Is Highlands Ranch REALLY that bad? (Denver, Aurora: crime, credit, home)

[livecontent]

I want to make another point. When we talk of HR, for some reason we forget that HR is not all the same from one area to the next. It has different sorts of areas, some have more retail, some are near schools, some are near bus routes, some are more walkable and some are not. I mentioned Colorado and University as a area that appeals to me. There are areas that are different, like the South Broadway that goes into HR.

That is same situation in my city of Arvada. There are areas that have the similar characteristics of parts of HR which do not meet my needs of living and some areas that suite me just fine. It is same in all other cities with different areas that have different characteristics.

So why do we perceive HR as one homogeneous mass, instead of separate areas with some separate identities. Why do we not discuss the different areas of HR like we do different areas of say, Aurora.

I think it is mainly that HR is a development not a City. HR needs to stop being HR but the City of Highlands Ranch. It is about time it developed an identity with its own services. It is certainly big enough with a big population. It needs to try to define itself more with some unique neighborhood characteristics within a real City.

Livecontent

[MountainK]

I respectfully disagree that HR "needs" to be a city. Douglas County, including HR, has some of the best schools in Colorado. HR has four recreation centers, acres of open space, a mix of commercial and residential (but primarily residential.) Becoming a city offers no advantages that I'm aware of, in contrast to the current structure as an unincorporated area. Clearly HR has its own identity, or we would not be debating the issue on this board. No, it's not for everyone, but it seems to be a reasonable, safe, outdoorsy, family oriented, friendly place for the 90,000 people who live there. Just my two cents...

[Mike from back east]

MountainK really gets at the heart of the matter, which is the differences between two distinct models of development:

- Old style cities with highly-centralized, high-density, high-rise urban cores with traditional downtowns as found is most large cities. Best example is Manhattan but even relative newcomer Denver has its downtown with a typical skyline. One hallmark of these cities is a hub-spoke commuting pattern with heavy morning inbound flows and heavy evening outbound flows.

- New style suburban expanses with de-centralized, low-density, low-rise development where shopping, services and office buildings are scattered about. Commuting patterns here are more web-like than hub/spoke.

Each style has its advantages and drawbacks, and each style has its factions who either love it or hate it.

Because the super-dense downtowns are primarily job/work centers, which are pricey to live in/near, millions of people must live further out in more affordable areas and commute. Spreading the growth of new office buildings out over the region is a way to decentralize and ease the burden on transit and commuting, which allows more people to live near where they work if they choose to.

There is no right, wrong or best answer, only what works best for a person at any given stage in their lives.

[woob]

Who has that much of a drinking problem that they can't go to a bar and not get drunk enough not to drive?

Lots of people apparently, given the number of times I've seen someone driving the wrong way on broadway, speer or I25 at 2:30 in the morning.

I think a more telling question is: How does anyone decide to "hate" a subdivision? I can see people having preferences, but to actively campaign "against" a particular area, or city, or neighborhood, is what smacks of elitism to me.

see my previous post, i have many reasons to hate suburban sprawl having nothing to do with the character of the people living there-

the loss of open space, wildlife habitat, crumbling infrastructure and the abandonment of our cities from 1950 onward, worsening traffic congestion and climate change.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by Mike from back east

MountainK really gets at the heart of the matter, which is the differences between two distinct models of development:

- Old style cities with highly-centralized, high-density, high-rise urban cores with traditional downtowns as found is most large cities. Best example is Manhattan but even relative newcomer Denver has its downtown with a typical skyline. One hallmark of these cities is a hub-spoke commuting pattern with heavy morning inbound flows and heavy evening outbound flows.

- New style suburban expanses with de-centralized, low-density, low-rise development where shopping, services and office buildings are scattered about. Commuting patterns here are more web-like than hub/spoke.

Each style has its advantages and drawbacks, and each style has its factions who either love it or hate it.

Because the super-dense downtowns are primarily job/work centers, which are pricey to live in/near, millions of people must live further out in more affordable areas and commute. Spreading the growth of new office buildings out over the region is a way to decentralize and ease the burden on transit and commuting, which allows more people to live near where they work if they choose to.

There is no right, wrong or best answer, only what works best for a person at any given stage in their lives.

Good comments. It can apply to any of the suburban cities and developments, not just HR. Though, HR and many of the cities could never exist or survive without the core City of Denver.

The area also needs industry, refineries and distribution centers in Commerce City and Aurora--real basic blue collar businesses that are essential.

Many people criticize Commerce City and Aurora but HR and all the surrounding cities cannot exist without them. Yet, Commerce City and Aurora can easily exist without HR.

Aurora, specifically, is a powerhouse of blue collar and white collar industry that makes it the most important Suburban City, that can rival Denver. No other metro City can claim that distinction.

Livecontent

[davebarnes]

How does anyone decide to "hate" a subdivision?

Well, National Geographic magazine put HR on its cover as the epitome of suburban sprawl.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by woob

Lots of people apparently, given the number of times I've seen someone driving the wrong way on broadway, speer or I25 at 2:30 in the morning.

see my previous post, i have many reasons to hate suburban sprawl having nothing to do with the character of the people living there-

.

I would point out that Broadway and Speer are in the city, as is part of I-25. Do you really think people from the burbs go to Denver to drink? These are local Denverites for the most part.

I addressed the loss of open space, etc before, but I'll reiterate. Denver itself was once open space and wildlife habitat. All these people here have to live somewhere. There are about 3 million of us, and we won't all fit in Denver. If we weren't living in the burbs, Denver would be bigger and take up more land.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by davebarnes

Well, National Geographic magazine put HR on its cover as the epitome of suburban sprawl.

Well, that settles it, I guess. The few times I've been to HR, I've noticed very small lot sizes. I wouldn't call it "sprawl".

[bhcompy]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Well, that settles it, I guess. The few times I've been to HR, I've noticed very small lot sizes. I wouldn't call it "sprawl".

Small lots mixed with lots of open, natural spaces. I'd say it's a much better suburbia than most with regards to sprawl

[GoldenZephyr]

From an LA Times Article on Highlands Ranch:

Robert Bruegmann, a professor of urban planning at the University of Illinois at Chicago, says criticism of Highlands Ranch must be put in historical context.

From ancient Rome on, he said, middle-class families have sought to escape the crowded, dirty inner city. Through the ages, the resulting sprawl has drawn derision from the urban elite.

As row houses sprouted on the outskirts of Victorian London, for instance, "the artistic and intellectual elite called them ugly little boxes, destroying the countryside, put up by greedy developers," Bruegmann said.

Today, those row houses are hailed as smart, even graceful urban design.