The beginning of the end for suburbia? (Denver, Aurora: foreclosure, condo)

[Mike from back east]

Originally Posted by 2bindenver

The Denver Post had a article a week or two ago about how hybrids had less of an impact on the environment than light rail.

Lots of people can work from home now. Unheard of 15 years ago.

Time has changed a lot of things. The quality of life in the suburbs draws the attention of families, singles, couples...

Not everyone wants to live in the city. Not everyone wants to live in the country, suburbs, exurbs...

I think you should live where you want and no one should tell you otherwise.

That article is found here. Excerpt:'
- Automobiles are becoming more fuel efficient at a much faster rate than light rail, which gets its power largely from carbon-spewing power plants. That regrettable, counter-intuitive fact is an unintended consequence of "the Prius Effect," as the rise of hybrids and increasingly fuel-efficient cars outstrips the environmental benefits of light rail.

Total electric cars will solve the imported oil / gasoline problem and go a long way to making suburban living a lasting practice, subject to the other issues of HOW best to generate electricity and infrastructure buildout.

Back in the DC area, what we saw were commuting problems so severe that many large sets of offices often headed straight for the outer suburbs, 25-35 miles from the DC city line, otherwise it was hard to attract employees who'd be willing to commute 90 minutes each way in hellaciously combative driving conditions. DC metro area is a typical dense urban core with huge hub/spoke commuting patterns.

Uniquely, heavy employment in COLO SPGS is strung out all along I-25 in a linear fashion, from exit 156 all the way down to exit 138. Nearby affordable housing all along that strip means that many people here can afford to live near where they work and drive very little. Very few cities have this happy accident of linear development, most of them are stuck with the old hub/spoke commuting nightmare.

Your last line says it all.

[Katiana]

I probably shouldn't attempt this while brain dead. (Just got home from work.) I was just cruising the forum and saw this thread had been revived and wondered why. I found out in a DM that it was b/c the Lone Tree thread was closed (now open again) due to argumentation.

Anyway, there is no way all 2.9 million of us could live in the city of Denver w/o acting like rats in cages. Most of you are probably familiar with those old experiments that show the rats get more agressive as they get over-crowded. Someone at this point usually chimes in and says that the "inner ring" suburbs are somehow "OK" as well. I beg to differ. I think they are all OK.

This is not the 1960s, when people lived in the burbs and most all still worked in the city. Now there are jobs in the burbs, shopping, schools, cultural activities and most everything else a person could want in their day to day life. So one has to drive to the city for professional sports, theater, and the like. So what? Do you go to see the Rockies once a week? Attend a play at the Denver Center on a weekly basis? Are these not the activities people do once or twice a year maybe?

Just where, jazz, do you propose that all of us live?

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Katiana

Just where, jazz, do you propose that all of us live?

That is a very good question. What I said is "suburbia as we now know it." I suspect we will have to return to suburban living as it was decades ago--more mass transit, more walking, smaller homes, smaller lots, and extended families living under one roof. No doubt, this does not sound fun to most spoiled suburbanites. That really doesn't matter. If, for example, there is only enough fuel to run one car per family (that's if we are lucky), then there's gonna have to be some changes made. And whether people like the changes or not, or whether they think they are fair or not is not going to change the outcome.

And, if things get bad enough, some people WON'T live. The longer we screw around in denial about how serious things are going to get, the stronger the possibility of THAT outcome there is. We are in the same kind of national denial right now that we were in the period immediately preceding World War II--we know things aren't right, we know our present course really isn't sustainable, but we just don't want to acknowledge the threat, and we don't want to change to meet it. Back at the eve of WWII, eventually, though, events overtook us, and we got plunged headlong into a fight for our lives. Well, we're there again.

[the3Ds]

Originally Posted by DenverAztec

Keep in mind that even if we all drove electric cars or took a trail to work, Surburbanites will still need to heat their homes and light their McMansions. Having an in-home theater, a pool and 10 bedrooms would be great, but is it really feasible economically and ecologically? Huge lawns are a waste of water, not to mention plumbing it all the way out to the sticks. Suburbia will never come to an end as there will always be a demand for it, but it is about to change for those who can no longer afford it.

