Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres: Tensions and ... - SAGE Journals

Urban Studies at 50 50(11) 2178–2195, August 2013

Special Issue Article

Suburban Sprawl or Urban Centres: Tensions and Contradictions of Smart Growth Approaches in Denver, Colorado Andrew Goetz [Paper first received, November 2010; in final form, November 2011]

Abstract During the post-war era in the United States, the low-density suburban sprawl model has been the dominant paradigm of urban growth. In recognition of the significant economic, social and environmental costs of sprawl, a new smart growth paradigm of higher-density, mixed-use and transit-oriented urban centres has emerged in many metropolitan areas. A case study of Denver, Colorado, shows that the smart growth approach has been more effective than previous initiatives to change the development pattern and address the costs of sprawl. With many new urbanist projects and an aggressive transit-oriented development programme, Denver is offering a different urban alternative to its sprawling past. A broader coalition of support, especially including the development community, has characterised smart growth efforts in contrast to previous growth control initiatives. New forms of regional collaboration have contributed to a stronger regional identity, less jurisdictional infighting and greater consensus on issues of regional importance.

Introduction Contemporary urban development in the United States and, to some extent, the rest of the world, is torn between two paradigms. On the one hand, post-1950-style suburbanisation and exurbanisation, facilitated by increasing automobile use and expanded highway systems, continue to be a dominant paradigm, as measured by increasing urban land cover, vehicle miles travelled and new

edge-city developments on the urban fringe. Yet at the same time, there has been a surge of interest in sustainable urban growth, featuring concepts such as smart growth, new urbanism, growth management, affordable housing, infill and transit-oriented development, and urban growth boundaries. Many cities and metropolitan areas have adopted plans and policies that espouse one or more

Andrew Goetz is in the Department of Geography, University of Denver, 2050 East Iliff Avenue, Denver, Colorado, 80208, USA. Email: [email protected]. 0042-0980 Print/1360-063X Online Ó 2013 Urban Studies Journal Limited DOI: 10.1177/0042098013478238

SMART GROWTH IN DENVER

of these aspirational visions for the city of the future. Following the work of Burchell et al. (2000), one of the main arguments of this paper is that the smart growth movement of the 1990s and 2000s has been ‘‘more than a ghost of urban policy past’’ because it has been able to deliver more tangible results to limit sprawl and encourage infill development than previous efforts, such as the growth control and growth management initiatives of the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s. The smart growth movement has been more effective because a broader coalition, including large segments of governments at all levels, the public-at-large and especially the development community, has embraced and supported the concept. In fact, Gearin (2004) referred to this broad coalition as a ‘‘smart growth machine’’. This broader coalition has emerged within the framework of a more widespread acceptance of neoliberal approaches to urban development (Krueger and Gibbs, 2008) and the emergence of ‘‘new regionalist’’ strategies to forge wider and stronger regional policy consensus (Goetz et al., 2011; Jonas and Pincetl, 2006). While the previous growth control and growth management approaches tended to be more confrontational to the traditional development community, the smart growth movement has relied on new non-traditional coalitions of business, government and citizen groups that truly believe in the merits of an alternative urban development model. The neoliberal turn in the wider political economy within the US since the 1980s has created an environment wherein it has been necessary for smart growth objectives to be achieved through public–private coalitions rather than confrontation. In some places, the local smart growth agenda is actually driven by the business community in the form of area chambers of commerce and ‘new regional’ collaborations. Moreover, there is broader recognition across the public–private spectrum of the significant economic, social and environmental

