Could Fort Collins merge with the Metro area of Denver in the future? (Pueblo: cul-de-sac, health insurance)
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.
Colorado already seems to have very aggressive urban growth boundary regulations.
What regulations? Can you give a link? Boulder is the only place in Colorado that has any type of Urban Growth Boundary Regulations, that I can find. Except for the open space areas, mostly up in the foothills, I know of no regulations that would prevent uninterrupted growth along the I-25 corridor. As a matter of fact Colorado's policies have always seemed to be to promote as much growth as possible. Develop, develop, develop, like growth will somehow solve problems. Which of course, just the opposite is true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2colo
If you travel to Dallas-Fort Worth, Phoenix, Atlanta, or Las Vegas you will see how the surburbs NEVER end. You will enter an area that looks like it rural only to be greeted by a large strip mall, homes where if you stick your head out of your window you'll be in your neighbors kitchen, and roads that are in the process of being doubled in width.
Driving around the Front Range, with the exception of Greeley, I have not seen that type of developing occurring.
Nobody here said that the Front Range is at the point of what DFW, Vegas, or Phoenix is. The question of this thread is, will it get to that point in the future? I think the answer is clearly, yes. Unless something happens fast to chance it. You mention Greeley, what about Aurora and Broomfield? Aurora has got the be one of the best examples of wacko out of control growth in the country.
Also you are aware that just a few decades ago, Littleton, Aurora, Golden, and Arvada were all small isolated towns completely surrounded by farm land, right? Now they are part of the continuous development of the Denver Metro Area. So now the question is, what will prevent the continued process of other Front Range communities from growing together, and merging with the Denver Metro Area?
Also you are aware that just a few decades ago, Littleton, Aurora, Golden, and Arvada were all small isolated towns completely surrounded by farm land, right? Now they are part of the continuous development of the Denver Metro Area. So now the question is, what will prevent the continued process of other Front Range communities from growing together, and merging with the Denver Metro Area?
It was more than a few decades ago that these areas all merged to become part of Denver metro. We came here in 1980, and these communities were already part of the metro, and not small isolated towns completely surrounded by farmland. Aurora has a contiguous boundary to Denver. Arvada is just north and west of the Denver city limits; to its south is Wheat Ridge which has a contiguous border with Denver on Denver's west side. Littleton is just south of Englewood which is contiguous with Denver on the south end, and Golden, while farther out, is contiguous with Lakewood which is contiguous with Denver.
It was probably 1950 or earlier when these areas were isolated little towns.
It was more than a few decades ago that these areas all merged to become part of Denver metro. We came here in 1980, and these communities were already part of the metro, and not small isolated towns completely surrounded by farmland. Aurora has a contiguous boundary to Denver. Arvada is just north and west of the Denver city limits; to its south is Wheat Ridge which has a contiguous border with Denver on Denver's west side. Littleton is just south of Englewood which is contiguous with Denver on the south end, and Golden, while farther out, is contiguous with Lakewood which is contiguous with Denver.
It was probably 1950 or earlier when these areas were isolated little towns.
Actually more like 1960s. For example the boundaries of Littleton and Englewood touched for the first time in about 1962. Thats when Littleton changed their street address system and adapted the Denver Metro address system. Thats less then 50 years ago.
But I can give you more recent examples. I lived in Denver from the 1970s - 1990s. So I'll use the 1970s as an example. In the 70s County Line Road was just 2 lanes wide (C-470 didn't exist). There were open fields and no development on both sides of it for miles. Today not only do you have the freeway there, but you have over 25,000 homes to the south in Highlands Ranch. What was nothing but ranch land then.
In the 1970s Broomfield, Lafayette, and Louisville were still isolated small towns, with at least two miles of open fields in every direction. Today Lafayette and Louisville have a bit of open space park land around them, but not that much. Broomfield is clearly continuous with Metro Denver. And that is less then 40 years ago.
In 40 years from now, a lot more towns will have merged into the Denver Metro Area. Fort Collins may take a bit more time, but it will happen eventually.
The only thing that could prevent it from happening, would be Colorado adapting an anti-growth policy of urban growth boundaries. I don't see that ever happening, and if it does it will be way too late to stop it anyway.
There was once talk of urban growth management in Colorado. In 2000, voters supported legislation until they got bombarded by the most expensive advertising campaign in the history of the state, ironically (I'll explain why) funded by the Realtors.
Fast forward to 2008, 9, 10, and politicians in places like Weld County and Loveland speak of having one urban area stretching from the Springs to Fort Collins. They say I-25 is the "main street" of Northern Colorado and should be totally built out. This was once the scenario we wanted to avoid, all of a sudden it's the vision ...
I would like to clear up urban growth management is not ANTI-GROWTH, it is about efficient land use, livable communities, and open spaces separating them. It is not growth caps like Boulder and Golden. In fact, statewide growth management usually REQUIRES that cities and counties provide enough land for future job and population growth - it just requires that we think intelligently about how to do this while maintaining our quality of life, working lands and habitat. IMO, any cities that call themselves "pro-growth" actually oppose anything that isn't a strip mall, office park or single-family subdivision.
Quote:
Originally Posted by new2colo
Colorado already seems to have very aggressive urban growth boundary regulations.
I wish it were so. This state has almost no regulations.
