part of this "slow-growth" (some have advocated "no-growth") philosophy, take a look at the ravings of the late Al Bartlett, the "Big Kahuna" of this slow growth stuff. Here are some examples:
Colorado and the Population Problem - editorial by Al Bartlett
The Massive Movement to Marginalize the Modern Malthusian Message - article by Al Bartlett
A charming anti-immigration screed of his: Thoughts on Immigration into the United States - article by Al Bartlett

Of course, Bartlett himself had 4 kids, but "that was different".

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-24-2017 at 10:27 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-24-2017, 10:40 AM
 
Location: The Heart of Dixie
7,708 posts, read 12,269,511 times
Reputation: 4701
Just visited recently and Colorado Springs seems very clean and the air was fresh. What I noticed immediately was the lack of heavy industry in the area compared to where I live. Also this was the first time I saw solar panels on homes, I believe this was when driving past Fort Carson or one of the nearby neighborhoods. Colorado Springs did feel like a mostly suburban city with sprawl but the sprawl is continuous. Here in Louisiana the sprawl is different where you have new subdivisions interspersed with farmland and woods and swamp.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:20 AM.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top