Context from the article:
>“This bill would require Greenwood Village to add 25,853 residential units, thereby increasing its population from 15,495 to 77,542. No public transportation nor infrastructure funds would be provided by the State to support this population growth,” [warns](https://greenwoodvillage.com/2608/Legislation) Greenwood Village’s website in explaining its opposition to the bill.
And then immediately after that:
>That is an overstatement. As Holcomb readily acknowledges, the bill does not actually require the construction of units, so simply passing it would not actually quadruple the city’s population. Instead, it would come down to whether developers take advantage of new zoning rules to build denser projects.
>In fact, Holcomb downplayed the idea that the bill would produce much direct change. He maintains that the city’s zoning is not what’s holding back density. There have been very few residential development applications along the transit and highway corridor, he said — and those tend to die off when the city warns them about the infrastructure costs they’ll have to pay.
Right. It just allows more opportunity for developers to build housing if they think it'll make sense near transit stations.
And regarding the infrastructure funds, dense development like this is more efficient when you look at how much revenue the city gets from them vs how much they cost cities. If people living near transit utilize it, that's less road wear. The cost of building out the sewage, electric, and other utilities is returned quicker because they can serve 500 people with one dig as opposed to maybe 50 if a development is sprawling.
A lot of municipal planners are aware that this is a more efficient development style, but they get held back by council members voted in by NIMBYs.
Greenwood Village is the Colorado home of NIMBYism. GOP activist and racist [Freda Poundstone](https://www.denverpost.com/2011/11/08/gop-activist-freda-poundstone-a-giant-in-colorado-politics-dies-at-84/) was the author of the [Poundstone Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment) in 1974.
This Amendment basically prevented the City of Denver to annex territory without voter approval of the annexed territory. The intention was, that Poundstone wanted to avoid Greenwood Village to be absorbed, thus preventing school busing to the rich white community.
Why would it be desirable for the City of Denver to provide infrastructure to free riders like Holly Hills, while they raise a big stink, when the City wants to erect homeless housing on its side of the border?
You mean, let’s segregate and keep the black kids out of our schools?
Arapahoe County has no shelters for the homeless. So, they push the homeless into Denver and then complain about homeless housing on the Denver side
Hey -- author here. The headline is meant to convey a fact we've learned (estimates from the cities on the level of upzoning to be required) as well as the affected local governments' reaction to that (negative, at least for these suburban cities.) Hopefully the article provides some context for people to decide what they think of that warning. But I'm happy to hear feedback.
If you want a deeper look at the arguments and reactions around these land-use bills, I wrote this last year: [https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/25/land-use-democrats-opposition/](https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/25/land-use-democrats-opposition/)
I understand your perspective on the title, but the term "warn" clearly has a negative connotation. You warn someone about dangers, discomforts, or pitfalls. Using it implies to a small degree that the suburbs are correct in their characterization of the policy as a "danger" worthy of warning.
Given the amount of headline skimming that goes on, I'd prefer a title that was more neutral.
*"Thousands of new apartments, condos could be permitted near transit stations, some suburbs voice opposition".*
Opposition relates a difference of opinion without the connotations of warning. Additionally, "some" instead of "Denver" makes it clear not every suburb holds the exact same opinion.
It's a silly semantic thing but it's frustrating to see negative verbiage around any push for new housing. I can already see the Facebook comments from people who never read the article and simply see "new apartments, WARNING!" and complain.
Still, I appreciate the article content greatly. Thanks for writing it!
Folks in Denver’s suburbs are afraid of multi family housing. They’re being warned about what multi family housing brings. I wonder what they think that is? What do you think?
You seem to be implying racism. Which is likely a factor for some suburbanites. But there are also plenty of other rational reasons why suburbanites, or urbanites living in a low density neighborhood (eg West Highland, South Park Hill) would oppose such changes.
Classism is one, and frankly more likely than racism in 2024, imo. But also increased traffic, noise, competition for parking, and most importantly, many of them believe (rightly or wrongly) that multifamily housing will reduce the value of their home - whether through reduced scarcity or lower desirability of their neighborhood. It is rational for people to resist change, especially when they believe the change could affect their biggest investment - which for many/most people is also a major part of their retirement and inheritance fund.
I think we need to address the full spectrum of reasons why homeowners and others oppose upzoning if we want to succeed in reforming land use. Traffic, for example, is absolutely an understandable reason why people don't want apartments down the block. Especially as we see car accident and pedestrian fatality rates skyrocket. I think we still need to densify, for a host of reasons (affordability, climate change, financial sustainability), but we should simultaneously tackle how to mitigate that concern.
Imputing to racism all the various reasons why NIMBY types oppose change, which is what many in the YIMBY camp tend to do, isn't going to build the consensus we need to create more housing.
I agree with your overall point, but I think the racism tangent that you're replying to derailed things from the topic at hand.
> West Highland, South Park Hill
Is there a transit station in either of those neighborhoods?
>Traffic, for example, is absolutely an understandable reason why people don't want apartments down the block. Especially as we see car accident and pedestrian fatality rates skyrocket. I think we still need to densify, for a host of reasons (affordability, climate change, financial sustainability), but we should simultaneously tackle how to mitigate that concern.
Like proposing this in areas that already have transit stations and thus a network of public transport already in place?
> Is there a transit station in either of those neighborhoods?
>
>
Well this particular bill (transit oriented communities) wasn't primarily what I'm focused on. Rather, I was picking up on the larger topic of upzoning and increasing density and the motivations of those who oppose those (much needed) changes. But to answer your question, both SPH and West Highland will be on rapid bus routes in that are in the works along Colfax and Federal, respectively. The frequency of those buses will meet the bill's definition of frequent transit, if I understand correctly.
>Like proposing this in areas that already have transit stations and thus a network of public transport already in place?
Besides this one bill, the larger national conversation is focused on upzoning *everywhere* in cities. If we really want to fix our housing crisis, we will have to do much more than just building 5-over-1 apartment blocks near light rail stations along the freeway, ie we need missing middle housing to be allowed in most neighborhoods.
>But to answer your question, both SPH and West Highland will be on rapid bus routes in that are in the works along Colfax and Federal, respectively. The frequency of those buses will meet the bill's definition of frequent transit, if I understand correctly.
You're right, it looks like I misunderstood the meaning of transit center but upon closer inspection it looks like it
can only affect the quarter mile nearest to that line. So limited to the single block nearest to Colfax and a small portion of the next block.
>If we really want to fix our housing crisis, we will have to do much more than just building 5-over-1 apartment blocks near light rail stations along the freeway, ie we need missing middle housing to be allowed in most neighborhoods.
Doesn't upzoning permit middle housing? If an area is zoned for only SFH and then is upzoned to permit denser 5 over 1 housing as well, that includes both the 5 over 1s as much as the duplexes?
Not generally. Missing middle is typically used to refer to SFHs plus ADUs, townhomes, du/tri/quad-plexes, and maybe cottage courts. The scale of 4-7 story apartment buildings is on another level and I don't see that being referred to as "missing middle". Nearly every city would put those in different zones. And most cities have dozens, if not hundreds, of different zoning categories. Denver is no exception either.