2179

costs of low-density suburban sprawl and a stronger desire to create more sustainable urban design alternatives. At the same time, however, this paper also acknowledges that the smart growth movement has been something ‘less than a bold new horizon’ because it bears some similarities to previous anti-sprawl efforts (that experienced mixed results) and it has not resulted in a complete urban development paradigm shift. Despite the smart growth movement, there is a continuing reliance on—and, among some population groups, a preference for—the decades-long investment in the low-density, automobileoriented suburban and exurban built environment. Furthermore, not all segments of government or the development community have wholeheartedly embraced smart growth, some perceiving it as an elegant masquerade for draconian growth control measures. A number of large metropolitan regions within the US are confronted by these contradictory paradigms of urban growth. A particularly good example of this conflict is found in the Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area which exhibits an historical legacy as a sprawling ‘cow town’ at the same time that it espouses an eco-friendly vision of new urbanist developments and a growing commitment to rail transit and transitoriented development. In 2004, metro-area voters approved a 122-mile expansion of the rail transit system as part of the Regional Transportation District’s FasTracks programme that laid the foundation for an aggressive transit-oriented development initiative in the City and County of Denver and other metro area jurisdictions. Yet despite these efforts, the continued popularity of very low-density 1–40-acre ‘ranchettes’ on the urban fringe creates a mixed and contradictory image of the Denver region. The Denver case study is important because it represents a significant effort by

2180

ANDREW GOETZ

a relatively large US metropolitan region to change its urban growth trajectory from continuing low-density sprawl to higherdensity, mixed-use and transit-oriented urban centres. In recognition that the status quo is neither desirable nor sustainable, Denver has been able to forge a consensus for action that can serve as a reference for other metropolitan regions facing similar issues. Thus, the three main questions this paper seeks to answer are (1) What are the major accomplishments of recent smart growth initiatives in Denver? (2) How have these accomplishments differed from previous efforts to address the costs of sprawl in the 1960s, 1970s and 1980s? (3) How have approaches to foster regional collaboration changed and to what extent have these changes played a role in the adoption of smart growth initiatives? This paper is organised as follows. After a theoretical section discusses some of the relevant themes and concepts that relate directly to the objectives of this paper, a case study of Denver’s experience with growth control and smart growth is presented. A focus on post-1950s suburban growth in Denver serves to provide the context for the 1970s growth control movement, which found fertile ground in the Denver area. This period proved to be an important precursor to the post-1990s smart growth phase that has featured a new metro vision, new redevelopment projects and a new commitment to rail transit and transit-oriented development. A concluding section answers the three main questions of this paper and uses the Denver case study to explore larger issues related to the smart growth movement.

Two Paradigms of Urban Growth In his landmark book The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, Thomas Kuhn (1970) laid out a framework for how progress in science is achieved—i.e. from a system of knowledge based on academic paradigms, or ‘schools of thought’, that guide the expansion and development of disciplinary knowledge. Key moments in the history of science occur when new paradigms emerge as a result of one or more scientific breakthroughs that challenge existing epistemologies, theories or methodologies associated with old paradigms. Depending on the field of study, the transition from an old to a new paradigm can occur quickly or can take a considerable amount of time, particularly if advocates of the old paradigm are resistant to accepting the new approach. There may be an extended period of time in which competing paradigms may coexist within an academic field, if these several paradigms offer relevant frameworks to pose intriguing questions and produce useful results that provide better answers to fundamental dilemmas. The current situation in urban development is not unlike the paradigm framework in academic disciplines. The dominant urban growth paradigm since at least 19451 in the US has been decentralised suburban growth, characterised by low-density development in newly urbanising areas on the metropolitan fringe facilitated by automobiles and highway transport. Terms, models and concepts such as multiple nuclei cities (Harris and Ullman, 1945), Fordist suburbs (Knox and McCarthy, 2005), urban realms (Vance, 1977), the outer city (Muller, 1981), the galactic metropolis (Lewis, 1983), suburban downtowns (Hartshorn and Muller, 1989), edge cities (Garreau, 1991), the peripheral city (Harris, 1997), splintering urbanism (Graham and Marvin, 2001) and edgeless cities (Lang, 2003) have all been


