Sprawl in Denver Metro Area (Aurora, Arvada: appointed, condos, credit)

[livecontent]

[ MOD NOTE: This thread is being set up to discuss sprawl in the Denver area. The discussion began elsewhere but is best served as a separate thread. Any part of the Denver metro area may be discussed here, not just Lone Tree. Intent is to centralize in one place all of the discussion on sprawl. Thank you. ]

.... Excellent Pictures. It shows exactly what Lone Tree is: Rich, Clean, Sterile, Not Walkable....just another wealthy suburbs with the same same...

I have been to Lone Tree often. I worked down the road and saw it develop over the years and I have a relative in Heritage Hills. I think it a great place to live for many, especially if you never want to get out of your car. Trying to walk from one Shopping Area to another and the Park Meadows Mall is suicide. Too many big parking lots and no concern for pedestrians or bicyclist.

Yet this enclave has the influence to get two rail stations and a promise of two more under Fastracks....too much for a few; not enough for many--the slogan of the world.

Lone Tree is also never quiet because it attracts employees to offices on the weekday; people to the mall everyday; heavy traffic on weekends and holidays. Also, it is a suburbs which has crossroad travel from one area to another and major highways going right through the heart. I also do not like the many gated communities and dead end subdivisions because all the traffic feeds to the main roads which because heavy and congested. Again, not a place to walk or be on a bicycle.

Now let us compare rich Lone Tree with my less affluent city of Arvada, which are diagonally opposite in the metro area. Arvada does not attract many outsiders; It has no mall, no exciting shopping; has very few exciting venues and bars. It does not have too much cross traffic as there are no highways and it sits by itself on the edge of the Northwest Suburbs, against the foothills with extensive open space. It has old and the new; rich and poor. Arvada has many walkable neighborhoods with through streets.

It has an Olde Town with neighborhoods that bring you back to the time of Andy Hardy--if you do not know, what I mean, then you do not understand. It has extensive parks, reservoirs and waterways. It has a topography of mixed plains, hills, the Ralston Valley, Ralston Creek. It is noted for the hiking and biking trails all through the area. Arvada also has easy access to the neighborhoods of North Denver and Downtown. It is adjacent to the equally peaceful Wheat Ridge and Golden with their extensive natural amenities.

At the end of the work day; I would return from my job in Inverness Park, near Lone Tree. I would be back into my quiet pastoral enclave and be able to enjoy a more simple live. It is good that we have many choices of places to live in the Denver area. I can understand why many will like Lone Tree and dislike Arvada. Yes Arvada can be considered boring and Lone Tree can be considered exciting. I can enjoy Lone Tree for a short quick time; but I can live in Arvada, and let time go by slowly.

Livecontent

[Sassberto]

Originally Posted by zenkonami

Fantastic pics. Unfortunately, Lone Tree looks like Irvine, Valencia or Woodland Hills in California to me. All outer suburbs. The cleanliness of these kinds of communities always seems appealing for a short time, but then the impact they have on their surroundings starts to really set in. Mind you, I'm only going off of the photos and what I've read.

Exact same thing I thought... Looks good right now... but Check back in 10 years.

When I see those immature trees and houses right on top of each other, I get the same strange feeling I get when I see a new development in California... a place that is ultimately for people trying to escape something that is inevitably coming in their direction.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by livecontent

Excellent Pictures. It shows exactly what Lone Tree is: Rich, Clean, Sterile, Not Walkable....just another wealthy suburbs with the same same...

Huh? I saw sidewalks in those pics, even along the main roads. I don't see why a person couldn't walk a mile and a half from home to Park Meadows along sidewalks. It does look rich, clean, and sterile, but if I'm looking for a place I might retire to in the future (which I am), and walking a few short miles a day to a retail destination (or biking) will be part of my exercise regimen (which it will), that area looks plenty walkable to me.

Props to vegaspilgrim for another great photo tour!

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by Sassberto

Exact same thing I thought... Looks good right now... but Check back in 10 years.

When I see those immature trees and houses right on top of each other, I get the same strange feeling I get when I see a new development in California... a place that is ultimately for people trying to escape something that is inevitably coming in their direction.

Well let me speak as someone with particular interest in developments like these, as I've indicated my sigificant interest in Otay Ranch/Eastlake before in the SD threads.

Houses right on top of each other works IF (and only if) there is some significant neighborhood park space. If I've got enough room in my back yard for cookouts and lounging, but have a neighborhood park 3 or 4 blocks away where I can throw frisbee with the dog or stretch out on a blanket and read a book, etc. then the close proximity of the houses is fine by me. Only when there is no nice big neighborhood park space is it a total ripoff to have suburban single family homes right on top of each other. In the particular area of the photo tour, there are Heritage Hills Park and Sweetwater Park, to be specific. And of course you're familiar with the Otay Ranch/Eastlake equivalents. THAT is about a lifestyle.