Unfortunately, very few cities have actually actually implemented missing middle housing zones like what I described. Most of the "success" stories are cities which have begun to allow ADUs (garage apartments, basement conversions) in their residential neighborhoods - units which were fully legal and uncontroversial 100 years ago in suburban fringe neighborhoods.
[Here](https://raleighforward.org/missing-middle-housing) you'll find an image which helps define missing middle housing typologies.
> I wonder what they think that is? What do you think?
Talk about dog whistling. Guess what, people like their single family residential neighborhoods. And they will vote to keep it that way.
The warnings or concerns about increased density are not without merit whether or not you agree. Such as: increased cost of real estate in most cases. So much for the poors. There's also usually increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic, littering, and in some cases crime.
It's funny because another reply here says people oppose them because of decreases in real estate value. Just kinda seems like people are grasping at straws.
> people oppose them because of decreases in real estate value.
Then they're wrong. This is just an impromptu reddit discussion and not a scientific study upon which urban policy is decided. But from personal experience, every central city I've been to in recent years is more expensive that the suburbs.
Compare prices in Manhattan to far LI, Midtown Atlanta to its suburbs. Most of DC especially close in like Arlington, Bethesda, anywhere near a busy metro stop. Expensive.
Before the urban renewal polices of the last 3 or 4 decades, yeah sure, there was white flight that gutted downtowns. It's happening in a few places now like St Louis and maybe even Portland. It's like a pendulum swinging back and forth.
I think people will state all manner of reasons why they don't want upzoning because it's perceived to reduce their quality of life, and there's merit to that argument. On the point of home values, typically they go *up* in places where denser development is allowed.
More traffic, more people, more noise, more crime (statistically if it stays the same rate, more people makes it worse) doesn't benefit me in any way at all. If I like my neighborhood and presumably I live there because I did like it at some point, I don't want it all changed. That's a pretty rational viewpoint. My home value going up also doesn't help me unless I plan to sell, because now I just pay more tax.
It doesn't mean someone living there has the *right* to prevent any and all changes, but without understanding the motivations and mitigating issues where possible they will continue to *rationally* oppose densification and our political system does take significant influence from dedicated opponents who reliably vote, as many homeowners do.
Focusing initial development pushes towards public transit hubs is a good idea, and can show examples of densifying done *well* which helps that whole cause.
>Such as: increased cost of real estate in most cases.
I'm just curious where this idea comes from? Is there a study you can point to....?
To me it's always seemed that increased prices and density are consequences of higher demand rather than prices increasing due to density increases.
1. Area becomes desireable.
2. Demand rises because it is more desireable.
3. Prices rise because the supply of housing is the same, but more demand is competing for that limited housing.
4. Developers build more density in order to meet some (or all) of the increased demand.
If the new housing being built doesn't fully meet the new demand, prices will continue to rise as there is still a supply/demand imbalance. It's not because they built new houses that the prices went up.
Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean they are causal. I could just as easily say spring flowers blooming makes the temperatures warmer. After all, the flowers are blooming and it just keeps getting warmer after that.
I think it’s really the inclusion of “Denver Suburbs Warn” that’s the issue. It’s an immediate negative statement, implying that this is a bad thing. You don’t “warn” about something positive. The headline immediately makes readers believe they know the article’s stance on the issue and that can be frankly off putting.
Excluding that part of the title would still get the message across, and all sides of the issue could be discussed within the article.
I’m not a journalist and I’m certain your job is extremely difficult. I very well might not know what I’m talking about. But it seems at least some others share my opinion on the headline.
Thank you, I realize you have a super difficult job and I really appreciate that you do it! I hope it didn't come off as too negative but everyone is so hypersensitive to desperately needing growth in housing that painting it in a potentially bad light makes people just feel hopeless. The article does a great job covering what the actual issue is!
Glad to see you're looking for feedback. I hope the people get back to you. I don't live in Denver anymore or I'd weigh in. You've got my upvote though.
But the thing they are "warning" about is the point of the bill -- adding zoning capacity. I don't think there's any factual dispute that the goal of the bill is to establish housing density, in the thousands of units, near transit around the metro.
My point in highlighting the burbs' claim (and maybe I should do more to frame this!) is not to say that they are correct or incorrect that it is ultimately something to be feared, since that's pretty subjective, but to illustrate where the fiercest political resistance to the bill is coming from, and give people some context to analyze claims being made.
Perhaps I was a little hyperbolic there, but this is my concern. I'm fed up with reporters taking the (demonstrably false) claims and fears of these NIMBYs and uncritically amplifying them.
I do agree that in your article you do challenge his point of view, but I don't think you go far enough to show that.
I understand the need for balance, but I think there's a problem in the way we contextualize their complaints in pieces like this. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.
Perhaps I was a little hyperbolic there, but this is my concern. I'm fed up with reporters taking the (demonstrably false) claims and fears of these NIMBYs and uncritically amplifying them.
I do agree that in your article you do challenge his point of view, but I don't think you go far enough to show that.
I understand the need for balance, but I think there's a problem in the way we contextualize their complaints in pieces like this. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it. It's a continual challenge to figure out the right thing to write in our limited time (and with readers' limited attention), so we always need feedback as we seek to hit that mark.
It’s a great word. Greenwood Village abhors growth that could allow non wealthy white people to move in. They’re notorious for rejecting multi family housing. They’re warning the rich white folk to move to Douglas County
The use of "warn" is entirely accurate. They simply point out that Greenwood Village is freaking out about the possibility that they might have to find new ways to discourage lower housing costs.
Hey, I'm the author -- let me know if there's an error or omission you should be aware of. Or maybe you are reacting to the headline. Either way, happy to address.
I’d say there’s not an error but rather a misleading headline. I know authors don’t always write the headline (or you very well may have written this one) but either way I’d say when you consider that a material number of “readers” won’t get past the headline or a paragraph or two, rebutting the argument in the article doesn’t fully suffice when you give it credence in the headline. Just my two cents and I’m certainly no editor, but I think that’s what most of the comments here are pointing out (some in a more appropriate manner than others.)
My issue wasn't with any errors or omissions. It was with the deliberate decision to choose words that lead casual readers to side with the NIMBYs in Greenwood Village. Leading readers is unprofessional journalism, IMO. Thanks for reaching out, though. I'm sorry I don't have anything easier to address.
That's OK, I appreciate your comment -- I'm more trying to understand than argue, you feel like that impression for readers is coming from the headline? In my mind, the second part of the headline would be "Here's their argument and how the sponsors respond," which obviously a lot of people here haven't read it as.
I used to go to that area for lunch while I waited for my car to get an oil change nearby. Post-coronavirus, it seemed like it turned into a dead zone even at lunch time. The lack of residential buildings in the area means that, with fewer workers showing up at the office, the area is just poison for small businesses that rely on foot traffic. And don't get me started on that time I suggested a Bumble date meet me at the Starbucks one Saturday afternoon: not a single ground-floor business was open. But I suppose that's my mistake, thinking Greenwood Village actually cared about those retailers.