used to describe various aspects of the suburbanisation process. The economic, political, social, cultural and technological forces that have combined to support suburban development have been powerful and successful in terms of profitability and popular appeal. Numerous industries have benefited tremendously from suburban growth and the suburban population has enjoyed a substantial improvement in the quality of life as compared with the pre-1945 period. However, the individual quality-of-life improvements associated with suburbanisation have come with increasing economic, social and environmental costs due to the sprawling nature of this development. According to a report from Smart Growth America, urban sprawl is defined as a process whereby the spread of development across the landscape far outpaces population growth. Urban sprawl is characterised by: widely dispersed population in low density development; rigidly separated residential, commercial and employment land uses; a network of roads that creates huge blocks and sub-divisions that limit accessibility; and, a lack of town centres or major activity nodes (Ewing et al., 2002). Studies have shown that there are considerable costs associated with urban sprawl including higher energy costs, especially gasoline consumption, higher levels of traffic congestion, increased water consumption and the need to provide additional infrastructure (transport, electrical, water, sewer systems) and public facilities (schools, fire, police, libraries) to newly developed areas (Real Estate Research Corporation, 1974; Barnett, 2007; Burchell et al., 2002; Newman and Kenworthy, 1999; Farr, 2008). There are also considerable environmental costs associated with sprawling development including increased greenhouse gas emissions, air pollution, water pollution, flooding, noise, erosion, loss of prime agricultural land, loss of open space and wetlands, loss of scenic

2181

amenities and habitat encroachment. Urban sprawl has been implicated in declining public health in the US as people who live in counties with sprawl-style development have higher rates of obesity and higher blood pressure (McCann and Ewing, 2003; Plantinga and Bernell, 2007; Raine et al., 2008). In response to the realisation of the costs of urban sprawl and limited alternatives to suburban-style development, many city planners, developers, architects and advocacy groups have been espousing a ‘smart growth’ approach to urbanisation. Relying on concepts such as new urbanism, infill development, affordable housing, historical preservation, transit-oriented development and urban growth boundaries, the main thrust of the smart growth movement is to encourage more high-density development in already-urbanised areas that contain a mix of land uses close enough together to encourage more walking, biking and public transit use. New urbanism, a leitmotif of smart growth (Burchell et al., 2000), features higher-density mixed-use neo-traditional neighbourhoods with sidewalks and narrower streets, and is viewed as a viable alternative to suburban sprawl, providing residents and workers a greater choice of lifestyle options that do not depend exclusively on automobile use and long-distance travel to access needed activities. It has been estimated that the savings from a controlled growth scenario as opposed to uncontolled growth in the US for the period 2000–25 include 4 million acres saved from conversion to urban land, $12.6 billion saved in water and sewer infrastructure costs, $109.7 billion saved in road infrastructure costs and 49.6 million daily vehicle miles not travelled, which would result in substantially improved air quality and significantly lower greenhouse gas emissions (Burchell et al., 2002). In a seminal paper, Burchell et al. (2000) analyse the smart growth movement in

2182

ANDREW GOETZ

contrast to previous urban policies and find that, while it echoes previous efforts such as urban renewal, inner-area revitalisation, growth control and growth management, it also emphasises newer approaches such as new urbanist design innovations and a much stronger commitment to multimodal transport. The proponents of smart growth have also been able to learn from previous mistakes in urban policy, while a much broader coalition, including large segments of governments at all levels, the public-atlarge and the development community have come together in support of smart growth. A distinguishing characteristic of smart growth has been its acceptance and embrace of neoliberal approaches to urban redevelopment, featuring public–private partnerships and, in many cases, private-sector-led development. Krueger and Gibbs (2008) maintain that smart growth represents a ‘third wave’ of sustainability initiatives in the US after the growth control efforts of the 1960s and 1970s, and growth management in the 1980s. While some growth control and growth management measures were criticised for being ‘anti-business’, many smart growth initiatives have explicitly included the business community. Smart growth builds on, but is different from, the previous waves, especially in its emphasis on a market-based approach to limit sprawl and encourage infill development. Furthermore, the transition from growth control to smart growth can be seen as part of a broader shift in the American political economy away from government intervention and regulatory control towards market solutions, deregulation and public– private partnerships. This neoliberal turn has contributed to creating an environment wherein smart growth objectives have been more easily achieved through increased public–private collaboration rather than confrontation.

