The Next Slum? Atlantic Magazine article on future development trends (Denver: property taxes, debt)

[steveindenver]

It's part Denver, part Aurora. I wouldn't really call it urban or suburban. What do you call old suburbs with dumpy little houses within walking distance of crack motels and shady bars

An interesting place to live? I assume you are describing Colfax, which still has the 15 and easy access across the city.

The St. Louis comparison is not valid. White flight ruined the urban core of St. Louis years ago. St. Louis is a model of how not to create a city. The most recent push across the river into Ofallon (the new Chesterfield of 25 years ago) is even more bizzare. You have people living literally over an hour from downtown St. Louis who still think that they live in St. Louis.

Downtown Denver by comparison is a desirable place to live. In fact I was at the airport a few years back when delegations from many cities, including St Louis and Kansas City where passing through to learn how Denver had managed to reinvent the urban area as desirable both for business and residential. The truth behind that I believe lies in a series of lucky coincidences with some timely and long term investments by government and business that paid off.

The reality is prices really began to slip in the new developments well outside of the Denver core last summer. They continue to decline at a rapid pace. Many builders are unable to secure additional financing without lowering their inventory and they are nearly giving away properties that require a long commute.

That ring will tighten as the economy worsens. While downtown Denver is not immune to the effects it is my bet that they will be felt with much less intensity than for people out in suburbia.

In the end we all pay and suffer for suburaban sprawl. The American consumerist mentality that tells people to buy new! and buy bigger! results in an increasing radius of poorly designed neighborhoods with landlocked residents dependent on driving their cars for every purpose on an infrastructure that we all pay to create and maintain.

In the end we all pay for this selfishness, even those who choose not to participate.

I don't like government taking the place of telling you what you can and can't do, but maybe Portland Oregon is onto something, controlling sprawl through taxation.

[Bradburn1]

Originally Posted by WestCoDude

Yeah...I'm not buying it. As long as people continue to have kids--and, by all indications, it looks like they will, lol--they're going to seek out bigger homes and lots to grow their families. I guarantee that the moment they start making a family...they're outta there and into the 'burbs.

I agree this has validity, but it brings up a common misconception about new urbanist developments in particular: famililes won't want it, which in my neighborhood's (Bradburn Village) case is totally 100% wrong--but with a qualifier. My neighborhood is mixed-use, walkable, with smaller yards, very much more urban than your "standard" suburban neighborhoood BUT my new urbanist neighborhood contains single family homes, 90% of which are filled with families with young children. I swear, they run in packs here, it's crazy.

New urbanist neighborhoods (if they contain single family homes and have good schools which mine does) are ideal places for families--you can walk easily to many parks, ice cream etc.. with little ones without the hassle of wrangling the little buggers into car seats. Also, people are always outside so you meet everyone and the kids always have playmates--there's no such thing as a "playdate" in here-you just open your front door and they come a swarmin'. Stay at home (or work at home) parents (of which there are many here) don't get bored or lonely here--there's always something to do or somewhere to go if your kids are driving you nuts.

I've noticed though, that many of the new urbanist developments (especially the transit oriented developments) don't contain single family homes at all (or very few)--Belmar is like this, so is Arista (going up in Broomfield). But there is another, Hyland Village (Westminster), that does. If more urban style neighborhoods don't have single family homes, that turns a lot of families off, but according to demographics, we are going to have a lot fewer families than in the past, so I guess we could really use new urbanist neighborhoods with and without single family.

[Katiana]

From the article:

Because the population is growing, families with children will still grow in absolute number—according to U.S. Census data, there will be about 4 million more households with children in 2025 than there were in 2000. But more than 10 million new single-family homes have already been built since 2000, most of them in the suburbs.