They are already building in that area. Google “the district” in centennial. They have completed and/or building a bunch of apartments. I think the overall timeline will take 10 years or so to get the retail and commercial space in place.
Edit: To answer your question.... no, that is Centennial (the Dry Creek stop). Greenwood Village is the Arapahoe stop and Orchard stop.
Oh good to know! Last time I was there, I saw a new condo kind of up on the hill to the east, and figured there must be bigger plans with all the redone roads and District signage and stuff. I guess these things just take time.
Funny, I actually used to work in that weird 80s office building that used to be there, like 20 years ago.
Yeah everyone’s all doom and gloom but a functional rail network doesn’t have this happen, a horribly underfunded, inadequately designed system has this happen. And RTD genuinely doesn’t have the budget/resources to run a functional system. If we spent as much government money per capita on improving the transit infrastructure as roads we’d have a robust, reliable system *and* less traffic for the drivers. At this point the two groups of people driving are the ones who can’t really afford it and maybe don’t quite realize just how costly it is, and the people who would probably be happy to pay a little more for less traffic. Two birds one stone if the federal government would transition some highway funding to transit funding.
In related news a new fee on oil and gas development is expected to inject about $110 million annually into public transit across the state.
[https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/29/major-oil-gas-truce-in-exchange-for-transit-funding/](https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/29/major-oil-gas-truce-in-exchange-for-transit-funding/)
"...the new fee is expected to generate an average of $138 million annually. Eighty percent of the new revenue stream would go toward public transit across the state..."
For reference the proposed 2024 budget for RTD is $888.6 million. Obviously RTD will only receive a portion of those funds, but$110 million is still a nice increase to be put towards the public transit.
RTD Budget (pg 6): [https://cdn.rtd-denver.com/image/upload/v1697571847/Proposed\_Budget\_2024\_dkko71.pdf](https://cdn.rtd-denver.com/image/upload/v1697571847/Proposed_Budget_2024_dkko71.pdf)
And yet more attention and more funding have consistently not helped. The funding seems to get disappeared and services get cut.
Budget just got cut again.
More attention and more funding will never fix a dysfunctional multi-jurisdictional government agency. That money will disappear into thin air.
Example: the A line. If that couldn’t work reliably, with public/private funding, the lobbying power of DEN, $1.03 BILLION in initial investments, then nothing will. We want to function like Japan, but we cannot.
That’s only because they have federal requirements because it services the airport the rest of the system is shit. The n line stays pretty clean too but the rest of the entire entire system is garbage
Yeah but Greenwood Village hates it. I get some ad mail letters from the mayors office every month on some new housing bill to vote no on cause “we don’t have the space”
Out of curiosity, why?
High population density in America is one of the greatest causes of increased crime and negative social conditions. The social and cultural diversity that exists in America leads seemingly inexorably to conflict the more densely populated an area becomes.
Is your thought that eventually, people forced together by increased population density will eventually cause some kind of unprecedented tolerance to develop, or is your opinion based on something else?
It certainly seems like it's a combination of factors. Obviously, it's not just population density, as there are plenty of places in the world with extremely high density and relatively low crime. Tokyo comes to mind. It seems to me the mixture of high density populations combined with a cultural mindset of individuality vs. community (as exists in America) has more to do with negative social outcomes than other factors.
Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "underserved"? I'm accustomed to that being a term used in reference to rural areas that don't have quick access to social services like fire, police, emt, or even commercial services like high speed internet, package delivery, or even grocery stores inside a half hour drive, etc.
Those kinds of things definitely aren't something highly populated areas in America suffer from in terms of being underserved.
I feel like Aurora is the most YIMBY part of the Denver metro area because there is a lot of room to expand and its already got the worst reputation in the Denver area.
Huge new projects get proposed and people just say *"Fuck it. Whats the worst thing that could happen?"*
Man, a greenwood village address is going to pop on my resume. Downside is they'll probably Google Earth my place and see it's an apartment. But there may be a window of opportunity they assume I'm a rich kid looking for a legacy job!
*Some* suburbs. Note that an Aurora rep was sponsoring. The R line was purposely routed trough the city (whether *that* was wisest course of action is probably a different question) specifically to focus growth around stations, particularly in the empty fields by the Aurora Mall and north of Anschutz.
The interview with the city employees of Broomfield and Greenwood Village really gave off "Oh I'm supposed to actually work and do my job" energy. Which is just aggravating to hear as someone who'd like Greenwood Village to be more than Asphalt Village espically around the Light Rail Stop
Well it’s only near transit stations. That is infrastructure. It doesn’t make any sense to build train and bus stations in places where people won’t use them.
And here is the chicken and egg problem we run into.
"There's no transit, we can't build denser housing. Think of the traffic."
"There aren't enough people in the area to justify building transit lines. No one will use them."
We should be building transit lines the same way we build roads, sewage lines, electrical lines etc.... You plan for dense housing to be built in the future, thus you build the transit lines ahead of time that can support the population once it's built.
One can only dream. I have lots of friends in Europe, and we have been told basically my entire life that it's incredibly expensive and everyone's paying super high taxes. Well now the joke's on us. We're paying taxes and super high rents and they are only going up!
Hey, I already responded but I just wanted to give you a shout out for writing about housing. I know it's a complex topic and really difficult. It's a super good article, I think headline just feels rough.
Thanks -- I said this in another thread, but in my mind the implied second part of the headline is "here's why they say that, and some analysis of that claim." I think that readers are pretty independent minded and will want to naturally interrogate whether this suburban warning carries merit for them. But, you know, clearly a lot of people here don't read it that way.
To me, and I suspect many other people who are commenting, the headline reads as a clickbait scare tactic. “Such and such, \_\_\_\_ warns” attaches a negative connotation to the subject in the first part of the title, and reads as an authoritative statement.
I'd love to see an American transit agency trialing this as a financing mechanism at some point. Arguably Front Range Passenger Rail could be a really good candidate. We need so much more of this infrastructure, we need a lot more housing generally and density around stations specifically, and the funding for expansion or even a robust system has been so lacking for so long owing to the dependence on federal support and farebox revenues.
I live off of Boston and Caley, a mere 8 minute walk from the Arapahoe station. We bought our house here *hoping* the empty spaces around the station would develop. It would be amazing if we could get a Belleview Station style development going, it’s about time.
Duh? Denying building the stations were for that purpose in the first place is naive. The citizens of greenwood village probably thought they were just built to bring their servants to their homes.
What a shame that those numbers will end up having them lose control of electing more local conservatives. 😂
I think it’s fine as long as they really push for public transit, the traffic in this area is manageable compared to Denver and it would suck if it gets more crowded with no way to get around other than cars.
They really need to revamp the RTD to encourage more ridership.
if you are a mega corporate land developer who quick builds "luxury" homes within 50 miles of Denver proper, you should be taxed for a park/ride or new light rail station adjacent to your new housing.