Support for the smart growth movement can also be explained by the rise of ‘new regionalist’ approaches in urban development (Basolo, 2003; Jonas and Ward, 2002; Jonas and McCarthy, 2009; Pastor et al., 2000). Eschewing the ‘top–down’ approach of US federal policies in support of regional governments and regional planning, the new regionalism has emphasised a ‘bottom– up’ approach, featuring informal networks of local government, business and citizen advocacy groups to forge coalitions in support of regional policies. Support for many smart growth policies has been a product of non-traditional new regionalist networks (Scott, 2007). There is some evidence that the recent emphasis on smart growth policies is having a measurable effect on urban form, land use and transport patterns. Ingram et al. (2009) compared four states that adopted strong smart growth policies with four states that did not, and found that the smart growth states tended to experience more desirable outcomes such as slower rates of development deconcentration, lower loss of farmland, more transit use, lower levels of traffic congestion and more development directed to already-built-up areas. Gilbert and Perl (2010) have shown that car ownership and car use decline where settlement densities— including both population and employment densities—are higher. Results from a study on compact growth and air quality (Stone et al., 2007) suggested that a 10 per cent increase in metropolitan area population density is associated with a 3.5 per cent decrease in household vehicle travel and emissions. Yin and Sun (2007) found that state growth management programmes effectively promoted compact development in terms of population density and land use mixture, while Howell-Moroney (2007) discovered that only those states with the strongest growth management intensity, defined as having mandatory comprehensive


planning and auxiliary policies aimed at growth control, experienced consistent success at reducing the expansion of urban land and increasing population densities. US cities are notorious for their automobile dependency, high energy consumption and high carbon emissions per capita (Newman and Kenworthy, 1999), but many of the largest US cities are trying to change these patterns by starting new or expanding existing rail transit systems and encouraging transit-oriented development (TOD). Reconnecting America (2011) has identified a total of 643 potential new fixed-guideway projects in 106 metropolitan regions. Of these projects, 138 are in the construction and engineering phase that will yield 1464 miles of new transit. Most of the cities with these projects have witnessed an upsurge in interest for residential, office and retail development in areas directly served by their rail transit systems. Demographic changes, frustration with motor vehicle traffic congestion, high gasoline prices and other factors are creating strong demand for housing, retail and offices in walkable, mixed-use neighbourhoods close to transit.2 Yet while some communities have embraced transit-oriented development and other smart growth principles, other metropolitan areas have been less enamoured by these initiatives and have preferred to continue growing in a more low-density, auto-dependent fashion. The Denver, Colorado, metropolitan area represents an interesting case study that has embraced smart growth planning but still exemplifies both paradigms of urban growth.

Growth in Denver3 The Denver-Aurora metropolitan area is located in the state of Colorado in the western US, and is composed of 10 counties,

2183

including Denver, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Adams and Douglas counties (see Figure 1). This area has been experiencing explosive population growth during the post-war era, growing from a population of 564 000 in 1950 to 2.54 million in 2010, which now places it as the 21st largest metropolitan area in the US. Even though it is designated by the US Census as a separate MSA, Boulder County is sometimes included in the greater Denver metropolitan area, which would increase the metro area population to 2.8 million. Likewise, parts of south-western Weld County, which is part of the Greeley MSA, are sometimes included in the Denver metropolitan area for planning purposes. Most of the counties in the metro area have been experiencing substantial growth, especially Douglas County which registered a 191 per cent increase from 1990 to 2000 (the fastest-growing county in the US in that decade) and 59.7 per cent since 2000 (see Table 1). The other counties have also grown significantly, including Adams, Arapahoe and Boulder. Even the City and County of Denver has experienced substantial growth since 1990, which is unusual for a central city in the US. Post-1950 Suburbanisation and 1970s Growth Control Movement

The city of Denver, at an elevation of 5280 feet (1609 metres) above sea level, hence the nickname ‘Mile-high City’, was founded in 1858 and experienced steady and substantial growth through the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Growth picked up significantly after 1950, as the Denver metropolitan area experienced a typical US post-war suburbanisation process. Being home to a number of military bases during World War II, many veterans who were stationed in Denver or Colorado moved back to Denver after the war, thus contributing to substantial population in-migration.

