Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Personally, I do not work in Central Denver. I have in the past. I prefer to work south of Hampden.
I succeed about 80% of the time. This way I am less than 10 miles from home.
I can't tell you how many folks moved here, bought a place with someone else and then called me to make a change when they finally realize that their reality is not sustainable. I am working with a couple right now who wanted the split the Denver and Springs commute by living in Monument. They did that for 5 years! Well she has accepted a job in the Tech Center and he works in Denver by Cinderella City - geez, it's 30 miles just to my house. I found them a nice place near Colorado and Dry Creek. They are looking forward to less stress in their life.
Highlands Ranch is one large subdivision, it is close to Arvada in population. People who work in the tech center, or at Martin, or at a office building in HR can live close to work and have more time for family and play. That is the lifestyle I choose for myself and I promote in this forum.
I am one of those that have nothing close to a 9000 sqft mansion in Boulder (nor do I want one.) Nor do I qualify as "rebelling" against my parents' provincialism. I suppose that makes me "atypical." Let's also not forget that there are elitists on both sides. I've known plenty of people that try to impress me with their superior "McMansion" lifestyle in the suburbs, bemoaning my preference for city living as "dangerous" and even "reckless."
I think there is another type of person concerned about places like Highlands Ranch, and those are people that think we are all in this big boat together and that some ways of living contribute to chaos on the big boat, exacerbating larger problems.
The pro-sprawl crowd can persist in their notion that they are merely providing "what the people want", but as fringe "cities" edge further away from urban (and even suburban) cores, forever swallowing those plots of land with their luxurious views and fresh, new, friendly and quiet places to play, they inevitably become the surrounded, encircled suburbs where crime increases, emptying out to further flung nests that have taken on the traits their neighborhood used to possess.
Infrastructure costs more the further from the center of services one gets, the environment inevitably suffers and we're left with yet another neighborhood that is less desirable, more expensive, and virtually unremovable. In addition, that open space on the "edge of civilization" that allows people to feel they are living a a faux rural lifestyle has been consumed by the next fringe "city."
Now I don't fault anyone for looking for a better lifestyle for their family, and I certainly can't stop people from doing what they want...but I think it's important that people are aware of the grander consequences of their actions. In the larger scheme of things, those consequences will affect our region...all of us...and our children...well into the future.
It doesn't always have to be bad, being further out...particularly in communities that largely support themselves. They are often encroached upon by other cities that are less concerned about maintaining their identity and quality of life (and more concerned with increasing their tax base.)
But I personally see Highlands Ranch, Anthem, and similar unincorporated communities as being places where developers have sought to exploit every loophole in the book to not take responsibility for the larger social consequences of what they are creating. Much like the rise of easy credit in the 80s, it's created an environment that is, in the short term, cheaper and more accessible to lower and middle class people. Naturally, we flock to these places, either ignorant of the long term effects, or hoping that our impact will be minimal compared to our eventual goals.
OF COURSE they are pleasant, crime free places to live. That's the point. They are built on cheap land because it's far from infrastructure and often farm or grazing land that the owner is incapable of sustaining at a reasonable rate...i.e., it's become just desirable enough to send the price up and give that person a shot at making better money on the land.
But all this precludes any larger scope of social responsibility...the impact of the automobile (it's costs environmentally, as well as the shear volume of roads that need to be built, the impact of traffic and the dependence on foreign powers for their resources), the impact of being great distances from friends, family, and infrastructure such as water, power, culture, etc...
How many people on this forum would want to live in the Inland Empire of L.A., or somewhere in the Jersey 'Burbs? What about some far flung edge of Chicagoland? Most of them end up being very similar places, but they didn't START that way. They just got older. Meanwhile, developers built further and further out just to rake in a few more dollars without having to deal with any of the consequences.
Please don't mistake our disapproval of places like Highlands Ranch with a disdain or disapproval for YOU or your FAMILY. On the contrary. We are as concerned about the what the future holds for our children as you are. We are just asking that you consider the effects of what they are selling you over the longer term...as one day your children will grow up, and this is the world we will leave them.
It's not easy, and no, you won't always win. Sometimes that's the best circumstance you have, and you have to do what you believe is going to be best for your family at that point in your life. I only ask that if you must live in those places, then keep engaging...try to minimize your impact and make your communities better...don't just settle for whatever shopping centers and housing tracts have been built up around you, but try to make those suburbs places where your kids could live in the future, with culture and benefits that will stretch far into the future.
For my part, urban centers have been abandoned and ignored for far too long, and I prefer to see them revitalized instead...THAT is the main difference. Doesn't make me bad. Doesn't make you bad. Just means we may have a very different view on the future.