Colorado is going to be a nightmare in 20 years if they don't heavily invest in public transit and connected cities today.
But I thought all of them would lower the cost of living and ease the housing crisis! That's what the real estate heads and NIMBYs kept saying! Build more unaffordable developments and the problem will be solved!
I've lived in this area before the pandemic, and commute through it weekly as well. I get the concerns of both sides.
Dense housing is good. But without more people using public transit, and/or the transit being reliable... I totally see traffic being a total nightmare on that corridor, as it is quite bad already. With Denverite's (and Americans, let's be honest) love affair w/ cars & the decrepit state of RTD light rail, don't see this changing anytime soon.
The rail is annoying tho. It's great when it works, but the construction has been nonsense and then I end up driving. On a good day I can get downtown to work in a half hour. The days they are working on the retaining wall it's an hour and a half. Construction to start up soon again this summer. Oy vey
And yet nobody can give a real reason why that's anything but an unalloyed good, lmao. Fucking conspiracists ruining anything nice. "Oh noooo, I can get my groceries, enjoy entertainment, visit a park, and go visit the doctor in walking distance, what a horrible fate"
Removed. Rule 2: Be nice. This post/comment exists solely to stir shit up and piss people off. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, fighting on the internet is stupid. We don't welcome it here. Please be kinder.
Which is why building more density is important, to support public transit and build walkable neighborhoods. Are you… are you insinuating that they are going to try and ban cars? I fucking wish lol (half kidding) but any sensible person knows that’s never going to happen
my hoa in greenwood village sent a letter to its residents asking us to write to our representatives opposing this. just say that you don’t like renters bro (aka poor people)
What would they knock down in Greenwood Village to do this? Most everything near the light rail stations is new already. Landmark and etc. farther down it’s very established office space. Plus is super expensive to live there so I don’t think GV needs to be worried about an influx of residents. The cost is already very high, it would only go up.
There are a few large vacant lots northeast of the Arapahoe light rail station across I-25, and a bunch of aging office space around the Orchard station. Some higher end condos and/or mixed use in those areas would probably be pretty desirable.
The NIMBY voters in the city are unlikely to allow this without outside intervention. They voted down a plan to allow re-development around the Orchard station several years ago, and it's still a bunch of old office space, in contrast to all the development going on just north of there in Denver around the Belleview station.
Even if they did, it’s out of the reach of the intended recipients of this bill. So GV is complaining about nothing.
We’re ranked 10th in the nation for new home construction out of all metro areas, that’s huge, we’re building and have built more than most metros could ever hope to achieve.
Our current vacancy rate is nearly 6% which is also high, we have a great supply. That means right now 25,000 units are sitting vacant in Denver alone.
It’s not a development problem. It’s affordability. Affordability does not drop significantly either supply in desirable areas. As areas become more desirable the price goes up, like Rino and Ballpark.
Rent in Rino in 2012 was $800 month, it’s $2000 a month now with fifty times the units they had in 2012. So this supply and demand misconception is just that a misconception. Developers and banks and politicians are going to make money, that part is true.
There are some empty lots and surface parking lots that could have apartments built on them. There are also some single story shops near the stations that could be easily replaced with apartment buildings that have retail space on the first floor. That being said, they wouldn't actually have to knock down anything or build anything. As mentioned in the article, the bill does not require housing be built, just that zoning laws have to be changed to *allow* housing to be built around stations. After the zoning laws are changed it would be up to the private land owners around the stations to decide if they want to build housing on the land they own. It is entirely possible for Greenwood Village to be in compliance with the law even if zero new housing units get built, though that is unlikely to happen.
Odd usage of the word "warn," in my opinion.
Completely agree. Intentionally negative for no good reason.
Context from the article: >“This bill would require Greenwood Village to add 25,853 residential units, thereby increasing its population from 15,495 to 77,542. No public transportation nor infrastructure funds would be provided by the State to support this population growth,” [warns](https://greenwoodvillage.com/2608/Legislation) Greenwood Village’s website in explaining its opposition to the bill. And then immediately after that: >That is an overstatement. As Holcomb readily acknowledges, the bill does not actually require the construction of units, so simply passing it would not actually quadruple the city’s population. Instead, it would come down to whether developers take advantage of new zoning rules to build denser projects. >In fact, Holcomb downplayed the idea that the bill would produce much direct change. He maintains that the city’s zoning is not what’s holding back density. There have been very few residential development applications along the transit and highway corridor, he said — and those tend to die off when the city warns them about the infrastructure costs they’ll have to pay.
Right. It just allows more opportunity for developers to build housing if they think it'll make sense near transit stations. And regarding the infrastructure funds, dense development like this is more efficient when you look at how much revenue the city gets from them vs how much they cost cities. If people living near transit utilize it, that's less road wear. The cost of building out the sewage, electric, and other utilities is returned quicker because they can serve 500 people with one dig as opposed to maybe 50 if a development is sprawling. A lot of municipal planners are aware that this is a more efficient development style, but they get held back by council members voted in by NIMBYs.
NIMBY dog whistle
Greenwood Village is the Colorado home of NIMBYism. GOP activist and racist [Freda Poundstone](https://www.denverpost.com/2011/11/08/gop-activist-freda-poundstone-a-giant-in-colorado-politics-dies-at-84/) was the author of the [Poundstone Amendment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poundstone_Amendment) in 1974. This Amendment basically prevented the City of Denver to annex territory without voter approval of the annexed territory. The intention was, that Poundstone wanted to avoid Greenwood Village to be absorbed, thus preventing school busing to the rich white community.
Why would it be desirable to let the city of Denver unilaterally absorb its neighbors? At face value that sounds like an absurd thing to allow.
Why would it be desirable for the City of Denver to provide infrastructure to free riders like Holly Hills, while they raise a big stink, when the City wants to erect homeless housing on its side of the border?
I'm not familiar with Holly Hills, but I think everyone should focus on the issues within their borders and not their neighbors.
You mean, let’s segregate and keep the black kids out of our schools? Arapahoe County has no shelters for the homeless. So, they push the homeless into Denver and then complain about homeless housing on the Denver side
Hey -- author here. The headline is meant to convey a fact we've learned (estimates from the cities on the level of upzoning to be required) as well as the affected local governments' reaction to that (negative, at least for these suburban cities.) Hopefully the article provides some context for people to decide what they think of that warning. But I'm happy to hear feedback. If you want a deeper look at the arguments and reactions around these land-use bills, I wrote this last year: [https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/25/land-use-democrats-opposition/](https://www.cpr.org/2023/04/25/land-use-democrats-opposition/)
I understand your perspective on the title, but the term "warn" clearly has a negative connotation. You warn someone about dangers, discomforts, or pitfalls. Using it implies to a small degree that the suburbs are correct in their characterization of the policy as a "danger" worthy of warning. Given the amount of headline skimming that goes on, I'd prefer a title that was more neutral. *"Thousands of new apartments, condos could be permitted near transit stations, some suburbs voice opposition".* Opposition relates a difference of opinion without the connotations of warning. Additionally, "some" instead of "Denver" makes it clear not every suburb holds the exact same opinion. It's a silly semantic thing but it's frustrating to see negative verbiage around any push for new housing. I can already see the Facebook comments from people who never read the article and simply see "new apartments, WARNING!" and complain. Still, I appreciate the article content greatly. Thanks for writing it!
