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
     
     
  #6761  
Old Posted Yesterday, 12:16 PM
bunt_q's Avatar
bunt_q bunt_q is online now
Provincial Bumpkin
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 10,987
Unhappy

Quote:
Originally Posted by DenverInfill View Post
Yeah, everything north of Montview is basically history, including the golf course. The plan has relatively high density development all the way up to the Parkway. Long-range planning.
Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.

Last edited by bunt_q; Yesterday at 12:32 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6762  
Old Posted Yesterday, 1:51 PM
trubador trubador is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 116
the tech park is very long planning. Still waiting for the next part of Fitzsimons village to be developed.

http://www.fitzsimons-village.com/

on a better note, the gas station near the corner of colfax and Fitzsimons Parkway is being torn down as we speak. There is still a storage unit place and a uhaul rental, but it looks like they are ready to get started on that part of the tracks.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6763  
Old Posted Yesterday, 2:26 PM
PLANSIT's Avatar
PLANSIT PLANSIT is offline
aka ptownsnwbrdr
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Denver
Posts: 1,611
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.
In general, I tend to agree. I do think it was a mistake running lines in corridors that are basically void of actual people and creating demand through folks driving to stations. I think we should have spent the money on fewer lines in places people live.

But I do understand the political nature of the decision (even though it shouldn't be an issue, and not everyone is entitled to high quality transit in the metro) and believe that we will eventually fill up the corridors with people (TOD). It's just going to take a lot longer than most folks want. And in the mean time, it has the potential of taking away money from places people already live (i.e. The City of Denver decides to put in a bunch of sidewalks around an isolate station hoping to catalyze development, when a low income neighborhood that's been around for 70 years doesn't have that same infrastructure). In order for Denver (or other communities) to really see the benefits of high quality transit, they're probably going to have to start paying for it (Boulder style, and probably more-so). But we've talked about this a million times. Most folks on here understand this.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #6764  
Old Posted Today, 12:26 AM
Wizened Variations's Avatar
Wizened Variations Wizened Variations is online now
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 1,213
Quote:
Originally Posted by bunt_q View Post
Yes but people aren't going to train in to visit their high density apartment that they live in to be close to the hospitals. People train in to get to the employment centers. Unless we believe that folks are going to move to Fitz to embrace a car free lifestyle, and will be jotting down to downtown aurora for their daily needs. Ha.

I'll also believe the biotechnology park when I see it. What you call long range planning I call a lack of planning. Your interpretation relies on the mistaken belief that proximity to transit creates development demand (where none otherwise exists). There's no evidence for that. In the absence of pre existing demand for high density developement, building a train to the middle of nowhere gets you a train to the middle of nowhere, and low ridership.

My general belief is - and why I feel Denver transit is largely a failure - transit needs to go where people want to go, not where we want them to want to go. The latter will only lead to planning failures, as people continue to go where they want to be, by car. (We haven't exactly seen a rush of TOD development across the metro either - it should be clear by now that transit is at best an excuse for high density zoning, but not itself a demand driver. I get that land use planners want to think of trains as development tools first, transportation second. But they're wrong - it's pretty rare that a train takes a place nobody wants to be and makes it popular.). If the only way a place can be convinced to embrace higher density is to plop down a train and hide behind TOD, then they need a more persuasive planner. At the risk of sounding too Wizened, we'll never have world class transit (or a world class city) by building AROUND where the people are.
Add to that, the sheer design mechanics which is reflected in time of travel and ease of use.

Users have to feel that taking public transit of any kind is advantageous, whether that be defined in a time to cost equation, or by personal taste.

Systems need to be very functional in terms of ease of use, and, freedom of choice. Ease of use includes platform level boarding, well designed transfer points, direct routes, safety, and, frequency for trains, and, much the same for buses. Freedom of choice reflects transit vehicle frequency, hours of operation, and, well designed transfer points.

Many of these factors are psychological: passengers hate to transfer unnecessarily in all forms of public transit- riders do not like transfer points that appear contrived; riders like to believe that the travel is fast. For example, express travel through stations is a huge psychological plus. Another is no low speeds in the middle of nowhere.

How fast the system triggers TOD is dependent in large part on how good the transit system actually is, as maybe is the only meaningful criteria with which to judge a public system is by how many people use it.

I also believe that property development is not the primary function of public transportation. Systems that compromise speed, time of travel, and, route to developers political and financial power pay the price in lower ridership.
__________________
Copy the best, and, create the rest.

The whole concept of "Green" is just a fuzzy friendly way of showcasing possible alternatives to radical market driven cost increases

Last edited by Wizened Variations; Today at 12:41 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
End
 
 
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 12:49 AM.

     

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.