One topic I find most interesting is the politics of municipal boundaries. In Colorado, with cities relying on the almighty sales tax dollar as their main source of income, annexations usually occur not due to any logical basis in regional land use planning, but as a political tool to out-maneuver a neighboring city. In fact, the whole history of how cities come to be in general and how they grow spatially over time is fascinating to me (urban planning geek alert!).
One way to understand the nature of annexations and municipal geopolitics along the Front Range is to look at cities on maps in a different way. Most maps are cluttered with streets and labels and lines and dots and symbols of all types. By stripping away all those things and looking at just municipal territory, we can gain an interesting view of inter-municipal geopolitics.
I’ve prepared the following map by doing just that—showing nothing but just the municipalities of Colorado’s northern Front Range as spatial units (click and zoom to view at full size):
One of the things that immediately stands out to me is the recent territorial growth through annexation of cities in Weld and Larimer counties. They now all touch each other. What this map also shows is that one can now travel from northern Fort Collins to southern Parker (but not quite to Castle Rock) without ever leaving a municipality. That’s a distance of approximately 85 miles.
Now, just because an area is within the corporate limits of a city doesn’t mean it’s urbanized. In fact, particularly in the smaller towns along the I-25 corridor in Weld and Larimer counties, much of the municipal territory is still undeveloped. These areas have been annexed in anticipation of growth. The map clearly shows, however, the degree of jockeying for position taking place along the Front Range, the defensive maneuvers, the flagpole extensions to protect the flanks, the staking of claims at remote outposts to establish perimeters. It’s all about capturing those lucrative sales tax dollars that will surely come from all the shopping centers that will surely be built around the major interchanges.
From a planning and public policy perspective, the obvious question is: Is this any way to run a region? I think you know the answer to that. However, assuming that nothing changes and all this growth occurs in these locations anyway, at least the cities are doing the right thing by annexing these areas. Counties were not created to provide urban services, and providing urban services through a mish-mash of special districts is no way to build a community. Urban and suburban development belongs in cities. At least most of our Front Range cities seem to be getting that message.
But, notwithstanding all the insight about our urban growth and development policies that this map can provide, I also think it just looks really cool. Without cheating, how many of these cities can you name?
very interesting post, great graphic. i would suggest one thing, if you could add an overlay or labels of the names of the municipalities, perhaps the major cities and towns as well to better orient which municipalities are which.
i enjoy reading the blog, thanks.
popes
Yes, I plan to make a second version with city name labels, so that the map can serve for other purposes.
Have there been any recent plans to annex small (virtually unknown) cities within the metro — like Sheridan and Lakeside — by larger cities like Denver? What has stopped places like these (including Glendale) from being annexed by their much larger neighbors?
Clearly the system is broken. I'd prefer counties have much more power. That would eliminate much of the competition and force decision-makers to consider regional implications.
Dirt, Denver couldn't annex its tiny neighbors without a vote of the entire county they're in due to Poundstone Amendment. But even if other bigger suburbs wanted to annex them, it would still require a vote of the people and, I believe, the state legislature's blessing. I doubt the little ones want to be absorbed anyway. 🙂
There are some cool shapes there. It's like looking at the clouds.
NW Arvada: Goat running towards the mountains
SW Lakewood: Upside-down dinosaur head
Central Aurora: Creepy Jack-o-lantern smile
Platteville: Dancing dude in top hat
Southern Westminster: Upside down crying child
Other metro areas have created "metropolitan governments" by merging everything together. One example is Louisville, KY. I wish we could do something that progressive here, but western politics won't allow for it. But let's not forget that the five boroughs of New York City were separate cities before 1898. It can be done.
very interesting… soon colorado springs will be in the mix, as well.
I am such a geek for these maps! I've been obsessed with them since I was a kid, when I'd look at the maps in the walls at grocery stores. They were always out-of-date and most regional maps do not include city limits, since only an urban planning geek really cares whether a given restaraunt is in Lafayette or Louisville.
I also agree that I really, really hate the idea that we have "competition" between municipalities. I grew up in Westminster where the warring between there and Broomfield was so intense that even the univested ordinary residents of both cities would complain about those in the other town.
Government is NOT the private sector and it should not operate under private-sector competitive models. It seems to have sprunng from the now-outdated 1980s mentality beleiving that competition made everything better for everyone. It does when it comes to a business, but not when it comes to land – if Northglenn is struggling with its tax base, it should be annexed or absorbed into Westminster or Thornton, who, under the competition model, don't want it because it is a tax sink, requiring more in services than it offers in tax. A business model would say never do that – let the bad corporations go out of business – but the problem is, we cannot allow a "city" and its residents to go out of business and fail.