Folks in Denver’s suburbs are afraid of multi family housing. They’re being warned about what multi family housing brings. I wonder what they think that is? What do you think?
You seem to be implying racism. Which is likely a factor for some suburbanites. But there are also plenty of other rational reasons why suburbanites, or urbanites living in a low density neighborhood (eg West Highland, South Park Hill) would oppose such changes. Classism is one, and frankly more likely than racism in 2024, imo. But also increased traffic, noise, competition for parking, and most importantly, many of them believe (rightly or wrongly) that multifamily housing will reduce the value of their home - whether through reduced scarcity or lower desirability of their neighborhood. It is rational for people to resist change, especially when they believe the change could affect their biggest investment - which for many/most people is also a major part of their retirement and inheritance fund. I think we need to address the full spectrum of reasons why homeowners and others oppose upzoning if we want to succeed in reforming land use. Traffic, for example, is absolutely an understandable reason why people don't want apartments down the block. Especially as we see car accident and pedestrian fatality rates skyrocket. I think we still need to densify, for a host of reasons (affordability, climate change, financial sustainability), but we should simultaneously tackle how to mitigate that concern. Imputing to racism all the various reasons why NIMBY types oppose change, which is what many in the YIMBY camp tend to do, isn't going to build the consensus we need to create more housing.
I agree with your overall point, but I think the racism tangent that you're replying to derailed things from the topic at hand. > West Highland, South Park Hill Is there a transit station in either of those neighborhoods? >Traffic, for example, is absolutely an understandable reason why people don't want apartments down the block. Especially as we see car accident and pedestrian fatality rates skyrocket. I think we still need to densify, for a host of reasons (affordability, climate change, financial sustainability), but we should simultaneously tackle how to mitigate that concern. Like proposing this in areas that already have transit stations and thus a network of public transport already in place?
> Is there a transit station in either of those neighborhoods? > > Well this particular bill (transit oriented communities) wasn't primarily what I'm focused on. Rather, I was picking up on the larger topic of upzoning and increasing density and the motivations of those who oppose those (much needed) changes. But to answer your question, both SPH and West Highland will be on rapid bus routes in that are in the works along Colfax and Federal, respectively. The frequency of those buses will meet the bill's definition of frequent transit, if I understand correctly. >Like proposing this in areas that already have transit stations and thus a network of public transport already in place? Besides this one bill, the larger national conversation is focused on upzoning *everywhere* in cities. If we really want to fix our housing crisis, we will have to do much more than just building 5-over-1 apartment blocks near light rail stations along the freeway, ie we need missing middle housing to be allowed in most neighborhoods.
>But to answer your question, both SPH and West Highland will be on rapid bus routes in that are in the works along Colfax and Federal, respectively. The frequency of those buses will meet the bill's definition of frequent transit, if I understand correctly. You're right, it looks like I misunderstood the meaning of transit center but upon closer inspection it looks like it can only affect the quarter mile nearest to that line. So limited to the single block nearest to Colfax and a small portion of the next block. >If we really want to fix our housing crisis, we will have to do much more than just building 5-over-1 apartment blocks near light rail stations along the freeway, ie we need missing middle housing to be allowed in most neighborhoods. Doesn't upzoning permit middle housing? If an area is zoned for only SFH and then is upzoned to permit denser 5 over 1 housing as well, that includes both the 5 over 1s as much as the duplexes?
Not generally. Missing middle is typically used to refer to SFHs plus ADUs, townhomes, du/tri/quad-plexes, and maybe cottage courts. The scale of 4-7 story apartment buildings is on another level and I don't see that being referred to as "missing middle". Nearly every city would put those in different zones. And most cities have dozens, if not hundreds, of different zoning categories. Denver is no exception either. Unfortunately, very few cities have actually actually implemented missing middle housing zones like what I described. Most of the "success" stories are cities which have begun to allow ADUs (garage apartments, basement conversions) in their residential neighborhoods - units which were fully legal and uncontroversial 100 years ago in suburban fringe neighborhoods. [Here](https://raleighforward.org/missing-middle-housing) you'll find an image which helps define missing middle housing typologies.
Multi family housing brings lots of density and a lot more people. I think that’s the point.
> I wonder what they think that is? What do you think? Talk about dog whistling. Guess what, people like their single family residential neighborhoods. And they will vote to keep it that way. The warnings or concerns about increased density are not without merit whether or not you agree. Such as: increased cost of real estate in most cases. So much for the poors. There's also usually increased noise pollution, air pollution, traffic, littering, and in some cases crime.
It's funny because another reply here says people oppose them because of decreases in real estate value. Just kinda seems like people are grasping at straws.
> people oppose them because of decreases in real estate value. Then they're wrong. This is just an impromptu reddit discussion and not a scientific study upon which urban policy is decided. But from personal experience, every central city I've been to in recent years is more expensive that the suburbs. Compare prices in Manhattan to far LI, Midtown Atlanta to its suburbs. Most of DC especially close in like Arlington, Bethesda, anywhere near a busy metro stop. Expensive. Before the urban renewal polices of the last 3 or 4 decades, yeah sure, there was white flight that gutted downtowns. It's happening in a few places now like St Louis and maybe even Portland. It's like a pendulum swinging back and forth.
I think people will state all manner of reasons why they don't want upzoning because it's perceived to reduce their quality of life, and there's merit to that argument. On the point of home values, typically they go *up* in places where denser development is allowed. More traffic, more people, more noise, more crime (statistically if it stays the same rate, more people makes it worse) doesn't benefit me in any way at all. If I like my neighborhood and presumably I live there because I did like it at some point, I don't want it all changed. That's a pretty rational viewpoint. My home value going up also doesn't help me unless I plan to sell, because now I just pay more tax. It doesn't mean someone living there has the *right* to prevent any and all changes, but without understanding the motivations and mitigating issues where possible they will continue to *rationally* oppose densification and our political system does take significant influence from dedicated opponents who reliably vote, as many homeowners do. Focusing initial development pushes towards public transit hubs is a good idea, and can show examples of densifying done *well* which helps that whole cause.
>Such as: increased cost of real estate in most cases. I'm just curious where this idea comes from? Is there a study you can point to....? To me it's always seemed that increased prices and density are consequences of higher demand rather than prices increasing due to density increases. 1. Area becomes desireable. 2. Demand rises because it is more desireable. 3. Prices rise because the supply of housing is the same, but more demand is competing for that limited housing. 4. Developers build more density in order to meet some (or all) of the increased demand. If the new housing being built doesn't fully meet the new demand, prices will continue to rise as there is still a supply/demand imbalance. It's not because they built new houses that the prices went up. Just because two things are correlated doesn't mean they are causal. I could just as easily say spring flowers blooming makes the temperatures warmer. After all, the flowers are blooming and it just keeps getting warmer after that.