Or let me present the idea in this way- a lot of the suburban subdivisions I've seen in various cities are uninspiring sprawl. However, whenever I vacation to a really nice resort, I tend to see residences (usually condos but occasionally townhomes) fairly close together with trails connecting various areas and at least one, usually more, greenspaces in the community with pools and tennis courts and for the better ones, some form of food/retail offering. This "resort lifestyle" is basically the same type of thing I find appealing in the types of neighborhoods I'm talking about. It may be single family homes mixed in with townhomes instead of all condos, and it may be a retail center that serves tens of thousands rather than just the resort, and it may be trails and sidewalks connecting it all rather than just trails internal to a resort, and the greenspace may be appointed a little differently for the neighborhood park than for the resort, but in the end, it's the same basic thing. And I didn't even mention golf course proximity, which isn't particularly important to me, but is a part of the same discussion nonetheless. It's a type of lifestyle.

Escapism is the point- escaping the blah of typical suburbia and having the "resort lifestyle" where you live. And once parks and trails and homes and retail has been installed in that configuration, it's not as if the configuration is going to change in 10 years. The ONLY thing that might change are the kind of people you find living in the neighborhoods. Anyway, I personally LIKE communties that sort of mimic resorts, be they of the Lone Tree/Southlands format or the Stapleton/Bradburn format. I don't see anything wrong with building them. They sure are a solid step above typical suburbia. The crisp manicuring just enhances the overall ambiance. And the immature trees will grow into mature trees eventually.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

Huh? I saw sidewalks in those pics, even along the main roads. I don't see why a person couldn't walk a mile and a half from home to Park Meadows along sidewalks. It does look rich, clean, and sterile, but if I'm looking for a place I might retire to in the future (which I am), and walking a few short miles a day to a retail destination (or biking) will be part of my exercise regimen (which it will), that area looks plenty walkable to me.

Props to vegaspilgrim for another great photo tour!

Yes, you are correct--their are sidewalks along all roads. However, when you get to the shopping areas you have to cross through very large parking lots--especially at Park Meadows.

Keep in mind that it is prohibited to ride a bike on a sidewalk---I do not agree with that idea, giving that there are not many pedestrians and it is safer. The roads are really too congested to bike on them safely. There are some dedicated paths through some developments but to the main retail, I have not seen any.

Also, the developments are far apart with landscaping. Even though the houses are close together, they are bigger and it is farther to walk to any amenities. In addition, as I said in my previous posts, many developments do not connect and are gated, so that you must go to the main road to walk to the stores.

Many retirees would have problems walking a few miles everyday to stores, to shop and return home. It is evident in Lone Tree and Highland Ranch that there are less pedestrians because of these problems. If you see real walkable neighborhoods that do not have these impediments, you will observe many more people walking and biking. Good examples are areas of Highland and Berkeley in North Denver; many areas of Boulder and Denver; denser areas of the suburbs such as old area of Westminster and Arvada.

No, Lone Tree, for most areas, can not be considered very walkable. It is a suburbs for those people who drive and have multiple cars. As a senior disabled retiree, I prefer living on a smaller scale with stores easier to access in less congested neighborhoods. That is my concept of comfortable living; others have different ideas and that is OK.

Livecontent

[.gif]

Originally Posted by livecontent

No, Lone Tree, for most areas, can not be considered very walkable. It is a suburbs for those people who drive and have multiple cars. As a senior disabled retiree, I prefer living on a smaller scale with stores easier to access in less congested neighborhoods. That is my concept of comfortable living; others have different ideas and that is OK.

Livecontent

lone tree is somewhat walkable, but it would be an unpleasant walk. there's not much to look at and you would have traffic zooming by constantly. most of neighboring highlands ranch is the same. western highlands ranch near lucent is walkable.

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by livecontent

f you see real walkable neighborhoods that do not have these impediments, you will observe many more people walking and biking. Good examples are areas of Highland and Berkeley in North Denver; many areas of Boulder and Denver; denser areas of the suburbs such as old area of Westminster and Arvada.

My personal favorites are Stapleton, Bradburn, Belmar, Lowry, and whenever they finally get a lot of retail out there, Reunion. Boulder is nice too, but generally more expensive than those areas I just mentioned. I saw their Holiday neighborhood, but for me it turned out to be a letdown. It was a lot smaller and more absent of park space than I had assumed it would be. Even if it were cheaper than the neighborhoods I mentioned, I personally still wouldn't buy there. For Boulder, I'd only look within a couple miles of Pearl St. and Central Park. But if I was going to go urban, I'd rather be west of Cherry Creek within a mile of either Cheesman or Washington Park or somewhere between City Park and Five Points. But as far as suburban, which Lone Tree is, those I mentioned above are my favorites, as well as within a couple miles of Southlands. I'd pick any of them before Lone Tree, but I do like the look of Lone Tree anyway and appreciate vegaspilgrim's picks, otherwise I would have had no idea about it. Denver simply has a WHOLE lot of options for somebody like me. I'd really like to be in an area that is both walkable and bikeable.

I thought at one time I heard something about a new neighborhood being planned somewhere between Westminster Mall and Westminster City Park similar to those I'm interested in. I'm wanting to say it was going to be off Sheridan St. but I'm not 100% sure. I haven't heard anything since, though, almost as if the plans were scrapped or something. That would have been good close proximity to the mall, the park, and Westminster Prominade/Walnut Creek, probably within a 30 minute or so walk of each.