2184

ANDREW GOETZ

Table 1.

Population of the six largest counties in the Denver metropolitan area, 1950–2010

County

1950

1960

1970

1980

1990

2000

2010

Percentage change 1990–2000 2000–2010

Denver 415 786 493 887 Adams 40 234 120 296 Arapahoe 52 125 113 426 Boulder 48 296y 74 254 Douglas y y Jefferson 55 687 127 520 Total

514 185 162 131

678 789 142 889 y 233 031

492 245 293 189 25 371

365 944 621 625 153 753

467 265 391 225 60 438

610 038 511 339 391 430

554 636 363 857 487 967 291 288 175 766 527 056

600 158 441 603 572 003 294 567 285 465 534 543

18.6 37.3 24.6 29.3 191.1 20.2

8.2 21.4 17.2 1.1 62.4 1.4

563 832 929 383 1 227 529 1 620 902 1 848 319 2 400 570 2 728 339

29.9

13.7

ynot a part of Denver metro area in these years. Notes: The US Census Bureau had different names for metropolitan area designations, as follows: 1950: Standard Metropolitan Areas (SMAs); 1960, 1970, 1980: Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas (SMSAs); 1990, 2000: Metropolitan Areas (MAs), Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas (CMSAs), Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs); and after 2003: Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSAs).

Figure 1. The Denver-Aurora Metropolitan Statistical Area.


Denver also benefited from its location and orientation as a Sunbelt city, with its strong economy and quality of life attracting population especially from the US Midwest and Northeast. The availability of Federal Housing Administration and Veterans Administration long-term low-interest mortgages helped to fuel the suburban housing boom, along with increased automobile ownership and construction of interstate highways. In 1950, Denver’s urbanised population was just under 500 000, of which 416 000 (83 per cent) lived in the city of Denver. By 1990, the urbanised population had expanded more than threefold to over 1.5 million, of whom only 467 000 (31 per cent) lived in the City and County of Denver. The total urbanised land grew more than fourfold from 105 to 459 square miles during that same time-period, thus resulting in a more sprawling urban landscape (Rusk, 2004). While the Denver metropolitan area was sprawling outward during the 1950–90 period, there were some countermovements that began to sow the seeds of development alternatives to the low-density suburban and exurban model. The first rumblings of dissent occurred in the late 1960s and 1970s as part of the nation-wide growth control and environmental movement that produced groundbreaking legislation such as the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. In land use planning, states began to impose growth controls on local development to protect critical areas in the so-called Quiet Revolution (Krueger and Gibbs, 2008). A number of rapidly growing and higher-income municipalities and counties began to enact different measures to curb residential growth, such as limiting residential permits or requiring that developers bear more of the costs of growth. In Denver, a movement led by a Colorado state representative, Richard Lamm,

2185

opposed the hosting of the 1976 Winter Olympics based on environmental and financial concerns, and a general uneasiness about the pace and character of growth in Denver and the nearby mountain areas. In a 1972 referendum, Colorado voters rejected hosting the Winter Olympics, the only time in history that a city has turned down an invitation to host the Olympic Games. On the heels of this movement, Lamm was elected governor of Colorado in 1975. In 1977, he stopped plans for a circumferential beltway to be built around Denver, citing concerns about sprawl and automobile dependency during a period in which the 1970s energy crisis had driven gasoline prices to record high levels. It was at this time that Denver and Colorado were developing a reputation as a more eco-friendly, slow-growth area. For example, the city of Boulder enacted growth control measures starting in 1976 that sought to limit residential growth to no more than 2 per cent per year (de Raismes et al., 2000). While the growth control movement had some impact in Colorado and some other states in the 1970s, a neoliberal anti-control backlash typified federal, state and local policies in the 1980s. The regional economy in Denver and Colorado during the 1970s benefited from the activities of energy exploration companies that sought to expand their operations in the oil and gas fields of Colorado, Wyoming and other western states as a result of high energy prices at that time. Yet just as quickly as the boom occurred, by the early 1980s, the price of oil and gas began to plummet due to new sources being developed throughout the world. In 1982, Exxon announced that it was pulling out of its western Colorado oil shale project and closed its Denver office, thus starting a stampede of energy company closures in Colorado. By the mid 1980s, Denver was actually losing population and attention turned away from growth control