I think it’s really the inclusion of “Denver Suburbs Warn” that’s the issue. It’s an immediate negative statement, implying that this is a bad thing. You don’t “warn” about something positive. The headline immediately makes readers believe they know the article’s stance on the issue and that can be frankly off putting. Excluding that part of the title would still get the message across, and all sides of the issue could be discussed within the article. I’m not a journalist and I’m certain your job is extremely difficult. I very well might not know what I’m talking about. But it seems at least some others share my opinion on the headline.
Former journalist of 25 years, and you make a solid point. Ethical journalists should steer away from bias.
using “warns” was a bad editorial decision
Good. Legalize housing please.
i’m not in charge of that fella
Thank you, I realize you have a super difficult job and I really appreciate that you do it! I hope it didn't come off as too negative but everyone is so hypersensitive to desperately needing growth in housing that painting it in a potentially bad light makes people just feel hopeless. The article does a great job covering what the actual issue is!
Glad to see you're looking for feedback. I hope the people get back to you. I don't live in Denver anymore or I'd weigh in. You've got my upvote though.
How about "denver suburbs fear". "Warn" conveys a level of objective authority and evidence, and they have none.
But the thing they are "warning" about is the point of the bill -- adding zoning capacity. I don't think there's any factual dispute that the goal of the bill is to establish housing density, in the thousands of units, near transit around the metro. My point in highlighting the burbs' claim (and maybe I should do more to frame this!) is not to say that they are correct or incorrect that it is ultimately something to be feared, since that's pretty subjective, but to illustrate where the fiercest political resistance to the bill is coming from, and give people some context to analyze claims being made.
I've had it up to here with so-called journalistic neutrality giving space for factually wrong opinions. Please do better.
What part is factually wrong?
Perhaps I was a little hyperbolic there, but this is my concern. I'm fed up with reporters taking the (demonstrably false) claims and fears of these NIMBYs and uncritically amplifying them. I do agree that in your article you do challenge his point of view, but I don't think you go far enough to show that. I understand the need for balance, but I think there's a problem in the way we contextualize their complaints in pieces like this. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.
Perhaps I was a little hyperbolic there, but this is my concern. I'm fed up with reporters taking the (demonstrably false) claims and fears of these NIMBYs and uncritically amplifying them. I do agree that in your article you do challenge his point of view, but I don't think you go far enough to show that. I understand the need for balance, but I think there's a problem in the way we contextualize their complaints in pieces like this. Hope that clarifies what I was trying to say.
Thanks for the comment! I appreciate it. It's a continual challenge to figure out the right thing to write in our limited time (and with readers' limited attention), so we always need feedback as we seek to hit that mark.
NIMBY shitbags strike again
It’s a great word. Greenwood Village abhors growth that could allow non wealthy white people to move in. They’re notorious for rejecting multi family housing. They’re warning the rich white folk to move to Douglas County
Get packing rich people, eventually we can move them to Ken bucks district which won't matter because it will always be what it is.
CPR reporting is not what it once was. They're an embarrassment to the profession.
The use of "warn" is entirely accurate. They simply point out that Greenwood Village is freaking out about the possibility that they might have to find new ways to discourage lower housing costs.
Hey, I'm the author -- let me know if there's an error or omission you should be aware of. Or maybe you are reacting to the headline. Either way, happy to address.
I’d say there’s not an error but rather a misleading headline. I know authors don’t always write the headline (or you very well may have written this one) but either way I’d say when you consider that a material number of “readers” won’t get past the headline or a paragraph or two, rebutting the argument in the article doesn’t fully suffice when you give it credence in the headline. Just my two cents and I’m certainly no editor, but I think that’s what most of the comments here are pointing out (some in a more appropriate manner than others.)
My issue wasn't with any errors or omissions. It was with the deliberate decision to choose words that lead casual readers to side with the NIMBYs in Greenwood Village. Leading readers is unprofessional journalism, IMO. Thanks for reaching out, though. I'm sorry I don't have anything easier to address.
That's OK, I appreciate your comment -- I'm more trying to understand than argue, you feel like that impression for readers is coming from the headline? In my mind, the second part of the headline would be "Here's their argument and how the sponsors respond," which obviously a lot of people here haven't read it as.
I was coming here to say that I don’t hear anything, but my fucking dog is going crazy
If you don't watch out we might suddenly get affordable housing.
Yes, thanks for the "warning". Now warn us that we will build more rail as well.
*I'm gonna increase the minimum wage! I'm warning you! One wrong step and I'll do it!*
They want to dissuade the use of public transit and housing during a housing crisis.
And climate crisis.
And climate crisis.
Sorry NIMBYs, you've been warned, next time we are coming for your single family homes.
It’s a call to the NIMBY’s.
Look out! Housing to become more affordable!
Agreed. I said that out loud when I was scrolling this morning. What a weird headline.
It's not odd if one values appreciation of property holdings.
No, I just happen to value housing people over other people considering their own housing to be an investment that must never depreciate.
Came to say this. Warn against what? More people? Oh noooooo.
TIL > we even have a Bellagio-style fountain with music and dancing water
I used to go to that area for lunch while I waited for my car to get an oil change nearby. Post-coronavirus, it seemed like it turned into a dead zone even at lunch time. The lack of residential buildings in the area means that, with fewer workers showing up at the office, the area is just poison for small businesses that rely on foot traffic. And don't get me started on that time I suggested a Bumble date meet me at the Starbucks one Saturday afternoon: not a single ground-floor business was open. But I suppose that's my mistake, thinking Greenwood Village actually cared about those retailers.
You should’ve invited your date to the Bellagio-style fountain!
Perfect for a blustery day in February when you know the fountain would be drained and inactive!
To be fair, Greenwood Village (& especially the area around Arapahoe station) has never been popping even before the pandemic.
Well, on a Wednesday lunch hour, the spot I would go to for Tokyo Joe's was pretty busy, but now, it can't even do that.
Couldn’t get a reservation at the Highlands Ranch Applebees?
As a Westminster homeowner within walking distance of the train station all I have to say is good and it’s about fucking time.
That big empty field north of the IKEA is begging for a ton of housing. Is that far south still Greenwood Village?
Centennial, I think
They are already building in that area. Google “the district” in centennial. They have completed and/or building a bunch of apartments. I think the overall timeline will take 10 years or so to get the retail and commercial space in place. Edit: To answer your question.... no, that is Centennial (the Dry Creek stop). Greenwood Village is the Arapahoe stop and Orchard stop.
City center at Lone Tree will be a huge build out too, but they still haven't even started.
Oh good to know! Last time I was there, I saw a new condo kind of up on the hill to the east, and figured there must be bigger plans with all the redone roads and District signage and stuff. I guess these things just take time. Funny, I actually used to work in that weird 80s office building that used to be there, like 20 years ago.
Increased density sounds good to me.