Municipalities still seem to be operating under a business model, but hopefully since the winds of change have reached us on a national level, it will trickle down to local-level philosophy as well.
I like hearing about how Denver originally grew by absorbing or merging with surrounding towns. I wish modern municipalities would do that, treating absorbtion and infill as the model for growth rather than the race to develop new open fields while existing neighborhoods become blighted.
Off topic, but what's going on with the Fontius/Sage building? Hasn't appeared to be much action these past few months – just hoping no financing and/or tenant fell through and that the project is still moving forward.
Hi, just curious where you got the municipalites data and how recent the data is. thanks
The maps came from DRCOG, Larimer County, and Weld County websites. On each I found a map with the municipal boundaries and then using Illustrator I was able to strip away everything but the city shapes. Then I pieced the three sets together in Photoshop.
All three sources indicated on the maps that they were from late 2008 but I can't personally vouch for how up-do-date they are. I suspect they're pretty accurate.
I have to wonder if municipalities on the west side of town (Wheat Ridge, Lakewood, Edgewater) will one day reconsider their historic growth patterns. It is exactly true, as pizzuti said, that the suburbs seem to race to annex and develop as much farm land as possible. Lakewood however is now developing their final parcel, off C470 and Alameda, after which the city will become land locked. Lakewood is already planning urban redevelopment along the West light rail line (essentially Colfax).
I have to wonder if after many years go by and redevelopment of land is the only way that the cities can continue to grow and improve, maybe they will consider merging together or even annexing into Denver.
Ken,
Very cool . . . I can only name the cities in the northwest corner of the map. 🙂
What is the little red splotch entirely surrounded by Denver?
That'd be Glendale.
ummm..unless I'm misreading the map, Lakewood is not close to being landlocked. Much (most?) of its border does not abut other cities.
Lakewood's entire western border is landlocked by the mountains, open space. The rest of the black areas are unincorporated, but fully developed suburban areas. Its very last area available for suburban development is being built right now off C470.
It is kind of interesting to see fly out of Atlanta at night and into Denver at night. Atlanta just seems to go everywhere in all directions. As you fly North, Colo Springs is its own big blob, then Denver comes. It's another bigger blog. Not really compact growth, but it its clearly visible how the mountains and I-25 has hemmed in the growth. It would also be interesting to know how arid Weld County is. It's massive chunk of empty land. The more accessable water table probably follows just east of I-25. Other than that, I-76 and train line followed the Platte from NE.
Anon 1:37 is right–there are whole huge amounts of suburbia in unincorporated Jeffco waiting to be annexed by Lakewood. I've never understood why Lakewood didn't try expanding to its south…unless it's the tax sinkhole argument.
Matt Pizzuti is right: competition between cities is not only outdated, it's harmful. I drive through Northglenn every day, and it's not a very happy place. Yet just across 120th to the north, Thornton (where I work) appears to be thriving. The streets in Northglenn aren't in as good of shape as they could be if they had more tax money….and now they've just lost a major retailer (Circuit City), further depriving their tax base. Let business be run on a Libertarian model–towns and cities should be run on the idea that government isn't the problem.
Twenty-five years ago Greeley, For Collins, and other small towns around them were not considered part of the Front Range. Now statisticians and demographers include them. When you do this map again in 2025 you will be including Cheyenne, Laramie, Fort Morgan, and most of the I-70 corridor east of DIA to Deer Trail and perhaps further southeast. And who knows what kind of developments will be in their early stages on the prairie southeast of Aurora into northern Elbert County and moving towards Limon. Look at LA in the 50s and compare it to today. Thats the Front Range Urban Corridor within a generation here that we are heading towards.
Having lived in San Diego for 5 years, I think voters and urban planners in Colorado are more astute and progressive in their vision than the urban planners in SoCal. Given as much, I don't see a megalopolis like SoCal here in Colorado in 25-50 years, even if we do have 5+ million people on the front range. I see a series of interconnected, vibrant communities, each having their own unique perosnality & culture. True, you'll have some sprawl when you double the population of a city, but if the pase 15+ years is any indication (when Denver metro experienced a population explosion), there seems to be a growth of individual communities which do not fit into the classical suburb-commuter mentality. Communities like Highlands, Wash Park, parts of Park Hill will sprout up in more outlying places as growth continues, mass transit allows it, business zoning is already present to enable it. People have shown they choose established communities if they can afford it and its safe.
I don't see multiple separate municipalities as a bad thing. Having come from Tucson where the town has the same monotonous tone from one side to another, I prefer this way. There is also the fact that you are more community oriented if you are living closer to your municipality center. Again, in Tucson, people can live 20 miles away from the city center, and from that, I think there is a lack of community there.
