HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForumSkyscraper Posters
     
Welcome to the SkyscraperPage Forum.

Since 1999, SkyscraperPage.com's forum has been one of the most active skyscraper enthusiast communities on the web.  The global membership discusses development news and construction activity on projects from around the world, alongside discussions on urban design, architecture, transportation and many other topics.  SkyscraperPage.com also features unique skyscraper diagrams, a database of construction activity, and publishes popular skyscraper posters.

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #1  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:15 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
Coastal elitist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,410
Denver Development Etceteras Thread #5

The old thread reached 10,000 posts, which is our cue to close it and start a new one.

I added Etceteras to the title of this thread because I am lazy and it was never realistic to think I would move anything that wasn't strictly development-related out of the other thread.

Here is a link to the previous thread for reference.

Carry on.
__________________
BeyondDC: twitter | flickr | blog | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #2  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:19 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
Coastal elitist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by me
The "scofflaw cyclist" argument is possibly the least convincing argument against more bike infrastructure ever put forth. It is *pure* windshield perspective.
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q
If scofflaws didn't organize around their right to be renegades, and interfere with traffic to make a statement...the cycling community really needs to clamp down on critical mass
I think it is perfectly legitimate to complain about critical mass.

I don't think it is legitimate to complain about non-critical mass cyclists who treat stop signs like yield signs.
__________________
BeyondDC: twitter | flickr | blog | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #3  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:20 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solera til 7/12 -> Orlando
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
How many people have you seen drive their cars over the speed limit in recent weeks? How many times have you personally broken the law while driving in that time span?

The "scofflaw cyclist" argument is possibly the least convincing argument against more bike infrastructure ever put forth.
I could probably do better at turning anger at dangerous cyclists into an irrational argument.. it's not like I don't have practice.

How many times in the past weeks have you seen cars changing from road to sidewalk to bikelane without slowing signalling or looking at what they were changing from? How many times in a week do you see cars running red lights or stop signs? Not zero I'll grant... but my anecdotal experience lately is that bikes are outnumbering these. Of course I break the speed limit regularly and I won't make myself look stupid by claiming otherwise.

And really, my anger comes from a desire to not have to watch cyclists in bike vrs car accidents. It certainly doesn't come from any concern for my own life or limb if a bike rides out in front of me while I go through a green light. I can't concieve of many situations where car loses that fight. So yeah, if I express no desire for enforcement of any sort of safety as bike use increases here I'll eventually get desensitized to reading or seeing or performing autopsies on (which I admit probably makes me a bit more sensitive to seeing people put themselves in situations that can lead to them dying) people who get turned into news stories by not being careful.

And yes I believe there should be more strick enforcement for bikes. What devices does a bike have to counter stupidity? Cars now have myriad computers, crash sustaining frames, air bags, seat belts, etc to counter the fact that, yup drivers are just as dumb as bikers. The consequence of being a moron on a bike are FAR FAR greater however. And as has been pointed out before you don't need a license to ride a bike so even the cursory inadequate training drivers get isn't there.
__________________
"Do these red scrubs make me look expendable?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #4  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:23 PM
Pizzuti Pizzuti is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Boulder, Colorado
Posts: 837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Okayyou View Post
I think it's important to try and understand why NIMBYism exists, at least in its current form. Why do people object to projects being built in their neighborhood? Most people place the cause of the obstructionism on neighborhood residents being selfish, holding an 'I got mine, now keep things the same for eternity' attitude. While I think much of this attitude is rooted in irrationality, I think there is a rational element that produces that attitude. So much worthless crap has been built in the last five decades, 9th and Colorado being a perfect example, that people tend to associate any new development as destructive to the fabric of their neighborhood. I think the average NIMBY-ite doesn't analyze whether the new project will positively or negatively affect their neighborhood, but rather assumes since most projects in the past have been deleterious any new projects will be too.