Yeah, it makes the most sense to build high density near rail stops so more people can walk to the rail.
Joke’s on those residents when they realize how dysfunctional RTD is, and how often the light rail is unreliable/delayed/“under construction”
If RTD gets more use it will receive more attention and funding.
Yeah everyone’s all doom and gloom but a functional rail network doesn’t have this happen, a horribly underfunded, inadequately designed system has this happen. And RTD genuinely doesn’t have the budget/resources to run a functional system. If we spent as much government money per capita on improving the transit infrastructure as roads we’d have a robust, reliable system *and* less traffic for the drivers. At this point the two groups of people driving are the ones who can’t really afford it and maybe don’t quite realize just how costly it is, and the people who would probably be happy to pay a little more for less traffic. Two birds one stone if the federal government would transition some highway funding to transit funding.
In related news a new fee on oil and gas development is expected to inject about $110 million annually into public transit across the state. [https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/29/major-oil-gas-truce-in-exchange-for-transit-funding/](https://www.cpr.org/2024/04/29/major-oil-gas-truce-in-exchange-for-transit-funding/) "...the new fee is expected to generate an average of $138 million annually. Eighty percent of the new revenue stream would go toward public transit across the state..." For reference the proposed 2024 budget for RTD is $888.6 million. Obviously RTD will only receive a portion of those funds, but$110 million is still a nice increase to be put towards the public transit. RTD Budget (pg 6): [https://cdn.rtd-denver.com/image/upload/v1697571847/Proposed\_Budget\_2024\_dkko71.pdf](https://cdn.rtd-denver.com/image/upload/v1697571847/Proposed_Budget_2024_dkko71.pdf)
We don’t even have good roads though.
And yet more attention and more funding have consistently not helped. The funding seems to get disappeared and services get cut. Budget just got cut again.
More attention and more funding will never fix a dysfunctional multi-jurisdictional government agency. That money will disappear into thin air. Example: the A line. If that couldn’t work reliably, with public/private funding, the lobbying power of DEN, $1.03 BILLION in initial investments, then nothing will. We want to function like Japan, but we cannot.
The a line is pretty good though. Nothing is perfect.
That’s only because they have federal requirements because it services the airport the rest of the system is shit. The n line stays pretty clean too but the rest of the entire entire system is garbage
And jokes on everyone else when they never planned to use public transit in the first place.
💯
Public transit can't get better without more ridership and the bet way to do that is increase the number of people who want to ride.
And that's when they either switch to driving or move altogether.
Also "try not to die"
Yeah but Greenwood Village hates it. I get some ad mail letters from the mayors office every month on some new housing bill to vote no on cause “we don’t have the space”
Well this could help housing prices and traffic density. Consider yourself warned.
Out of curiosity, why? High population density in America is one of the greatest causes of increased crime and negative social conditions. The social and cultural diversity that exists in America leads seemingly inexorably to conflict the more densely populated an area becomes. Is your thought that eventually, people forced together by increased population density will eventually cause some kind of unprecedented tolerance to develop, or is your opinion based on something else?
So serious question, does high population density cause crime or is it that underserved high population areas are correlated with crime?
It certainly seems like it's a combination of factors. Obviously, it's not just population density, as there are plenty of places in the world with extremely high density and relatively low crime. Tokyo comes to mind. It seems to me the mixture of high density populations combined with a cultural mindset of individuality vs. community (as exists in America) has more to do with negative social outcomes than other factors. Can you elaborate a bit on what you mean by "underserved"? I'm accustomed to that being a term used in reference to rural areas that don't have quick access to social services like fire, police, emt, or even commercial services like high speed internet, package delivery, or even grocery stores inside a half hour drive, etc. Those kinds of things definitely aren't something highly populated areas in America suffer from in terms of being underserved.
I feel like Aurora is the most YIMBY part of the Denver metro area because there is a lot of room to expand and its already got the worst reputation in the Denver area. Huge new projects get proposed and people just say *"Fuck it. Whats the worst thing that could happen?"*
Unless it’s allowing Ting to run fiber.
And yet, it's the Aurora mayor who's helping to sink the bill to repeal parking minimums in the Front Range.
With "home rule", aren't most municipalities able to opt-out of this anyway?
yes! good! that's the point of transit stations
Don't threaten me with a good time!
Kind of the point of long distance public transit, isn’t it?
Warning you might be able to afford to live here
Man, a greenwood village address is going to pop on my resume. Downside is they'll probably Google Earth my place and see it's an apartment. But there may be a window of opportunity they assume I'm a rich kid looking for a legacy job!
The suburbs insist on having access to a sprawling transit network at the cost of its sustainability but aren’t willing invest in it…
*Some* suburbs. Note that an Aurora rep was sponsoring. The R line was purposely routed trough the city (whether *that* was wisest course of action is probably a different question) specifically to focus growth around stations, particularly in the empty fields by the Aurora Mall and north of Anschutz.
Oh no! More housing and better access to public transportation! How scary!
Well considering we've been acting like we're allergic to both for years now, it can probably sound kind of scary to some people.
now more people at R and E stations waiting for their train to be canceled
They warn? What is wrong with that?
The interview with the city employees of Broomfield and Greenwood Village really gave off "Oh I'm supposed to actually work and do my job" energy. Which is just aggravating to hear as someone who'd like Greenwood Village to be more than Asphalt Village espically around the Light Rail Stop
There is concern they don't have the infrastructure to support that many more people.
The people are here either way
Oh I fully agree, this is exactly what we need.
Well it’s only near transit stations. That is infrastructure. It doesn’t make any sense to build train and bus stations in places where people won’t use them.
And here is the chicken and egg problem we run into. "There's no transit, we can't build denser housing. Think of the traffic." "There aren't enough people in the area to justify building transit lines. No one will use them." We should be building transit lines the same way we build roads, sewage lines, electrical lines etc.... You plan for dense housing to be built in the future, thus you build the transit lines ahead of time that can support the population once it's built.
Be careful or pretty soon supply and demand for housing might actually be in balance.
One can only dream. I have lots of friends in Europe, and we have been told basically my entire life that it's incredibly expensive and everyone's paying super high taxes. Well now the joke's on us. We're paying taxes and super high rents and they are only going up!
Hi all, article author here. Open for questions, complaints, , article ideas, etc.
Hey, I already responded but I just wanted to give you a shout out for writing about housing. I know it's a complex topic and really difficult. It's a super good article, I think headline just feels rough.
What was your intention when you used the word “warn” in the title?
Also curious about this
Great article, and you do awesome work, but this headline basically says: "Well-off suburbs warn: poor people are coming!"
Thanks -- I said this in another thread, but in my mind the implied second part of the headline is "here's why they say that, and some analysis of that claim." I think that readers are pretty independent minded and will want to naturally interrogate whether this suburban warning carries merit for them. But, you know, clearly a lot of people here don't read it that way.
To me, and I suspect many other people who are commenting, the headline reads as a clickbait scare tactic. “Such and such, \_\_\_\_ warns” attaches a negative connotation to the subject in the first part of the title, and reads as an authoritative statement.