So yes, I think it is important to build developments with single-family houses or at least substantially sized townhouses with yards of some sort. Even if you think you don't want a yard for whatever reason, don't like the upkeep, philosophical reasons, etc., when you are raising a family it is nice to have a little area for the kids to play outside while you are working in the house. A trip to the park can be a real hassle. Been there, done that. Have to pack up the stroller, pack the snacks, water bottles, diaper bag, etc, a book for mom to read while she's there, thinking all the while about the undone laundry, the dinner to cook, etc waiting at home. The kids don't want to leave, the hassle of getting them back in the stroller, the older one is too tired to walk and wants to ride in the stroller, too, etc. Don't get me wrong; there were times I loved doing that, and times it was nice to just open the back door and let 'em out where I could watch them while I worked in the house.

[tfox]

Interesting article, and I think the author notices some trends, but I disagree with some of the conclusions. For me, I live in the city, like living in the city, and generally think there's some tremendous advantages to doing so, but there are limits, and frankly I think we've already hit some of those limits. As I've said before, if I buying a house for the first time now, I doubt I'd have the opportunity to buy in my current 'hood, and in my book that's a shame.

There was a period in our history from about the 1950s-1980s where "the city" nationwide suffered. It wasn't too long ago when you could be a large Denver Square a stones throw from Cheesman for something ridiculous, a price-per-square-foot of a quarter to a half of what the place would run on the suburbs (of course, you'd have to shell out on fix-up). Still, overall, it was actually cheaper (sometimes much cheaper) to live in historic neighborhoods than it was in the brand-new shiny suburbs of Northglenn, Arvada, or Littleton. Of course, you'd be going upstream, bucking the trend of the hordes leaving the city, and you'd have to put up with a lot to do it.

Well, times change. Word now is even former ghettos like Curtis Park are now the new trendy, and Wash Park has become beyond expensive, and Highlands is getting there. New condos downtown are literally selling in the $1M plus range as half million dollar lofts are no longer urbane enough for the new downtown settlers. So, no doubt some other down-and-out 'hoods north of City Park are tomorrow's hot addresses, and so it goes.

Problem is, Central Denver has already become an address largely for the well-to-do, and this trend has accelerated considerably even in the past five years. While renting in Central Denver is a lot more accessible than homeownership, that is likely to change as well, as the more run-down rentals become sites for scrape-offs as properties change hands.

So, sooner or later, Denver's center is going to run out of trendy 'hoods to gentrify, and a where are a new generation of hipsters going to go? That's right... the suburbs. No, not Parker or Highlands Ranch, surely (too far out), but Englewood, Littleton, Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Arvada, and even Aurora are likely candidates. In fact, this we're already seeing this trend in the past couple years with the new mid-century-mod craze and "Old Englewood" has become the latest urban neighborhood for people making normal salaries. Trust me, for the closer-in Jeffco suburbs it's only a matter of time before they follow Englewood's lead. All these suburbs really need is to embrace the change, something some have been slow to do.

It's actually a good thing, if you ask me. The last thing we need is Central Denver being a Boulder-like elitist playground surrounded by a ring of suburban decay just over Denver's city limits. Yes, that's exactly what's happening now, and that decay has happened and is happening, but my gut says that it's temporary blip that's already changing.

I also think inner suburbs actually have a bright future from the other direction. As I've pointed out $6 or even $60.00 gasoline is not going to get everyone living in Denver simply because Denver can't possibly accomodate them all. It is true that high gas prices may put a dent in exurban living (though not completely eliminate it), but likely the former exurbanites may rediscover their mom and dad's suburbs once they check Denver's prices and realize that they can't afford to live THAT close in.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by steveindenver

An interesting place to live? I assume you are describing Colfax, which still has the 15 and easy access across the city.

The St. Louis comparison is not valid. White flight ruined the urban core of St. Louis years ago. St. Louis is a model of how not to create a city. The most recent push across the river into Ofallon (the new Chesterfield of 25 years ago) is even more bizzare. You have people living literally over an hour from downtown St. Louis who still think that they live in St. Louis.

Downtown Denver by comparison is a desirable place to live. In fact I was at the airport a few years back when delegations from many cities, including St Louis and Kansas City where passing through to learn how Denver had managed to reinvent the urban area as desirable both for business and residential. The truth behind that I believe lies in a series of lucky coincidences with some timely and long term investments by government and business that paid off.