Demanding better projects would help show that new projects can improve a neighborhood. I think if we had a better track record in the recent past there would be less NIMBY-ism, at least in its current form of 'oppose all new things!'
I think this is pretty accurate. At the same time the percentage of the population that actually participates in any kind of civic engagement is so low that they are rarely representative of the "community" as a whole, and I wonder to what extent NIMBY types are new transplants to the neighborhood or people who recently tuned in, and to what extent they are people who see themselves as long-engaged advocates from the community.

I think the most significant NIMBY activity is when the development is perceived to change the "type" of neighborhood it is - ie in the Highlands, taller developments appear to transition the neighborhood from being a highly-contained neighborhood to being more integrated with Downtown and the urban core. I think there's a perceived loss of control in having the lines of your community blur with a broader community in which you don't have as much influence - especially if you think of yourself as having existing influence in your neighborhood through past volunteering and activism. So often I think the NIMBY activity is not so much about what is being built as it is the folks who have been vocal in the community for years feeling like they're losing power.

I think of urbanism as a very progressive concept, so it's weird to see people using progressive ideas about local control to promote such an anti-progressive position of blocking a positive urban development, and by fighting in a community that should by all measures be dense and urban keep it lower density. That's where I agree with OkayYou, it's about the track record, and basic lack of awareness about the differences between good and bad development, the lack of understanding that taller buildings can actually protect the street level from ugly developments.

But on the other hand I do think ordinary people are gradually becoming more aware and more supportive of the most up-to-date thinking on good planning. I don't work in development or planning, yet I'm here. I have a few friends who are interested, I know a handful of state legislators understand and want to promote urbanism - none of them are professionally related to it, but they are starting to tune in. That will also increase as urbanists are more able to link up with other coalitions that could benefit from urbanism - like environmentalists and communities of color and small businesses - which hasn't happened a lot so far at least in Denver but I'm seeing it begin to happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #5  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:24 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
Coastal elitist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,410
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology
I express no desire for enforcement of any sort of safety as bike use increases here I'll eventually get desensitized to reading or seeing or performing autopsies on
Yes, those are all legitimate arguments.

But here's the thing: The best way to make cycling safer is A) to build more cycling infrastructure so that B) there are lots more cyclists on the roads. Study after study after study has shown that the more cyclists there are out there, the safer it is to cycle (and not coincidentally, also to drive).

So if you're concerned about safety then opposing good stuff out of spite really is counter productive.
__________________
BeyondDC: twitter | flickr | blog | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:25 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 521
Pre-new thread... Meh, all good things must end.

Uh... sorry for the lack of empathy. Wasn't aware of specific circumstances.


bunt_q alludes to another interesting dilemma in his condo story. Generally most everyone prefers real estate values to go up, or with current economy to hold up. Others will understandable complain about lack of affordability.

When markets are good the lowest/lower end of the market often is driven up more than warranted just because of relative scarcity at the lower end.

I recall Cirrus pointing out how, in time, as many of the current crop of new buildings, especially downtown, ages by a few decades they will then become "affordable."

Phoenix has been devastated similar to Denver in the 80's. Values are down typically 40-60%. As with anything there are pros as well as cons. While tens of thousands have had to move on from what was their home,
once done, they now have a ton more disposable income (depending on their job situation).

Phoenix will bounce back just as Denver did substantially because it's now so affordable.... for business as well as their employees and customers.

The upside to the downside of lower trending values even in Denver is Affordability.

(Cirrus smarter than he looks and better than average Monitor... Gracias)
__________________
Thumbs up for Vinyl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #7  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:28 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solera til 7/12 -> Orlando
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
Yes, those are all legitimate arguments.

But here's the thing: The best way to make cycling safer is A) to build more cycling infrastructure so that B) there are lots more cyclists on the roads. Study after study after study has shown that the more cyclists there are out there, the safer it is to cycle (and not coincidentally, also to drive).