[vegaspilgrim]

Feel free to bash Lone Tree all you want guys-- I don't live there, you're not going to hurt my feelings. As you know I've taken photo tours of many different parts of the metro area, which are neither endorsements nor critiques. My common theme, which I'm sure you've all realized by now is I like to photograph areas-- usually suburban areas-- which have rarely or possibly never been systematically photographed before-- and show how they are often more interesting and beautiful than people commonly give credit for.

I don't agree that Lone Tree is "just another typical" suburb. In my view, at least, Lone Tree is noticeably a whole notch or two more "happening" and "busy" than true run of the mill places like Aurora (most of it at least), Highlands Ranch, the southwestern metro area. Lone Tree has a pretty good mix of major employment centers, major retail/dining/entertainment centers, high and low density housing, and open space (Bluffs Regional Park in the "foothills" south of the city) all in a relatively compact few square miles. It's a highly desirable area, surrounded on all four sides by other desirable areas, some of which are even more wealthy (like Castle Pines North). As a result, it's one of the most expensive places in the south metro, right up there with Greenwood Village.

Zenkonami & Sassberto, I know what you're talking about when it comes to entry level tract home developments, that end up declining fast once the original owners sell and move on, but Lone Tree is not even remotely that. If you want to see that, look at east-central Aurora, Green Valley Ranch, Montbello & other areas near the airport, and drive-until-you-qualify towns north of Denver like Frederick, Erie, etc. If you want a pretty good idea what Lone Tree will look like 20 years from now, take a look at what Willow Creek (just north of County Line Rd, in Centennial) or the "older" parts of Highlands Ranch look like today. Still pretty solid, respectable areas. And most Lone Tree homes/condos are much larger and more luxurious than even those areas. If you want a comparison with San Diego, Lone Tree is more like Denver's version of Carmel Valley/Sorrento Valley, not a Chula Vista/Otay Mesa. Far south Denver metro area = north SD county or south OC.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by MantaRay

My personal favorites are Stapleton, Bradburn, Belmar, Lowry, and whenever they finally get a lot of retail out there, Reunion. Boulder is nice too, but generally more expensive than those areas I just mentioned. I saw their Holiday neighborhood, but for me it turned out to be a letdown. It was a lot smaller and more absent of park space than I had assumed it would be. Even if it were cheaper than the neighborhoods I mentioned, I personally still wouldn't buy there. For Boulder, I'd only look within a couple miles of Pearl St. and Central Park. But if I was going to go urban, I'd rather be west of Cherry Creek within a mile of either Cheesman or Washington Park or somewhere between City Park and Five Points. But as far as suburban, which Lone Tree is, those I mentioned above are my favorites, as well as within a couple miles of Southlands. I'd pick any of them before Lone Tree, but I do like the look of Lone Tree anyway. Denver simply has a WHOLE lot of options for somebody like me. I'd really like to be in an area that is both walkable and bikeable.

It looks like you really know what you want. Denver has many options for all types of desires. Some people cannot live with the old, the disabled and the poor; they want only to live in a affluent area. I have my own desires as I could not live in Boulder as I would not like to live near a young college crowd. For me, I also old buildings mixed with the new. Everybody should have their choices.

I think it will get much better when they start to fully develop the Transit Oriented Developments around many of the commuter rail stations. RTD really just does the stations and it is up to the municipalities to do the nearby development.

It was just announced that that development will be starting to be planned around the Osage Station with the redevelopment and the removal of the city low incoming housing in the area.

I like the Transit Oriented Development in Englewood near the station because it has basic shopping, good bus transit and a big hospital nearby.

I am somewhat disappointed by Lone Tree not linking their station better with the shopping and not providing pedestrian paths into the huge Park Meadow Mall. That is nonsense with the ticketed access to the rail station on County Line. Oh, we cannot have people park who use the rail, in our Mall because they may decide to spend some money there after work. Much of this poor planning began with the original developers of the mall who did not want to be part of the RTD district. They feared that bus and rail would provide easy access to their mall, and bring "those people" to our Mall--we do not want those poor people. Ah, but they forgot they need those people to do the work and clean the restrooms.

The Lincoln Station development seems to me poorly planned without good access from housing from Heritage Hills and that canyon look of housing up the road. The city seems to rely on more on private parks within the developments and does not develop the extensive public park system like you see in other municipal areas. That may be because the city and Douglas county are newly settled.

I think there is a problem with these huge parking lots and their is a move in development to put the stores closer to the street with the parking in back. That would allow better pedestrian access as it would take advantage of the existing sidewalks.

Livecontent

[MantaRay]

Originally Posted by livecontent

I think there is a problem with these huge parking lots and their is a move in development to put the stores closer to the street with the parking in back. That would allow better pedestrian access as it would take advantage of the existing sidewalks.

One key reason I really like the Southlands and Northfield Stapleton format.

Hey, speaking of existing sidewalks, is that "illegal to bike on a sidewalk" thing the case all throughout the Denver metro?