Denver Not More Densely Populated Than It Was In 1950s (rent, mortgages)

[robertgoodman]

Originally Posted by SQL

I'm not confused.

The population of Denver (and the Metro) is significantly greater than it was in the 1950s . The only way the urban core could not be more dense now than it was is because the large swath of transplants are moving outside of the urban core in surrounding metro communities. That might explain why sprawling communities like Dacono, Frederick, Firestone, Parker, Lone Tree, and Green Valley Ranch have grown up rapidly in the past 10 years while the urban core has only marginally changed.

No you still seem pretty confused by the 1950's baseline and are extrapolating that out to recent growth and anecdotes from friends. Yes large swaths are moving to the periphery like they have been since I and Skydog have been alive as this region has grown.

As far as central Denver is concerned:

50's to late 90's > Urban Flight (exacerbating sprawl as both transplants and locals did not move into the city).

00's to Present > Re-densificiation of the core

According to the downtown Denver partnership the annual population growth rate in downtown Denver has averaged around 11% for a 160% change since 2000. The annual growth rate in Central Denver has been 2.5 % since 2000 or a 39% change since 2000.

That's well beyond marginal change, that is substantial growth and it is growing at a much faster rate than pretty much everywhere else in the metro.

However, In terms of total numbers is that all of the recent growth in the region? Absolutely not, and it likely never will be baring some drastic socio-economic shift.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by robertgoodman

No you still seem pretty confused by the 1950's baseline and are extrapolating that out to recent growth and anecdotes from friends. Yes large swaths are moving to the periphery like they have been since I and Skydog have been alive as this region has grown.

As far as central Denver is concerned:

50's to late 90's > Urban Flight (exacerbating sprawl as both transplants and locals did not move into the city).

00's to Present > Re-densificiation of the core

According to the downtown Denver partnership the annual population growth rate in downtown Denver has averaged around 11% for a 160% change since 2000. The annual growth rate in Central Denver has been 2.5 % since 2000 or a 39% change since 2000.

That's well beyond marginal change, that is substantial growth and it is growing at a much faster rate than pretty much everywhere else in the metro.

However, In terms of total numbers is that all of the recent growth in the region? Absolutely not, and it likely never will be baring some drastic socio-economic shift.

Exactly. The city is increasing in density, it just hasn't rebounded to peak density levels.

The big loss in density happened when everyone moved out of the city for the burbs in the 70s and 80s. Despite current prices, density is increasing, albeit more slowly than it would if prices were lower in the city.

[SQL]

Originally Posted by robertgoodman

No you still seem pretty confused. Yes large swaths are moving to the periphery like they have been since I and Skydog have been alive as this region has grown.

As far as central Denver is concerned:

50's to late 90's > Urban Flight (exacerbating sprawl as both transplants and locals did not move into the city).

00's to Present > Re-densificiation of the core

According to the downtown Denver partnership the annual population growth rate in downtown Denver has averaged around 11% for a 160% change since 2000. The annual growth rate in Central Denver has been 2.5 % since 2000 or a 39% change since 2000.

That's well beyond marginal change, that is substantial growth and it is growing at a much faster rate than pretty much everywhere else in the metro.

However, In terms of total numbers is that all of the growth in the region? Absolutely not, and it likely never will be baring some drastic socio-economic shift.

https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/denver-colorado

The data seems to suggest a drop off from 1970 to 1990 (about a 9% decrease), but otherwise, growth for every other decade from 1950 up until 2015 (est.). Overall, there's been about a 64% increase in population since 1950, which significantly offsets that 9% decrease between 1970 and 1990. Therefore, even with a population decrease, the growth in the city of Denver has more than made up for it with a net 55% increase in population. In other words, your suggestion of urban flight between 1950-1999 is a bit inflated, or else, there'd be closer to a net 0% increase in population in the city of Denver. Math...

The urban core has surely seen some increase over time, but I'd bet that some of the surrounding areas in the metro have grown at a much higher rate. Think of all the areas around the metro that didn't hardly exist 10-20 years ago that do now. Heck, much of my neighborhood was built in 2000 or after. Now think of all those other communities that grew up just in the last 10 years. People have obviously moved to these areas in lieu of the urban core. That's all I'm saying.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by SQL

https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/denver-colorado

The data seems to suggest a drop off from 1970 to 1990 (about a 9% decrease), but otherwise, growth for every other decade from 1950 up until 2015 (est.). Overall, there's been about a 64% increase in population since 1950, which significantly offsets that 9% decrease between 1970 and 1990. Therefore, even with a population decrease, the growth in the city has more than made up for it.

