Comments on: Paris Observations, Part 2

By: Fifty Ninjas

Fifty Ninjas — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 19:29:38 +0000

Yes, yes, undeniably yes.

Stop the mediocrity of developers in this town!

By: seth

seth — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 15:32:38 +0000

mmmm…paul. did you go there?? their bread is soo good.

By: Beth Partin

Beth Partin — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:02:50 +0000

I'm with you, Ken. I'd love to see more 5 to 10 story buildings in downtown Denver. I think more people feel comfortable with that scale of building.

Of course, in Paris, I would bet people live in much smaller spaces than Denverites would be willing to accept.

By: Anonymous

Anonymous — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:24:18 +0000

I find it bewildering that some people find Denver to be unwalkable. It is as walkable as any city I have ever been to. Denver is even more walkable than Paris in the sense that you have to deal with alot more vehicle traffic there. Paris, London, Rome, Madrid, and other cities I have been to seem extremely un-friendly to bicyclists. I also don't really understand why some people also feel that subways are always better at transporting people than street cars, light rail, and buses. As long as vehicle traffic does not seriously impend the flow of these ground-level transportation systems, they seem to work well. Putting trains underground seems like a tremendous waste of money unless the population density supports it. I personally do not like subways because I would prefer not to be underground where it is dark, dingy, and claustrophobic (especially the European subways I have riden). San Francisco's BART and D.C.'s Metro are improvements because they are more spacious. New York's subway is often down-right disgustingly filthy.

Corey

By: Brian

Brian — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 16:30:25 +0000

As a downtown resident, it seems to me that at least one reason people would rather live in the close 'burbs (such as Platt Park, Highlands, etc) rather than downtown is due to the lack of interesting buildings outside of the LODO area. It's unfortunate, but many of the buildings which were built downtown during the 70s and 80s building boom are excessively utilitarian in design; why wouldn't someone trade bland downtown living space for a tidy home with late-Victorian character?

I find the LVT idea compelling and agree that it probably has great potential for enabling the construction of quality downtown spaces. However, I am also given pause by the likely possibility that an LVT system would skew too much in favor of constructing as soon as possible to reap its tax benefits. I certainly don't appreciate the empty lots and underused spaces in the downtown core. But I have to admit that I would rather the potential that comes with these empty lots than a host of poorly-planned, ugly, and hastily constructed building which add little to the quality of downtown living and will be around for many years to come.

By: beyonddc

beyonddc — Mon, 22 Jun 2009 21:43:05 +0000

I would be money Paris is denser than Chicago, and Washington is definitely denser than Houston.

Just sayin'.

By: joeindt

joeindt — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 23:05:10 +0000

Well yes, people in urban environments are dependent on transit. Just like people in Florida, La., Texas are dependent on their clogged highways when the hurricanes come to visit.
At this precise time we are fortunate to have abundant credit and cheap fuel. If (when) that evaporates the notion of public transit being expensive will evaporate as well.

By: SC48

SC48 — Sun, 21 Jun 2009 19:15:57 +0000

Two words: gas tax.

The problem with Denver is that downtown real estate is not valuable enough. Why? Because - disregarding the obvious externalities involved in commuting via car - it is still highly cost effective for most to purchase a large home on a moderate sized lot in the suburbs and commute to work downtown. For most, this is more appealing than an apartment or condo downtown. Whether we want to see Denver develop as a mid-rise city like DC or Paris, or a dense high-rise city like NYC or Chicago, neither will happen until living in the 'burbs is no longer cost effective. For each ten cent increase in the price of gas, a portion of the car commuting public is going to decide that it makes more sense to live closer in to downtown - the more ten cent increases in the cost of fuel that occur, the more infill we will see downtown.

A gas tax also has the benefit of making those responsible for the harmful side effects of cars pay for them - why shouldn't the attorney or banker commuting from Greenwood Village every day pay for the smog that they choose to create?

Just my two cents.

By: Starman

Starman — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 16:13:42 +0000

"we've covered 100% of our urban core with buildings and bustling streets" And that's why no US city will ever rival Paris, or any major European city, for that matter.

By: David

David — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 15:00:54 +0000

regarding point A-
Building out a multibillion dollar subway system in denver would be a poor use of resources. a fully functional bike share with protected lanes, along with streetcars and BRT would go a long way to making "unwalkable" denver more pedestrian friendly. To use your example- Coors field to DAM is a 10 minute ride along the cherry creek path. If we fully utilize bike share that will free up space on the road for buses and taxis to transport those unable or unwilling to pedal. I currently live in manhattan and can ride from the east river to the hudson in under 15 minutes, far faster than on the subway. biking really makes the city seem much more compact and accessible.