November 15, 2007 3:01 PM
High-density developments protested
It seems in every corner of Denver, neighbors are protesting planned or proposed high-density developments.
It's happening near Lowry, next to a light rail station at Southmoor Park, and in Jefferson Park.
The Sloan's Lake neighborhood is divided on whether it should downsize zoning, in an effort to slow or stop the tide of scrape offs and big, new expensive townhomes. Park Hill neighbors have been up in arms about plans to subdivide big lots for more McMansions.
Although each situation is different, the common threads typically are things such as fears of changing the character of the neighborhood, traffic congestion, over-burdening schools, and lowering the property values of existing homes.
Are these case of NIMBYism (Not In My Back Yard), or are residents correct?
I recently met Peter Park, the city's planning director, to talk about such issues. This was days before he was greeted, largely unfavorably, by about 500 people in Southmoor Park.
Southmoor Park resident Alice Pitman attended the meeting and had this to say:
"In my opinion the community is frustrated by the proposal and by the meetings. One reason we are frustrated is the fact that city officials provide no answers to the questions asked at the meetings. They talk around in circles until time runs out. They seem to have a plan and they don’t want any arguments."
High-density development typically faces the most opposition in neighborhoods such as Southmoor Park, which is largely an area of single-family, detached homes.
Blueprint Denver, as many people know, defines neighborhoods in Denver as areas of change or areas of stability.
But Park told me that many people think that areas of stability means there will be no new development, or only the same kind of development. For example, a mostly low density, single-family neighborhood will never have high-density residential additions.
Nothing could be further from the truth, he said.
Over time, neighborhoods change. And the metro area is going to add a million people during the next 20 years, while the amount of dirt in Denver is not going to grow. That means that density must increase, Park said.
Also, specifically about Southmoor Park, he said many people seem to confuse the city's guidelines with a developer's site plan..
While a site plan is a specific proposal, Park says the city's plan is a starting point to facilitate orderly growth instead of sprawl. For example, the city's plan in Southmoor Plan would address what could ultimately be built on the King Sooper's site, if the grocery chain ever decided to leave. But his hope is that King Sooper's will never leave. In that case, the city's plan would be moot.
But there is also a more basic question – is high density development bad?
In 2005, the Urban Land Institute, a think tank for developers, released a 38-page report on what it described as "myths" about high-density development.
If you dismiss the ULI report because it is a developer group, you should consider that one of its partners on the report was the Sierra Club.
Here, in the ULI's words, is a summary of its findings.
Myth: Higher-density development overburdens public schools and other public services and requires more infrastructure support systems.
Fact: The nature of who lives in higher-density housing – fewer families with children – puts less demand on schools and other public services than low-density housing. Moreover, the compact nature of high-density development requires less extensive infrastructure.
Myth: Higher-density developments lower property values in surrounding areas.
Fact: No discernable difference exists in the appreciation of properties located near higher-density development and those that are not. Some research even shows that higher density development can increase property values.
Myth: Higher-density developments creates more regional traffic congestion and parking problems than low-density development.
Fact: Higher-density development generates less traffic than low-density development per unit; it makes walking and public transit more feasible and creates opportunities for shared parking.
Myth: Higher-density development leads to higher crime rate.
Fact: The crime rate at higher-density developments are not significantly different from those at lower-density developments.
Myth: Higher-density development is environmentally more destructive than lower-density development.
Fact: Low-density development increases air and water pollution and destroys natural areas by paving and urbanizing greater swaths of land.
Myth: Higher-density development is unattractive and does not fit in a low-density community.
Fact: Attractive, well-designed and well-maintained higher-density developments attracts good residents and tenants and fits into existing communities.
Myth: No one in suburban areas wants higher-density development.
Fact: Our population is changing and becoming increasingly diverse. Many of these households now prefer higher-density housing, even in suburban locations.
Myth: Higher-density housing is only for lower-income households.
Fact: People of all income groups choose higher-density housing.
The study used profiles of developments across the country as examples of what the ULI considers excellent examples of high-density developments.
In Denver, it lauded Highlands' Garden Village on the site of the former Elitch Gardens amusement park in northwest Denver. It was developed by Chuck Perry of Denver and Jonathan Rose & Cos. of New York.
"Highlands' Garden Village is a walkable, transit-linked community and a financially viable model for environmentally responsible infill development," according to the report.
If the city gets its way on Southmoor Park, for example, it will be interesting to see what the ULI – and more importantly, neighbors – say years from now.
Join the discussion