Could Fort Collins merge with the Metro area of Denver in the future? (Aurora: mortgage, how much)

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

First I'd say that those neighborhoods are probably desirable in spite of the interstates that cut through them, not because of them. And I think it is a safe bet that Globeville will never recover from having hundreds of homes demolished and being bisected into four parts. The fact that there has been talk in recent years about rerouting I-70 around some of those Northeast Denver neighborhoods, I think is an acknowledgment that those neighborhoods were damaged by the construction of the interstate.

The point still stands that a lot of very walkable neighborhoods (places where people could live and walk to work) in Denver have been destroyed, over the last 50 years or so.

That said, I'm not impressed with this new urban crap either. To me they are just more typical suburban stye cookie cutter homes, minus parking and yards. Just a way for developers to maximize their profits by packing more homes into a smaller area.

I think in some of these cases, the interstate has redfined the borders of the neighborhoods. My daughter lived near DU; when the leaves were off the trees you could see the I-25 on-ramp from her bedroom. The neighborhood was very walkable. My nephew lived in Wash Park, ditto the walkability. There are numerous underpasses/overpasses on I-25 as well.

Walking to work depends on living very close to one's job. I don't know anyone who does that.

[KaaBoom]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I think in some of these cases, the interstate has redfined the borders of the neighborhoods. My daughter lived near DU; when the leaves were off the trees your could see the I-25 on-ramp from her bedroom. The neighborhood was very walkable. My nephew lived in Wash Park, ditto the walkability. There are numerous underpasses/overpasses on I-25 as well.

Walking to work depends on living very close to one's job. I don't know anyone who does that.

But thats the point. That is what neighborhoods like Globeville were about. People lived there and they worked there. Until the interstate construction put an end to it. Now you couldn't walk there, if you wanted to. Unless you wanted to risk you live jumping over a fence and running across all the lanes of I-25.

Auraria was the same. People lived in the neighborhood, and they walked to their jobs at the Tivoli Brewery everyday. Then the brewery closed, and the city decided it was time to redevelop. So they threw all the people out of their homes, and bulldozed the entire neighborhood. Then built the Auraria Campus.

The new urban crap like Stapleton, will never be able to recreate that. Because the people who live there will all have cars. So they can drive to their jobs Downtown, or where ever. It's just another glorified suburb. Except the residents have to fight with their neighbors for the limited number of parking spaces.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

But thats the point. That is what neighborhoods like Globeville were about. People lived there and they worked there. Until the interstate construction put an end to it. Now you couldn't walk there, if you wanted to. Unless you wanted to risk you live jumping over a fence and running across all the lanes of I-25.

Auraria was the same. People lived in the neighborhood, and they walked to their jobs at the Tivoli Brewery everyday. Then the brewery closed, and the city decided it was time to redevelop. So they threw all the people out of their homes, and bulldozed the entire neighborhood. Then built the Auraria Campus.

The new urban crap like Stapleton, will never be able to recreate that. Because the people who live there will all have cars. So they can drive to their jobs Downtown, or where ever. It's just another glorified suburb. Except the residents have to fight with their neighbors for the limited number of parking spaces.

Well, if the brewery closed, then I guess people couldn't walk to work at the brewery whether the Auraria campus was built or not. I am not a huge fan of urban renewal, but the Auraria campus is nice, and I don't think it's all that auto oriented. I have known people to take the RTD there from Louisville. Where do the students and staff park?

Where did people in Globeville work?

[woob]

Originally Posted by docwatson

1. Demolish downtowns (like most of Denver) with federal funds, and drive highways and wider roads thru them.
2. Again with federal funds, drive highways thru historic neighborhoods, connecting suburbs to downtown, using federal infrastructure to add value in exurbs and destroy value in older neighborhoods.
3. Use federal funds to drive highways thru river valleys and along waterfronts, again destroying value in cities.
4. Adopt zoning codes that limit most developments to no more than 4 or 5 units per acre
5. For 50 years, restricted mortgage guarantees to suburban cul-de-sac neighborhoods thru Fannie and Freddie
6. Force us all to pay for upkeep on excessive roads and to pay for mortgage tax deductions
7. We all pay the health costs - for example, people living in non-walkable neighborhoods have twice the rate of diabetes as those who live in walkable neighborhoods. This comes out of my health insurance costs. I hardly exercise save for walking around and a short bike ride to work, and a recent fitness test found I am in the top 10% for cardiovascular fitness for my age - pretty stunning as I'm by no means "in shape"!

well said. for the past 50 years the state and federal government has sacrificed urban neighborhoods for the sake of those commuting from further and further away. the excuse that "people have to live somewhere" just doesn't fly when we've abandoned existing communities in the race to build bigger and cheaper homes at the expense of farmland and open space.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by KaaBoom

First I'd say that those neighborhoods are probably desirable in spite of the interstates that cut through them, not because of them. And I think it is a safe bet that Globeville will never recover from having hundreds of homes demolished and being bisected into four parts. The fact that there has been talk in recent years about rerouting I-70 around some of those Northeast Denver neighborhoods, I think is an acknowledgment that those neighborhoods were damaged by the construction of the interstate.