So if you're concerned about safety then opposing good stuff out of spite really is counter productive.
Yes I know.. as I said.. it was a rant, sorry to spring it on everyone since I never engage in rediculous comparisons or hyperbole elsewhere

__________________
"Do these red scrubs make me look expendable?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #8  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:29 PM
Cirrus's Avatar
Cirrus Cirrus is online now
Coastal elitist
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 15,410
/shrug/

OK
__________________
BeyondDC: twitter | flickr | blog | Exploring urbanism and transportation in the Washington, DC area.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #9  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:30 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 9,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
I don't think it is legitimate to complain about non-critical mass cyclists who treat stop signs like yield signs.
Well, technically speaking that's still illegal... but I think I'm on the record saying I'd support a change that allows bicyclists to (prudently) go through a red, so you'll hear little argument here.

That doesn't bother me when I'm in a car anyways. The only time it seems to be an issue is when I'm a pedestrian and a cyclist blows through an intersection. But I suppose I accept that I'm lower in the food chain there, so I tend to dodge them.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #10  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:38 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 521
I'm OK with "California" stops but cyclists that blow through intersections irrespective of laws or other users should enjoy the same privilege of getting ticketed as anybody else.
__________________
Thumbs up for Vinyl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #11  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:39 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 9,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzuti View Post
I think there's a perceived loss of control in having the lines of your community blur with a broader community in which you don't have as much influence - especially if you think of yourself as having existing influence in your neighborhood through past volunteering and activism. So often I think the NIMBY activity is not so much about what is being built as it is the folks who have been vocal in the community for years feeling like they're losing power.
This is an interesting way of thinking of it. Never looked at it quite like this. Similar in many ways to the growth control efforts of old (ah, remember those days?) writ small.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #12  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:39 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solera til 7/12 -> Orlando
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirrus View Post
/shrug/

OK
Really though, the rant came out of anger that I "almost" turned a cyclist into a hood ornament on my way home. He didnt see me because of parked cars, I was in the far right lane, I have a short car and, of course, ignored the red light. Yes I was irrational, yes your points are all correct. But no one (I hope) wants to kill someone else no matter who's fault it would have been. For the rest of your life you are then "someone who has killed someone else" no matter how it happened. At least in my head that F*&*s with you. And for a few hours no accomodation for bikes anywhere in any way seemed like an amost good way to force some of them off the road and less available as targets.

Perfectly legitimate solution would be to move back the allowable parking lanes so the sight lines are better so that bikes who won't otherwise be stopping can see oncoming traffic and at least slow down enough to yield.

Incidentally a couple weeks ago two pedestrians tried the same thing. But, peds are so slow it gives you time to swerve or stop before your path intersects them. Bikes seem to occupy this magic zone where the usual speed of them leaves no time to react to swerve, stop, or otherwise avoid them. In otherwords the collisions seem pre-ordaned through bad luck. EDIT: I should say Peds are generally slow enough to avoid.... they certainly have a talent for getting killed by autos if they put their mind to it.
__________________
"Do these red scrubs make me look expendable?"

Last edited by Brainpathology; Jan 6, 2012 at 9:52 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #13  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:42 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 9,773
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
Perfectly legitimate solution would be to move back the allowable parking lanes so the sight lines are better so that bikes who won't otherwise be stopping can see oncoming traffic and at least slow down enough to yield.
Oh god. Cyclists versus the we-need-parking hordes. There's a battle bunt will be sitting out.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #14  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:42 PM
bobg bobg is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 177
As a frequent pedestrian, occasional driver, and as a seasonal recreational and commuter cyclist I would not be opposed to an Idaho Stop law in Colorado.

However I think we should also couple it with a law that allows pedestrians to knock over cyclists riding above the limit on the sidewalks or flat out running red lights and almost hitting pedestrians (I have been tempted to do so on many occasions). It may cause an injury here and there but think of the greater good.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #15  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:45 PM
TakeFive's Avatar
TakeFive TakeFive is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 521
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brainpathology View Post
Really though, the rant came out of anger that I "almost" turned a cyclist into a hood ornament on my way home.
Enthusiastic Agreement.... (am I back in you better graces?)