Boulder County has adopted growth management, with the city of Boulder taking this to an extreme and letting their population pressure sprawl out into Erie, etc. (A case of not taking the thoughtful approach that state growth management would require). Larimer county has also done so, but really only Fort Collins is serious about management. The problem, I think, is that so much of the I-25 corridor is in Weld County and these small towns where the mayor wants to make a buck and is easily impressed.
The recession has stalled most new development. Perhaps as we pull out of it, we can come back to looking at state legislation. Otherwise I would guess we'll have suburban sprawl as far north as people are willing to commute, with just a little open space buffer near Fort Collins.
Excellent post. Well said, too, about urban growth management. People often miss the fact that cities will blindly push in one direction without considering other alternatives. It's kind of like the argument that people prefer cars to public transit in areas that have few public transit options but could.
Quote:
Originally Posted by docwatson
There was once talk of urban growth management in Colorado. In 2000, voters supported legislation until they got bombarded by the most expensive advertising campaign in the history of the state, ironically (I'll explain why) funded by the Realtors.
Fast forward to 2008, 9, 10, and politicians in places like Weld County and Loveland speak of having one urban area stretching from the Springs to Fort Collins. They say I-25 is the "main street" of Northern Colorado and should be totally built out. This was once the scenario we wanted to avoid, all of a sudden it's the vision ...
I would like to clear up urban growth management is not ANTI-GROWTH, it is about efficient land use, livable communities, and open spaces separating them. It is not growth caps like Boulder and Golden. In fact, statewide growth management usually REQUIRES that cities and counties provide enough land for future job and population growth - it just requires that we think intelligently about how to do this while maintaining our quality of life, working lands and habitat. IMO, any cities that call themselves "pro-growth" actually oppose anything that isn't a strip mall, office park or single-family subdivision.
I wish it were so. This state has almost no regulations.
Boulder County has adopted growth management, with the city of Boulder taking this to an extreme and letting their population pressure sprawl out into Erie, etc. (A case of not taking the thoughtful approach that state growth management would require). Larimer county has also done so, but really only Fort Collins is serious about management. The problem, I think, is that so much of the I-25 corridor is in Weld County and these small towns where the mayor wants to make a buck and is easily impressed.
The recession has stalled most new development. Perhaps as we pull out of it, we can come back to looking at state legislation. Otherwise I would guess we'll have suburban sprawl as far north as people are willing to commute, with just a little open space buffer near Fort Collins.
What regulations? Can you give a link? Boulder is the only place in Colorado that has any type of Urban Growth Boundary Regulations, that I can find. Except for the open space areas, mostly up in the foothills, I know of no regulations that would prevent uninterrupted growth along the I-25 corridor. As a matter of fact Colorado's policies have always seemed to be to promote as much growth as possible. Develop, develop, develop, like growth will somehow solve problems. Which of course, just the opposite is true.
Boulder has the Danish plan, which effectively limits new construction. That's something unique to Boulder that won't be replicated in other cities.
Growth Management Areas (GMAs) are not uncommon among other Colorado cities, however. Fort Collins is an example of a city operating with a GMA.
People already make the commute. But if population grows enough to make Fort Collins an exurb of Denver, traffic would be so bad as to make the drive nearly impossible. High speed commuter rail could make it doable.
I used to work in Irvine with several people who commuted from the far IE (Moreno Vally, Fontana, San B.) and I thought they were insane. I couldn't stand driving from Orange to Irvine! I would imagine there are people insane enough to drive from FC to Denver.
Ah, Danish. To me this says a lot. The guy is super pro-war, an editor for Soldier of Fortune, yet many Boulderites love him b/c he is anti-growth.
Good point distinguishing between growth boundaries and the Danish Plan, the latter of which essentially prevented the market from meeting new housing demand, while doing little to ensure what got built was sustainable or compact.
I know Larimer County and Boulder county both have GMA's. Do other areas in the Denver Metro?
IMO, GMA's need to be coupled with smart growth, otherwise you just fill up the GMA with sprawl and then you're back where you started - sprawling but with pressure for more growth, but with less open space.
I would guess social and economic forces, not government, largely determines whether we'll grow. I believe what we can choose is how we grow, and if we do it in a smart manner. When we try to use local policy to "stop growth," like Boulder did, we just push it to the next community or the next open field beyond your city's control ... I believe we need "smart growth" to be distinguished from the traditional pro-growth (make a buck off of sprawl) and anti-growth (I got mine, now pull up the drawbridge) camps.
Smart growth is the idea behind Portland, OR. I think it becomes difficult to communicate this sometimes because it takes acceptance that living in a well-planned, culturally rich city can be a good thing. For years we Americans have been fed a narrative that cities are evil, that the countryside is good, and therefore we should turn the countryside into suburbs in order to escape the city ...
Last edited by docwatson; 11-15-2010 at 11:06 PM..
Smart growth is the idea behind Portland, OR. I think it becomes difficult to communicate this sometimes because it takes acceptance that living in a well-planned, culturally rich city can be a good thing. For years we Americans have been fed a narrative that cities are evil, that the countryside is good, and therefore we should turn the countryside into suburbs in order to escape the city ...
Can you accept that many people simply do not want to live in a big city? All these "smart growth" people think everyone should live in a $500k 1000sf high rise condo.
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.