I like the picture, looks like an abstract painting!
>I think voters and urban planners in Colorado are more astute and progressive in their vision than the urban planners in SoCal
I hope so, but I worry that the Boulder model of exclusionary planning is taking hold in too many places. You can't couple low density zoning and lots of open space purchases and expect anything other than sprawl. If Coloradoans are going to continue the open space programs, then much higher densities are going to have to be allowed.
Boulder's idea of pushing growth away to other towns and hoping they deal with it somehow is no solution. "Slow Growth" is just code for "much faster growth somewhere further away".
Agreed about Boulder. I live in Denver and work in Boulder. I love both towns, but Boulder is a bit stagnant architecturally, to say the least.
Open space is great – I love it, and I think most of us would agree that Coloradans deserve easily accessible large open spaces, but there has to be a better way than Boulder's model to create large swatches of land in and around municipalities and still promote effective growth for business and residential areas. I'm sure Phds have been written on this concept for years… Boulder just needs to hire a good one to manage their future growth.
The problem in Boulder is the citizens. The city has shown that they are all for urban growth with their plans for the Boulder transit village and the redevelopments on the north side of town. The problem is that those are the only two parts of town where the planning board could get away with zoning for dense development. Most Boulder citizens are such NIMBYs that no urban development makes it off the ground in 90% of the town.
GOT A QUESTION?
WHY ARE THEY CONSIDERED THREE DIFFERENT METROPOLITANS IF ALL THESE CITIES TOUCH? DENVER, BOULDER,FORT COLLINS. SEPERATE METRO AREAS!
I don't know what you guys are talking about when it comes to Boulder. There were plans to redevelop the entire Hill (a zoning change that CU students fought very hard against since it would demolish virtually every business where undergraduates hang out), there are at least three major construction sites per year around Pearl Street.
When I was a journalism student at CU I had the opportunity to interview some folks on the planning board for an article I wrote about urban planning (specifically dealing with the speed of growth) in Boulder a couple years ago.
Drive down 28th and not only are there several major construction sites and major planned construction sites, but a whole streetwall of condos that have been built in the last 5 years. The entire 28th street mall is new and there are several new retail sites going up in the vicinity.
The entire shopping center near 30th and Baseline is slated for redevelopment.
That's just going on in Central Boulder. North Boulder is growing quickly as well.
Beyond that, there is currently a major construction site on campus and have been 4 in the last 3 years.
I have a problem with the pace of development in Boulder, but it's not "stagnant." And as a recent graduate there, I can't say that a bunch of fancy new overpriced apartments would have made my CU experience any better. Its fun to live in old houses and hang out in old bars that still have pool tables and dart boards and cheap beer, rather than outrageously expensive cocktails and sushi. My problem is that every time something is planned to be redeveloped in Boulder, its done by replacing something awesome with something terrible.
I think Boulder should probably increase its height limit from 55 feet to 70 or 100 in special zones near Pearl Street. That allows more density so that you can build without eliminating cool old hangouts.
I'm also really disappointed with the 29th street shopping center, which was billed as some kind of "new urbanism" but is still auto-oriented and full of parking lots, and is exclusively retail rather than mixed use.
"I'm also really disappointed with the 29th street shopping center, which was billed as some kind of "new urbanism" but is still auto-oriented…"
Too many developers have learned to use the language of good city planning, while not actually understanding or respecting the intent of creating real neighborhoods.
"Place zoning" is a way for communities to promote the development of mixed use neighborhoods and development projects "by right" – rather than only through complex special approvals.
See http://www.buildingplace.net/place-zoning.
If only the demand for growth in Colorado were as slow as Boulder allows, we might be able to call Boulder policy responsible. Boulder could easily have a population twice what it does now, and could have captured most of the commercial activity now in Broomfield. The demand is there. Boulderites didn't want it. They sold out the rest of the Front Range to sprawl in order the keep Boulder from getting much bigger than it is now.
And for goodness sake, I hope nobody here seriously believes the only alternative is to rip out University Hill and replace it with condos. That is the biggest red herring this side of WMDs.
… Just to be clear, Boulder does some great things inside its limits. If the universe ended at Davidson Mesa, Boulder would be a great model city. Unfortunately, Boulder's problem is that it's the city equivalent of a NIMBY. Push the problem on somebody else and call it a day.
Agreed on Boulder. They need to increase the height limit to at least 110 feet (downtown only) to encourage development & build their own rail line from the proposed light rail depot to downtown.
Personally I don't think Boulder's problem is height, its area. What they really need to do is rezone everything between Pearl Street and Canyon for urban development. That way, downtown could extend all the way to 28th st. and almost to the Transit Village.