Some of the biggest homes I've ever seen are in the Cherry Creek neighborhood and in the historic district downtown near LoDo. And having lived on both sides of the US and in a few places in the middle of the country, I've never seen yards that are as small as those in the metro Denver area.

However, to argue with people for or against is futile because it's just a matter of opinion. You are not going to convince a city dweller that there is anything worthwhile in suburbia and most of us who live in suburbia usually want to wash our hands and fumigate our clothes after we come back from the city.

[the3Ds]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I'd rather live in a suburb, drive a golf cart to a train station for a trip to work than live in a crowded, noisy, urban area. There's a reason suburbs sprung up in the first place.

This thread was started by someone who a little over a month ago posted that he hoped the next tornado to strike our area (and I'm sure he wouldn't care if it was THIS particular area or any suburbs as he seems to hate them all) would "E-R-A-D-I-C-A-T-E" us all. Yeah, that's an objective person. Let's not make him the poster child for "responsible living."

And since gas prices were over $4 not too long ago and all that changed is that was a slight "drop" in SUV sales, it will take a lot more than the price of gas to get people out of the suburbs. As soon as the suburban schools start rating as poorly as most of the city schools, as soon as the crime rates equal the crime rates of the cities and as soon as someone can convince us that having a yard is bad, then perhaps there is something to this. Until then, it's like anything else where people are clearly on one side of the other.

Having said all of that, I will say (Gawd...am I agreeing with Steve?! ) that it's not responsible to live far away from work. Since we are only talking about Denver here, there are a lot of places to live that will put you in a decent suburb (if that is your wish) and never more than 20-30 minutes from work. There are decent school districts and low-crime areas on all sides of the city limits. This is not the case for many cities in the US.

If you work in downtown Denver, you should not live in SE Aurora or Castle Rock. Not even considering the cost of gas (since that is up to you and your own family's budget), think of the time you waste just driving back and forth. Add in an accident on the freeway, construction or a snow storm and it will be HOURS before you see your driveway. Surely there are other ways to spend your time. It's just not necessary in a city like Denver. It's another great reason to live here with your family. You don't have to be rich to be in a good school district and you don't have to commute hours to live in a safe neighborhood.

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

That is a very good question. What I said is "suburbia as we now know it." I suspect we will have to return to suburban living as it was decades ago--more mass transit, more walking, smaller homes, smaller lots, and extended families living under one roof. No doubt, this does not sound fun to most spoiled suburbanites. That really doesn't matter. If, for example, there is only enough fuel to run one car per family (that's if we are lucky), then there's gonna have to be some changes made. And whether people like the changes or not, or whether they think they are fair or not is not going to change the outcome.

And, if things get bad enough, some people WON'T live. The longer we screw around in denial about how serious things are going to get, the stronger the possibility of THAT outcome there is. We are in the same kind of national denial right now that we were in the period immediately preceding World War II--we know things aren't right, we know our present course really isn't sustainable, but we just don't want to acknowledge the threat, and we don't want to change to meet it. Back at the eve of WWII, eventually, though, events overtook us, and we got plunged headlong into a fight for our lives. Well, we're there again.

I do not agree that the sky is falling. I have never doubted human beings' ability to adapt.

Decades ago is when many of these suburbs were built. I know you're a Colorado "expert", jazz, but I sense you have never seen the suburbs of some of the eastern cities, with their huge lots (in the burb where we lived in Albany, NY the minimum lot size was 20,000 sq. ft), no sidewalks, etc.

Originally Posted by the3Ds

Some of the biggest homes I've ever seen are in the Cherry Creek neighborhood and in the historic district downtown near LoDo. And having lived on both sides of the US and in a few places in the middle of the country, I've never seen yards that are as small as those in the metro Denver area.

However, to argue with people for or against is futile because it's just a matter of opinion. You are not going to convince a city dweller that there is anything worthwhile in suburbia and most of us who live in suburbia usually want to wash our hands and fumigate our clothes after we come back from the city.

I definitely agree that the yards in metro Denver are quite small; my relatives from the east and midwest say the same thing.

However, I did not feel the need to fumigate my clothes when I returned from visiting my daughter who until very recently lived in Denver, as did most of her friends (some still do).