The reality is prices really began to slip in the new developments well outside of the Denver core last summer. They continue to decline at a rapid pace. Many builders are unable to secure additional financing without lowering their inventory and they are nearly giving away properties that require a long commute.

That ring will tighten as the economy worsens. While downtown Denver is not immune to the effects it is my bet that they will be felt with much less intensity than for people out in suburbia.

In the end we all pay and suffer for suburaban sprawl. The American consumerist mentality that tells people to buy new! and buy bigger! results in an increasing radius of poorly designed neighborhoods with landlocked residents dependent on driving their cars for every purpose on an infrastructure that we all pay to create and maintain.

In the end we all pay for this selfishness, even those who choose not to participate.

I don't like government taking the place of telling you what you can and can't do, but maybe Portland Oregon is onto something, controlling sprawl through taxation.

I have to agree with you on this. We bought new, but at least it's infill!

One thing I noticed in St. Louis when recently doing research, there are neighborhoods near downtown where almost all of the houses have been torn down (from what I 've heard they were very old in in such disrepair, they couldn't be salvaged) leaving nothing but streets and grass. Like a growing cancer on the city.

Denver surely has benefitted from good planning and lots of luck. I know other cities have looked to it as an example of what to do right.

It's interesting that the far-out housing developments are the ones hurting. I don't think Stapleton is going up right now, but certainly not down. A couple houses near mine have recently sold within a couple weeks of hitting the market - full asking price.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by Bradburn1

I agree this has validity, but it brings up a common misconception about new urbanist developments in particular: famililes won't want it, which in my neighborhood's (Bradburn Village) case is totally 100% wrong--but with a qualifier. My neighborhood is mixed-use, walkable, with smaller yards, very much more urban than your "standard" suburban neighborhoood BUT my new urbanist neighborhood contains single family homes, 90% of which are filled with families with young children. I swear, they run in packs here, it's crazy.

New urbanist neighborhoods (if they contain single family homes and have good schools which mine does) are ideal places for families--you can walk easily to many parks, ice cream etc.. with little ones without the hassle of wrangling the little buggers into car seats. Also, people are always outside so you meet everyone and the kids always have playmates--there's no such thing as a "playdate" in here-you just open your front door and they come a swarmin'. Stay at home (or work at home) parents (of which there are many here) don't get bored or lonely here--there's always something to do or somewhere to go if your kids are driving you nuts.

I've noticed though, that many of the new urbanist developments (especially the transit oriented developments) don't contain single family homes at all (or very few)--Belmar is like this, so is Arista (going up in Broomfield). But there is another, Hyland Village (Westminster), that does. If more urban style neighborhoods don't have single family homes, that turns a lot of families off, but according to demographics, we are going to have a lot fewer families than in the past, so I guess we could really use new urbanist neighborhoods with and without single family.

Same with Stapleton. Kids everywhere - and mostly under the age of 5. We joke about how horrible it will be when they all become teenagers and their junker cars are parked in front of our houses!

Although we don't have much yard (actually smaller than most in our neighborhood), we have a nice park directly across the street, so I'll be able to sit on the front porch and supervise play time, or watch out the window. Families love it here, but I will admit most people are more "urban-minded" and many moved from condos closer to downtown because they wanted to start a family. Stapleton (and I'm sure Bradburn too) offers more of the urban feel but with good schools.

[Katiana]

Aside from Weld County, which markets are really hurting? Just curious.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by tfox

Interesting article, and I think the author notices some trends, but I disagree with some of the conclusions. For me, I live in the city, like living in the city, and generally think there's some tremendous advantages to doing so, but there are limits, and frankly I think we've already hit some of those limits. As I've said before, if I buying a house for the first time now, I doubt I'd have the opportunity to buy in my current 'hood, and in my book that's a shame.

There was a period in our history from about the 1950s-1980s where "the city" nationwide suffered. It wasn't too long ago when you could be a large Denver Square a stones throw from Cheesman for something ridiculous, a price-per-square-foot of a quarter to a half of what the place would run on the suburbs (of course, you'd have to shell out on fix-up). Still, overall, it was actually cheaper (sometimes much cheaper) to live in historic neighborhoods than it was in the brand-new shiny suburbs of Northglenn, Arvada, or Littleton. Of course, you'd be going upstream, bucking the trend of the hordes leaving the city, and you'd have to put up with a lot to do it.