Quote:
This is an interesting way of thinking of it. Never looked at it quite like this.
Pizzuti's comment was very good.
__________________
Thumbs up for Vinyl.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #16  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:46 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solera til 7/12 -> Orlando
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by Pizzuti View Post
I think the most significant NIMBY activity is when the development is perceived to change the "type" of neighborhood it is - ie in the Highlands, taller developments appear to transition the neighborhood from being a highly-contained neighborhood to being more integrated with Downtown and the urban core. I think there's a perceived loss of control in having the lines of your community blur with a broader community in which you don't have as much influence - especially if you think of yourself as having existing influence in your neighborhood through past volunteering and activism. So often I think the NIMBY activity is not so much about what is being built as it is the folks who have been vocal in the community for years feeling like they're losing power.

Someone with your skills at presenting arguments should point out to Highland just how much control they are exerting. Redpeak seems to be bending over backward for them. If someone could make it clear how much they are actually contributing to the design it might convince enough of them (leaving out the leaders who seem bent on total absolute unconditional surrender by Redpeak) that they are not in fact losing their voice, and that they have drastically altered the character of the development to fit in with their concerns for the neighborhood.

Some of their arguments though, like having shadows cast on their property, or having more people in the neighborhood, not really sure how that can be alleviated by showing them they are having an effect.
__________________
"Do these red scrubs make me look expendable?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #17  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 9:48 PM
Brainpathology's Avatar
Brainpathology Brainpathology is offline
of Gnomeregan
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Solera til 7/12 -> Orlando
Posts: 1,320
Quote:
Originally Posted by TakeFive View Post
Enthusiastic Agreement.... (am I back in you better graces?)
You were never out of them, this is a place to discuss and sometimes argue. "I think you just said something wrong" doesn't, to me, mean "I don't like you." A beer is more fun with a good argument anyway.. if you lived here I'd offer you both haha.
__________________
"Do these red scrubs make me look expendable?"
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #18  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 10:37 PM
mr1138 mr1138 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 442
Not to steer the discussion away from bicycles, but it should be noted that the proposed Colorado Center bridge would also be an ENORMOUS asset to pedestrians in a 4-5 block radius. Though it is low density residential, I would guess this puts at least a hundred or so (really bad at guessing numbers cold turkey) people in walking distance of a Light Rail station that they previously had no real access to (if you have to jump in your car to get there, you might as well drive all the way to work). Including bicycle users, the number of potential new Light Rail users goes up even more. And the transit system gets all of these new users instantly by the addition of a simple bridge... no new development required, all the people are already there! I sincerely hope the NIMBYs (seems like a theme here...) don't stop this from happening... without it, the neighborhood on the other side of I-25 will remain hopelessly suburban.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #19  
Old Posted: Jan 6, 2012, 10:49 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 9,773
It's a shame that the original recommendation - with the bridge landing at Bellaire St. - can't happen. There's a lot more density closer to Colorado that could benefit, but that extra block east might be a major deterrent for peds.

Reply With Quote
     
     
  #20  
Old Posted: Jan 8, 2012, 8:06 AM
DownhomeDenver DownhomeDenver is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,118
The up again down again fence

So Greenhouse Condos at Alameda and Harrison was supposed to have future phases. Then there was supposed to be some other condo building built at Cedar and Harrison and that never happened. So there was a fence there for some time and then the fence came down. In the past week the fence is back at Cedar and Harrison. I think phase 2 of the Greenhouse might start soon. Here's a PDF from Zeppelin properties regarding the future phases!

Get PDF here!!
Reply With Quote
     
     
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Regional Sections > United States > Mountain West
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 1:52 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.