An older single-family home is sandwiched between two multifamily developments built much more recently on Lawrence Street between 25th and 26th streets in Denver’s Curtis Park neighborhood. (RJ Sangosti, The Denver Post)
Re: “As Denver grows up, up, up, more neighborhoods grapple with density,” March 22 news story.
Jon Murray’s coverage of development pressures in Denver was excellent. Underlying it are questions about scarcity of water in the region, air quality concerns, lack of transit infrastructure, and the desire to maintain the neighborhoods and quality of life that attracts businesses and people to Denver in the first place.
The elephant in the room that needs immediate attention is the lack of transportation infrastructure to accommodate this growth. It is simply impossible to create a “world class city” without first making a financial commitment to the transportation (and other) infrastructure needed.
Several city leaders advance the premise that we must get considerably more dense in order for transit to “happen.” This “wait and see” philosophy is directly at odds with Blueprint Denver and Transit Oriented Development (TOD) planning of the sort Denver is working on along RTD’s East Line going out to DIA. Denver knows how to tie growth to transportation, but has chosen to put growth ahead of transportation in most areas. When resultant inadequate parking and congestion then become unbearable in a neighborhood, a different team of city planners goes to work to remedy the problem with alternate side parking or meters or “area management plans.” Forward thinking? Hardly.
Unfortunately, the city continues to ignore Blueprint Denver’s mandate that all future development be linked to transportation, and this shortsightedness is catching up with us.
Christine O’Connor,Denver
This letter was published in the March 29 edition.The comprehensive lead article in last Sunday’s Denver Post provided a chilling look at the near-term future regarding the intensification of residential growth in the metro area. Within all the hand-wringing on one side of the argument, and the civic boosterism on the other, I did not see one single mention of the W-word — water.
For almost as long as the state has been inhabited at an urban level, water has been scarce, and precious. Yet I question whether the decision-makers weigh the impact of new residential growth on the water budget. Within this state, water is sought by cities, farmers and now, more than ever, big oil and the fracking industry.
California similarly ignored water demand caused by residential growth in that state, until now, when agriculture, one of the most vital components of its economy, is suffering dearly.
I recently read the draft Colorado Water Plan, and was underwhelmed. There is an urgency for water management in Colorado, and churning out lengthy policy documents does not put water in the pipes. I know this is a state of varied political and environmental interests and viewpoints, and striking an equitable balance in the role of water in the economy is a difficult task, yet it is one of the hard choices the elected officials are supposed to make.
Dennis Davis,Denver
This letter was published in the March 29 edition.
Submit a letter to the editor via this form or check out our guidelines for how to submit by e-mail or mail.