The urban core has surely seen some increase over time, but I'd bet that some of the surrounding areas in the metro have grown at a much higher rate. Think of all the areas around the metro that didn't hardly exist 10-20 years ago that do now. That's all I'm saying.

Of course the surrounding areas have grown at a faster rate. There were literally zero people in many of those areas.

[MN_Ski]

Did anyone happen to see that satellite time lapse image of Denver?

It was actually pretty fascinating to me because while the population nearly doubled from 1970 to today, there was only about 10-20% of visible growth/sprawl around the city metro.

Compared to other time lapse images of growing cities, Denver actually did an OK job. The most shocking ones to me were LA, Vegas, and Phoenix. It was like 5-10% of visual growth every year.

[robertgoodman]

Originally Posted by SQL

https://www.biggestuscities.com/city/denver-colorado

The data seems to suggest a drop off from 1970 to 1990 (about a 9% decrease), but otherwise, growth for every other decade from 1950 up until 2015 (est.). Overall, there's been about a 64% increase in population since 1950, which significantly offsets that 9% decrease between 1970 and 1990. Therefore, even with a population decrease, the growth in the city has more than made up for it.

The urban core has surely seen some increase over time, but I'd bet that some of the surrounding areas in the metro have grown at a much higher rate. Think of all the areas around the metro that didn't hardly exist 10-20 years ago that do now. That's all I'm saying.

The decline was much more substantial than 9% in the area outlined in the 50's map. Like almost all cities during the period of urban flight annexation more than doubled the size of the city of Denver and masked a lot of the decline (the last major annexation being in the 80's for DIA).

If by higher growth rate in surrounding areas you mean areas that went from greenfield to having housing, in that circumstance yes the growth rate in the urban core is less because you're going from virtually nothing (ranchland) to having a subdivision. If you're talking about city or county level growth (or areas with relatively static borders) then Denver (central especially) is near the top -if not the top- of just about any list in terms of rate since the 00's.

Again Denver is getting nowhere near the total amount of growth, but Denver recently is back to capturing more than it's fair share of people moving here which it wasn't doing prior to the 2000's. That is due to a combination of substantial re-densification of the core, brownfield development in Stapleton, and the ongoing greenfield development of areas like GVR.

[SQL]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Of course the surrounding areas have grown at a faster rate. There were literally zero people in many of those areas.

That was my point. They are growing at a rapid rate BECAUSE a good chunk of people are moving there.

People are moving out to these areas for a reason. My theory is that lack of inventory and COL has a lot to do with that. Why buy a dated, small bungalow in Baker or Platt Park for over half a million when you can buy a brand new, larger home with a yard in Parker or Green Valley for ~$300k? I think a lot of people have chosen that path, at least a lot of people I know. As a first time buyer, I chose to buy outside the urban core EXACTLY for this reason. I bought an affordable, newer condo rather than a tiny fixer-upper SFH in the urban core areas and surrounding areas that were going easily for a $250k or more. The upside is that I only live about 8 miles from downtown, so at least I didn't choose to move too far out there..

[SQL]

Originally Posted by robertgoodman

If by higher growth rate in surrounding areas you mean areas that went from greenfield to having housing, in that circumstance yes the growth rate in the urban core is less because you're going from virtually nothing (ranchland) to having a subdivision.

I'm saying that I think the lack of density in the urban core relative to the 1950s (at least according to the article) has to do with people choosing to live in those blossoming areas instead. Why? Not exactly sure, but my educated guess would be because of lack of inventory and COL. You get more bang for your buck in these blossoming areas.

[robertgoodman]

Originally Posted by SQL

That was my point.

People are moving out to these areas for a reason. My theory is that lack of inventory and COL has a lot to do with that. Why buy a dated, small bungalow in Baker for over half a million when you can buy a brand new, larger home with a yard in Parker or Green Valley for ~$300k? I think a lot of people have chosen that path, at least a lot of people I know.

A lot of people I know have chosen the older bungalow, or a new towhouse, to continue renting, etc. It's anecdotal on both ends.

But the numbers continue show growth in the central areas and for everyone that moves out because of COL more than one are moving in because of desirability.

[BenCG]

Interesting map. Thanks for sharing!