The city I grew up in has a major freeway bisecting it. But we have these things called bridges that allow people, cars, buses, and bikes to cross from one side to the other.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by woob

well said. for the past 50 years the state and federal government has sacrificed urban neighborhoods for the sake of those commuting from further and further away. the excuse that "people have to live somewhere" just doesn't fly when we've abandoned existing communities in the race to build bigger and cheaper homes at the expense of farmland and open space.

What community in Denver has been abandoned? The city proper has grown in population.

[Count David]

To answer the original question:

Larimer County will merge with Denver CMSA once in/out-commuting between Larimer and an existing Denver CMSA county (or counties) reaches 25%.

Currently, 15.8% of Larimer residents commute to a workplace outside of Larimer. It is unknown how many of those commute to a Denver CMSA county (which would include Weld and Boulder), but I would say the vast majority of that 15.8% does. That 15.8% does not include people that commute to another state (i.e. Wyoming).

Therefore, once Larimer receives 9.2% of the equivalency of its working population in commuters (14,290) from the counties of the Denver CMSA, Larimer will become part of the Denver CMSA. Apparently, Weld and Boulder (as primary examples) aren't sending that many people Larimer's way yet.

[woob]

Originally Posted by Katiana

What community in Denver has been abandoned? The city proper has grown in population.

seriously? downtown was essentially one large vacant lot in the 1970's. only because we've spent millions trying to undo the damage has it begun to approach its former vibrancy. downtown denver used to look like this-

the fact that denver tore up its streetcars, widened its streets and demolished historic buildings to pave parking lots in order to serve suburban commuters was all part of the state and federal policy doc is talking about.

[royhobbstn]

Originally Posted by Katiana

What community in Denver has been abandoned? The city proper has grown in population.

Denver's population reached a high of 514,000 in the 1970 census. By 1990 it had dropped to 467,000. The trend during this time was suburban flight.

For reference, Auraria was considered an urban renewal area in 1969. It was largely cleared in the early '70's.

As for decline, the population in the Union Station neighborhood was 481 in 1970 (as far back as I can find population records by neighborhood). I don't think I need to convince you that historically the population was dramatically higher.

Other than Union Station, I don't think you're going to find widespread 'abandonment' (as that is a very strong word, and Denver is not Detroit in any respect). But the gradual decline in many of the older city neighborhoods is apparent in the post war decades.

I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing Katiana. You can pick apart arguments here and there, but I am not getting a sense of your overall point. Are you trying to say that the suburbs were not favored at the expense of inner city neighborhoods?

[Katarina Witt]

^^I'm not a great fan of Wikipedia, but these stats are from the census bureau.

Denver - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The United States Census Bureau estimated that the population of Denver was 610,345 in 2009,[7] making it the 24th most populous U.S. city.[4]

From CD:
https://www.city-data.com/us-cities/T...n-Profile.html
1980: 493,000

1990: 467,610

2000: 554,636 (I would point out, higher than either 1990, 1980 or 1970)

Also of note, the entire metro populatio grew very slowly in the mid-late 80s, including one year of population loss.

http://recenter.tamu.edu/data/pop/popm/cbsa19740.asp

Are you trying to say that the suburbs were not favored at the expense of inner city neighborhoods?

More or less, yes, that's what I'm saying. This started with docwatson's 7 points. You know, you can't debate the whole shebang about suburbanization in one thread.

S/he is the one who brought up those specific points, plus accused me of thinking of apartment dwellers as "those people" (whatever *that* means, but I think I was being accused of racism), changed the issue from density in the burbs to walkability when I showed that there is a good bit of high density housing in the burbs, and also changed the issue from mortgage deduction to redlining.

Who "favored" the suburbs? The people who moved there, I guess. I'm not sure federal, state or local policies made people up and leave the city. The metro area has experienced great growth in the last 50 years (since 1960). It appears the population decline of the city proper has reversed, at least for now.

To woob: Many, if not most cities tore up their streetcar tracks in the 50s/60s. It was considered "progressive" at the time. If I were good at pictures I could post a picture of Pittsburgh or even Omaha with its streetcar tracks. It's possible some of the things we are doing now will be considered outdated and unhelpful in future years. How many of these buildings were really "historic" and how many were simply "old"? There is no date on that picture. I'd guess it's from around 1960 or maybe earlier. People live much differently in many ways than they did in 1960; I don't have to tell anyone who was alive then that, though.

************************************************** ************************************************** ************************************************** *******

Perhaps someone could give me some examples of government policies that encouraged the suburbs over the city.