Well, times change. Word now is even former ghettos like Curtis Park are now the new trendy, and Wash Park has become beyond expensive, and Highlands is getting there. New condos downtown are literally selling in the $1M plus range as half million dollar lofts are no longer urbane enough for the new downtown settlers. So, no doubt some other down-and-out 'hoods north of City Park are tomorrow's hot addresses, and so it goes.

Problem is, Central Denver has already become an address largely for the well-to-do, and this trend has accelerated considerably even in the past five years. While renting in Central Denver is a lot more accessible than homeownership, that is likely to change as well, as the more run-down rentals become sites for scrape-offs as properties change hands.

So, sooner or later, Denver's center is going to run out of trendy 'hoods to gentrify, and a where are a new generation of hipsters going to go? That's right... the suburbs. No, not Parker or Highlands Ranch, surely (too far out), but Englewood, Littleton, Lakewood, Wheat Ridge, Arvada, and even Aurora are likely candidates. In fact, this we're already seeing this trend in the past couple years with the new mid-century-mod craze and "Old Englewood" has become the latest urban neighborhood for people making normal salaries. Trust me, for the closer-in Jeffco suburbs it's only a matter of time before they follow Englewood's lead. All these suburbs really need is to embrace the change, something some have been slow to do.

It's actually a good thing, if you ask me. The last thing we need is Central Denver being a Boulder-like elitist playground surrounded by a ring of suburban decay just over Denver's city limits. Yes, that's exactly what's happening now, and that decay has happened and is happening, but my gut says that it's temporary blip that's already changing.

I also think inner suburbs actually have a bright future from the other direction. As I've pointed out $6 or even $60.00 gasoline is not going to get everyone living in Denver simply because Denver can't possibly accomodate them all. It is true that high gas prices may put a dent in exurban living (though not completely eliminate it), but likely the former exurbanites may rediscover their mom and dad's suburbs once they check Denver's prices and realize that they can't afford to live THAT close in.

I think it's interesting how cities change over time - and try to predict how they'll change next. Who'd have guessed those "ugly '50s modern houses" (as my mom used to call them) would become "mid-century modern" and a hot item? Maybe the '70s tri-level will be the hot trend of the 2030s where people "restore the original popcorn ceilings".

[David Aguilar]

While I'm nowhere near being a fan of this day's suburban style development and construction, I find "new urbanism" areas such as Stapleton and Lowry to simply be the lesser of two evils. I find new suburban developments to be extremely ugly, boring, with the houses too close together, with more square footage yet smaller lots than their predecessors. Just 20-30 years ago there was more of a healthy balance, without outrageous square footages, and larger yards. New homes, however, are very nice on the inside and very functional. All Stapleton and Lowry are, for the most part, suburban style development in the city. I find them only slightly more desirable than traditional new suburban developments, but I wouldn't live in either because I simply find the aesthetic appeal on the outside to be quite lacking.

Unfortunately, as much as I'd like to agree with the article, I can't. Families will continue to live in the suburbs, simply because most either can't afford to live in a nice neighborhood in the city, or are afraid to, either for fear of crime or bad schools. Most of the people moving to new urbanism areas are young college educated types anyway, so I don't foresee many families inhabiting them. Another negative of Stapleton and Lowry, are the contrasts made by simply crossing a street. Leaving Stapleton by crossing Quebec, and your are in a "bad area", leaving Lowry by crossing 11th, and you're in a "bad area". Gentrification nearby may eventually occur, but it really hasn't yet. What I'd like to see, in a perfect world, are people moving back into established neighborhoods, while abandoning new developments, and no longer being afraid of the demographics and or stigma attached to a particular place.

[Katiana]

The other issue is, there just isn't enough space in Denver for all 2.5 million of us to live! Even if we all lived in high rises! I for one like a little contact with the earth every now and then; that is why I enjoy my relatively small back yard.