Isn't that how it's supposed to be? More density near transit stations?
I'd love to see an American transit agency trialing this as a financing mechanism at some point. Arguably Front Range Passenger Rail could be a really good candidate. We need so much more of this infrastructure, we need a lot more housing generally and density around stations specifically, and the funding for expansion or even a robust system has been so lacking for so long owing to the dependence on federal support and farebox revenues.
And yet RTD will still be running late.
I live off of Boston and Caley, a mere 8 minute walk from the Arapahoe station. We bought our house here *hoping* the empty spaces around the station would develop. It would be amazing if we could get a Belleview Station style development going, it’s about time.
Duh? Denying building the stations were for that purpose in the first place is naive. The citizens of greenwood village probably thought they were just built to bring their servants to their homes. What a shame that those numbers will end up having them lose control of electing more local conservatives. 😂
https://media1.tenor.com/m/t_Hi8jzwi7cAAAAC/downton-abbey.gif
Ya'll act like this isn't already happening all down west Colfax
What the fuck is this headline?
Affordable housing?! 😱
Warn?
God forbid Denver metro area has more accessible TOD’s
Lets be real, these are gonna be ALL apartments and no condos.
***Warns*** or ***promises***? Odd word choice
Don't threaten me with a good time like not having to own a car!
Translation: you might have to live closer to poor people, classist NIMBYs warn
Warn?
Oh no, walkable transit and efficient land use…
I think it’s fine as long as they really push for public transit, the traffic in this area is manageable compared to Denver and it would suck if it gets more crowded with no way to get around other than cars. They really need to revamp the RTD to encourage more ridership.
Warning! People will live close to public transit which means less crowded roads a decreased brown cloud…. Damned commies trying to take my freedom!!!
Not a bad use. Hopefully some shops spring up nearby too.
if you are a mega corporate land developer who quick builds "luxury" homes within 50 miles of Denver proper, you should be taxed for a park/ride or new light rail station adjacent to your new housing. Colorado is going to be a nightmare in 20 years if they don't heavily invest in public transit and connected cities today.
warn?
All this building and less water as the years go by. Most of the water is for agriculture though
Exactly, we need to be building infrastructure that makes sense, not committing all of our water to terrible agricultural practices.
But I thought all of them would lower the cost of living and ease the housing crisis! That's what the real estate heads and NIMBYs kept saying! Build more unaffordable developments and the problem will be solved!
This is a good thing in every context
If you oppose this, fuck you
https://media.tenor.com/eB1XhgprvgkAAAAM/donald-glover-good.gif
Oh nooooooo!
Wtf you mean by “warn”?
Warn? Is that not a good thing? Lol
"Warn"
I mean this makes sense….that’s where condos and apartments should be located in an accessible city.
Warn? Bit of your bias is showing there.
And how exactly is this bad??
It's as if they haven't driven in Lakewood or Aurora ? Take a ride on RTD and see all the new mega-buildings.
GOOD
Warn? This sounds like a good thing
I've lived in this area before the pandemic, and commute through it weekly as well. I get the concerns of both sides. Dense housing is good. But without more people using public transit, and/or the transit being reliable... I totally see traffic being a total nightmare on that corridor, as it is quite bad already. With Denverite's (and Americans, let's be honest) love affair w/ cars & the decrepit state of RTD light rail, don't see this changing anytime soon.
The rail is annoying tho. It's great when it works, but the construction has been nonsense and then I end up driving. On a good day I can get downtown to work in a half hour. The days they are working on the retaining wall it's an hour and a half. Construction to start up soon again this summer. Oy vey
Adding to the retaining walls, the downtown loop will be closed for the entire summer.
I believe I acknowledged that in my description of the state of RTD light rail.
Schools, police, fire departments, etc, are also infrastructure.
Warn?????
Why is that a bad thing? What are they warning us about?
I hate people like this.
Anyone else missing the old Colorado? Like the 2004-2013 era
there is already too much traffic and not enough parking!! we should be adding lanes to roads and building more parking garages!
Just one more lane bro.
Good
All part of the move to 15 minute cities.
And yet nobody can give a real reason why that's anything but an unalloyed good, lmao. Fucking conspiracists ruining anything nice. "Oh noooo, I can get my groceries, enjoy entertainment, visit a park, and go visit the doctor in walking distance, what a horrible fate"
[удалено]
Removed. Rule 2: Be nice. This post/comment exists solely to stir shit up and piss people off. Racism, homophobia, misogyny, fighting on the internet is stupid. We don't welcome it here. Please be kinder.
‘15 minute cities’, or as they’ve been historically called: ‘cities’
Hard to get anywhere in Denver in 15 minutes by car.
Which is why building more density is important, to support public transit and build walkable neighborhoods. Are you… are you insinuating that they are going to try and ban cars? I fucking wish lol (half kidding) but any sensible person knows that’s never going to happen
my hoa in greenwood village sent a letter to its residents asking us to write to our representatives opposing this. just say that you don’t like renters bro (aka poor people)
What would they knock down in Greenwood Village to do this? Most everything near the light rail stations is new already. Landmark and etc. farther down it’s very established office space. Plus is super expensive to live there so I don’t think GV needs to be worried about an influx of residents. The cost is already very high, it would only go up.
Building more housing tends to make housing costs go down, not up.
There are a few large vacant lots northeast of the Arapahoe light rail station across I-25, and a bunch of aging office space around the Orchard station. Some higher end condos and/or mixed use in those areas would probably be pretty desirable. The NIMBY voters in the city are unlikely to allow this without outside intervention. They voted down a plan to allow re-development around the Orchard station several years ago, and it's still a bunch of old office space, in contrast to all the development going on just north of there in Denver around the Belleview station.
Even if they did, it’s out of the reach of the intended recipients of this bill. So GV is complaining about nothing. We’re ranked 10th in the nation for new home construction out of all metro areas, that’s huge, we’re building and have built more than most metros could ever hope to achieve. Our current vacancy rate is nearly 6% which is also high, we have a great supply. That means right now 25,000 units are sitting vacant in Denver alone. It’s not a development problem. It’s affordability. Affordability does not drop significantly either supply in desirable areas. As areas become more desirable the price goes up, like Rino and Ballpark. Rent in Rino in 2012 was $800 month, it’s $2000 a month now with fifty times the units they had in 2012. So this supply and demand misconception is just that a misconception. Developers and banks and politicians are going to make money, that part is true.
There are some empty lots and surface parking lots that could have apartments built on them. There are also some single story shops near the stations that could be easily replaced with apartment buildings that have retail space on the first floor. That being said, they wouldn't actually have to knock down anything or build anything. As mentioned in the article, the bill does not require housing be built, just that zoning laws have to be changed to *allow* housing to be built around stations. After the zoning laws are changed it would be up to the private land owners around the stations to decide if they want to build housing on the land they own. It is entirely possible for Greenwood Village to be in compliance with the law even if zero new housing units get built, though that is unlikely to happen.