Denver's future growth Eastward (Boulder, Louisville: apartment complexes, homes, neighborhood)

[patrickmich]

all right, thanks!

[Dreaming of Hawaii]

I know about the town of Bennett because I work for them. I also do a lot of work in various Weld County small towns, and my experience is that the pumping facilities and storage tanks are there to stay. Not only that, but there are plans to drill even more. Yes, it does benefit the communities through employment and severance taxes, but I just can't see building homes right around them!

[patrickmich]

I just can't see building homes right around them!

why not, if oil and gas exploration is part of our environment, why not embrace it.
there is nothing wrong with homes surrounding industrialness, imo. I think it adds
charm to what we're all about in colorado.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by patrickmich

Yes the area NE of Denver, Weld county, does seem to have a lot of growth potential.
People are drawn to the lower taxes of Weld county. Houses are still affordable in places
like Firestone and Brighton, if this is in fact the area you are referring to in you post (Tfox). My impression is that people don't necessarily like this area, though. Probably because it is treeless and brown. Personally I don't care about that. I just want to have openness around me. I could not live in the West metro area because it would feel a bit claustrophobic. I did not know about the bombing range. This is a huge bit of information that I will look into. Buying a home on the outskirts of the East metro,
butting up against a natural area sounds appealing to me. Although I would want to live along the I-70 corridor (east of denver) and it sounds like the bombing range is South of the freeway, right?

ERG! No offense intended, but that is exactly the kind of notion that exacerbates suburban sprawl! It's all well and good if we have securely open spaces with firmly delimited boundaries (though it does drive housing prices up), but what happens when those boundaries change and a developer decides to encompass your open space adjacent property?

Believe me, I'm with you on the claustrophobic thing to some degree...I, too, like those wide open spaces and that feeling of freedom, but I also have to acknowledge the social, economic and environmental costs of that preference. I do also enjoy the city proper, and I'd rather have those open spaces nearby and accessible than have to drive an hour or two to access them. Sprawl, however, just robs everyone of that opportunity so that one person or family can "own" that experience for a little while...until it's taken away from them.

Perhaps you're looking for more rural living? Sure, the jobs won't be as good or well paying (depending on your field, of course), and you'd lack those city amenities, but choosing a location to live always involves trade-offs anyway. Or perhaps a smaller city like Colorado Springs, Pueblo or Fort Collins would be more appropriate and less claustrophobic.

[Katiana]

I don't agree that the choice should be hard-core urban, or "go somewhere else", even if you put "please" on the end. The thing some of the anti-growth (generally couched in terms of anti-sprawl for PR purposes) folks don't understand is that the population is growing and people have to live somewhere. I, too, like the feeling of living on the edge of the metro area, so I can see some open fields and cows grazing every day, not just when I have the time/energy to hop in my car(?) and drive an hour or more to go look at it.

[steveindenver]

Anti sprawl is not anti-growth, it is growth with intelligence. Portland Oregon is a great example.

While it would seem obvious that we should not need the government to enact laws in order to help us make the proper decision, people as a whole are just too stupid to understand the multiple factors that enter into the equation with sprawl and make it a bad decision.

The really unfortunate end result is that in the end everyone pays for the poor decisions of those who buy into sprawl. The American dream of Betty and Peter living in the county hopping into their oversized SUV to buy a gallon of milk or driving 45 minutes each way to work on roads we all must subsidize is killing America.

Anyhow back on topic. Those areas you mention in the exurb are generally called drive until you qualify communities. The notice of defaults and forclosure rates out there are insane.

[steveco.]

The only downside to semi rural living on the east side is that development that way is really not limited as much so as say the west or south with the mountains to the west limiting growth that way and the green space down south of castle rock east and north are really the only areas left for the city to grow. Personally I see less of that happening since the distance to most employment centers is going to be a substantial commute.

[Katiana]

Not everyone thinks Portland, Oregon is a model for everyone to follow. They have a similar problem as Boulder: restrictions in the city just sent growth out to the burbs.

[zenkonami]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't agree that the choice should be hard-core urban, or "go somewhere else", even if you put "please" on the end. The thing some of the anti-growth (generally couched in terms of anti-sprawl for PR purposes) folks don't understand is that the population is growing and people have to live somewhere. I, too, like the feeling of living on the edge of the metro area, so I can see some open fields and cows grazing every day, not just when I have the time/energy to hop in my car(?) and drive an hour or more to go look at it.

I am neither pro nor anti growth. The fact that growth is likely to continue, however, is all the more reason to take note of and deal with its consequences. You're correct when you say, "...people have to live somewhere." The problem is with the mentality. It never stops. People just keep pushing outward. The notion that Urban Growth Boundaries and such only make the problem worse is absurd. The mistake is Urban Growth Boundaries is that they are not a holistic solution to the problem...they fail to take into account the surrounding areas, which is why (in another post in a thread far, far away, methinks) I advocate larger Metro and even Statewide solutions and suggestions to treat the malady.

Currently, you are correct in that growth boundaries restrict urban development and raise prices in urban centers, pushing people out to surrounding areas for cheaper housing. The thing is, people do that anyway. The entire mentality is problematic. What I want is important, but if I ignore the consequences to our society at large then I am irresponsible and contributing to the demise of that society I so cherish.

And sometimes there is a problem with growth. I think Denver can still manage some growth effectively for a little while at it's benefit, but in the long run we must note the example of China. More people equals a greater drain on natural resources and a heavier reliance on consumption and service based industries. There's nothing wrong with these industries in and of themselves, but if the natural resources aren't there to back them, they too will go in decline (Oil prices, anyone?) That's why the key is to manage growth until such time as growth is no longer tenable. Growth itself does not necessarily equal progress. The only reason western economies have to grow is because population continues to grow and economies have to support that population. (If you're a subsistence farmer in Africa or Asia your economy may have to grow to allow you the technology to survive comfortably, but after that you're in a comparable position to the west.)

If we all move to the outer ring so that we can have that "frontier like" experience, we should perhaps not expect to have such easy access to services. That's kind of the point. As soon as those services become easily accessible, more people are moving in and you're not on the frontier anymore...you're caught up in claustrophobic expansion. That's why I make the distinction between living in an Urban area rather than a smaller city, a town or even a rural area. The singularly selfish mentality has a tendency to bite back.

Please forgive me passion on the subject, but I lived in Phoenix for about 14 years where the dominant mentality is to move to the outskirts of town where land is cheap and the desert is beautiful...only to see people upset when someone else built beyond them, destroying their view and lowering their land / house value as a result. It also contributed to poor traffic and a weak cultural identity with entertainment and cultural venues decentralized, resulting in poor turnout and little personal investment in the region (how many people do you hear say, "I'm from Phoenix.") What's worse, over those 14 years I watched many beautiful areas and parks in the desert and mountains swallowed up in the name of real estate (possibly one of Phoenix's biggest industries) with the only benefit being that developers made bank while the city, the environment, and the community as a whole suffer.

God, I'm a windbag...

[steveindenver]

They have a similar problem as Boulder: restrictions in the city just sent growth out to the burbs.

? Portland has done the exact opposite; numerous studies credit Portland as a successful pioneer in stopping suburban sprawl.