Here's the problem. HR is not remote. It's not far out. You'd have a better case if you were arguing Castle Rock, maybe. HR is on the other side of the freeway from Littleton and Centennial. It's under 20 miles as the crow flies from the center of HR to Downtown Denver(bit further on freeways, but that's not the point I'm making). That is not a large distance for a metro area. Within a 20mile radius of downtown for a major US metro area is good. It's not sprawl. LA is sprawl. You mention the Inland Empire. Temecula to Long Beach(the major city on the western edge of Los Angeles County) would be an example of the negatives of what you're talking about. That's a 65 mile distance as the crow flies(and an 80 mile commute). This is far more of evidence of sprawl than a 20 mile radius from downtown of a major US metro area. It's perfectly fair to complain about one, but the other makes absolutely no sense at all.
Just what urban center in Denver has been abandoned?
THIS:
Every single one of these theatres was demolished by the 1980's as population and money fled the city in favor of tract housing in the suburbs. which all relates back to this simple truth-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike from back east
there's a part of me that's thinks our nation's propensity to build stuff and tear it down in a generation or two is simply insane.
but of course-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
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.
what a ridiculous statement. 3 million people could easily fit within the already developed footprint of denver. instead we CHOSE to bulldoze our historic housing stock and replace them with parking lots so people can drive in comfortably from the suburbs and continue to pave over the prairie. besides, nobody is talking about prohibiting development outside of denver. we are just advocating doing it in a responsible way so as to minimize impact on the environment, traffic congestion, CO2 emissions, etc.
Quote:
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.
Given suburbanites never ending demand for "new construction" i highly doubt the tract housing built today will be desirable two hundred years from now. more likely these shoddily built homes will become the slums of the future (already happening in nevada and arizona).
what a ridiculous statement. 3 million people could easily fit within the already developed footprint of denver. instead we CHOSE to bulldoze our historic housing stock and replace them with parking lots so people can drive in comfortably from the suburbs and continue to pave over the prairie.
3 million people in the 100 sq. miles of Denver that is not the airport? 30,000 people/sq. mile? Sounds wonderful. Bring back tuberculosis!
30,000 people/sq. mile? Sounds wonderful. Bring back tuberculosis!
Paris, France: 54,300 /sq mi) Paris - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Singapore: 18,943/sq mi
New York County, NY: 70,951/sq mi
Buenos Aries, Argentina: 36,829.1/sq mi
Santiago, Chile: 23,216/sq mi
Easily many more people can live in Denver and that is already occurring as the population and density is increasing. I drove to/from Highland Ranch today, from Arvada through the City through two different routes. I always like to see what is developing in neighborhoods and driving on the highways tells me little. I was stunned by new commercial and residential developments. Yes, Denver is increasing in Density.
Other cities have increased densities more than Denver and they are healthy, clean and safe. These cities, especially in Europe, are considered some of the best places to live. Denver can certainly achieve that world class status with proper planning, safe and healthy housing and adequate public transportation. To exclaim endemic Tuberculosis as an assured expective result of this type of growth is a ridiculous "chicken little" statement.
I do agree that some of these McManshions, not all, are built for size/height and not quality, as I had a chance to view the homes of some of my relatives, close up, who live in these monster homes. It was somewhat disturbing and I thought how can they exist in a hundred years. Yet, I also know that many older homes of Denver were badly built 100 yrs. ago, as shoddy construction and sloppy work is endemic to all times and places.
I do think that Highland Ranch will evolve to a more balanced place over time with more dense residential housing and more businesses: more offices, distributions centers and some light industry. It will form a City to fulfill legal and social requirements to an expanding and more diverse population.
Livecontent
Last edited by livecontent; 11-25-2011 at 10:29 PM..
3 million people in the 100 sq. miles of Denver that is not the airport? 30,000 people/sq. mile? Sounds wonderful. Bring back tuberculosis!
Having worked in the tuberculosis ward at bellevue in NYC I was tempted to respond with some relevant facts and data but i think i will just let this ignorant post speak for itself.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
Best post of thread! I post on Urban Planning as well, and I think I'm going to repost this there.
awesome. this article was published in 2006 at the height of the real estate bubble. here is a more reality based analysis-
Because when I think about newspapers that would write a fair assessment of suburbia I think the New York Times, printed daily from the land with no grass and a concrete jungle over 100 stories tall.
It depends on what you like, but IMO, HR is a nice place to live. If you like the suburbs, you should like HR. It is very family-friendly. There are lots of parks, walking trails, 4 rec centers with tons of things to do, several churches, if that's what you want. Yes, it is cookie cutter, but what suburb isn't? I prefer that it is "planned" unlike some of the older suburban areas like Littleton/Jefferson County and Centennial, which just seem like a mish mash of subdivisions to me. IMO the people here who bash HR don't like ANY suburbs, not just that one.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Let's also not forget that there are elitists on both sides. I've known plenty of people that try to impress me with their superior "McMansion" lifestyle in the suburbs, bemoaning my preference for city living as "dangerous" and even "reckless." 
Some nice places with high population density