[suzco]

Originally Posted by Katiana

. . .
This is not the 1960s, when people lived in the burbs and most all still worked in the city. Now there are jobs in the burbs, shopping, schools, cultural activities and most everything else a person could want in their day to day life. So one has to drive to the city for professional sports, theater, and the like. So what? Do you go to see the Rockies once a week? Attend a play at the Denver Center on a weekly basis? Are these not the activities people do once or twice a year maybe?

Just where, jazz, do you propose that all of us live?

I've wondered. . .
If someone lives in LoDo and commutes to the tech center for work, is that supporting urban life or supporting suburbia?

If someone lives and works in Broomfield, how does that fit into the urban/suburban matrix?

What about if they live in Wash Park and work in Boulder?

Live in Niwot, work in Longmont?

Live in Lafayette, work in Louisville?

Live in Superior, work in Littleton (one of my friends is stuck doing that now, poor thing)

Live in Lone Tree and take light rail to the Central Business District? That's the only one that fits the traditional model, but what makes it better or worse than these other examples? And how do all of these types of possibilities and realities influence our thinking about suburban and urban development?

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by the3Ds

...If you work in downtown Denver, you should not live in SE Aurora or Castle Rock. Not even considering the cost of gas (since that is up to you and your own family's budget), think of the time you waste just driving back and forth. Add in an accident on the freeway, construction or a snow storm and it will be HOURS before you see your driveway. Surely there are other ways to spend your time. It's just not necessary in a city like Denver. It's another great reason to live here with your family. You don't have to be rich to be in a good school district and you don't have to commute hours to live in a safe neighborhood...

I do agree with what you say but it is not always possible to live near where you work because where you work changes. People change jobs, more often today then yesterday.

What do you say to the person who worked in SE Aurora and owned a home in SE Aurora; but lost his job and only found work in Downtown. Does he sell and move??? Can he easily sell and move???

When I talk to younger people who are buying their first home, I tell them to try to find a home that is centrally located and on a public transportation route. Of course, most ignore what I say because they will never have the need or desire to ride a bus. So, that if your job changes you will have more options. In that advice I would not advise living in Castle Rock, unless you have a long term permanent job there. I would consider Denver and the older inline suburbs as the best options for a changing job environment.

Maybe the best option may be never to buy and only rent and then move near your next job. In many cases owning a home is not the best idea, certainly if you change job locations often.

I think with the decline of the family; the questionable value increase in owning a home and the mobility of Americans, we may become a nation of renters. I point you to a recent article in the Wall Street Journal about this issue:

Why the New American Real Estate Dream Is Renting - WSJ.com

With the decline of home ownership, we may see the decline of the traditional suburbs based on owner owned residency. In addition, more condominium ownership helps move people to the idea of renting, because it just takes just a little push to move from paying a mortgage for a town home or renting; the living arrangement is the same. The advantages to be able to move may outweigh the perceived benefits.

When I look at my stupid neighbors that I have tolerate for decades, it makes me wish that I can easily sell and move. When I get tired of the area; it would be nice to try another scene. If I change jobs; I could live down the road. And now that I am retired; it would be nice to get away from this demanding mistress of a home. So for me, my next move will be as a renter with fewer possessions with the attitude---here today, gone tomorrow.

Livecontent

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I do not agree that the sky is falling. I have never doubted human beings' ability to adapt.

That is exactly the point. We ARE NOT adapting and we need to be. And when we fail to adapt--THAT is when the sky falls.

Simply stated, right now we are rapidly depleting resources that can not be replaced, paying for them with money we don't have (and have to borrow), and debasing our currency and surrendering our national sovereignty in the process. All so we can continue to live in a manner that we find comfortable (well, at least some people do--not me) and we can continue deluding ourselves about not having to change and adapt to some very harsh realities.

“Denial is a common tactic that substitutes deliberate ignorance for thoughtful planning.”
Charles Tremper

[Katiana]

WHAT are we not adapting to? Job centers have moved out of the city. One of the primary job centers in the Denver metro area is the DTC. Another is Boulder, another is Broomfield. Doctors, hospitals, shopping are all out there in the suburbs. No one is "driving 10 miles to buy a quart of milk", as has sometimes been alleged in these discussions. You have not really given any specific examples of what is happening.