2186

ANDREW GOETZ

to pro-development strategies. A concerted effort to instigate the state and city economies featured the construction of large public projects such as Denver International Airport, the Denver Convention Center in downtown Denver and Coors Field in the Lower Downtown (LoDo) area, each of which benefitted from strong business support (Weiler, 2000). Coors Field was built to house the Colorado Rockies baseball team that started playing in 1993, showing that Denver still considered itself very much a major league sports city, 20 years after the rejection of the Winter Olympics. Plans for building a circumferential beltway around the metropolitan area were resurrected and paved the way for new suburban residential and commercial ventures, such as the massive Highlands Ranch development in Douglas County which eventually grew to a population of nearly 100 000 by 2010. With the majestic Rocky Mountains such a prominent feature located directly west of Denver, it was inevitable that residential development would extend into the nearby foothills and mountain region. The construction of Interstate-70 west of Denver into the mountains opened up a major access corridor that allowed residents the ability to live in the mountains but still be able to commute to the Denver area. Numerous exurban communities in Jefferson, Boulder, Clear Creek, Gilpin and Park counties, located up to 30–50 miles away from Denver, started to experience substantial growth. Particularly popular have been the 1–40-acre ‘ranchettes’ that have allowed residents to have their ‘home on the range’, but still be within driving distance of metropolitan Denver. This ultra-low-density exurban sprawl is not usually included in statistical analyses of urbanised land expansion; thus many studies tend to underestimate the extent of residential development in the hinterlands of metropolitan areas (Sutton et al., 2006).

1990–2010 Smart Growth, New Urbanism and Regional Planning

The 1980s economic downturn lasted only a short while and, by the early 1990s, Denver was growing again. There was a large spike in population migration from California in the early 1990s in the wake of several major earthquakes in California, the Rodney King incident in Los Angeles and subsequent fallout from these events. Depressed real estate prices in Denver proved to be an inviting catalyst that prompted many Californians and others to discover the natural amenities and relatively high quality of life in the Denver area. The 1990s population boom was also a result of a more diversified economic base that benefitted from the public– private development projects started in the late 1980s. The Denver metro area grew by 30.7 per cent during the 1990s, thus leading to a reconsideration of how growth should be best accommodated in the future. In the early 1990s, the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the region’s designated metropolitan planning organisation (MPO) whose board includes all of the city mayors and county commissioners in the region, began its long-range Metro Vision 2020 planning process. Shortly after the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991 allocated more authority to MPOs to conduct urban transport planning, DRCOG embarked on a more focused regional planning exercise due to several growth-related factors that were impacting the Denver region. These included rapid urbanised land expansion that was on pace to exceed 1000 square miles, a notorious air pollution problem that resulted in non-attainment of federal air quality standards, rapidly increasing vehicle miles travelled and traffic congestion, and continuing battles over funding and approval for suburban beltways. Regional officials and DRCOG


realised that a coherent vision of the region’s future was necessary. The resulting Metro Vision 2020 plan focused on growth and development, the natural environment and transport, and clearly embraced a smart growth approach to regional planning (DRCOG, 1997). Features of Metro Vision included a voluntary urban growth boundary/area that was initially set not to exceed 700 square miles,4 a focus on higher-density development in designated urban centres, designation of four freestanding communities, improving air quality in the region and, most significantly, a rail transit system that would serve as the backbone of the regional transport system. Regional support for the smart-growthoriented Metro Vision plan was much more broadly based than support for the growth control measures of the 1970s. The most important difference was the support of the development and business community for the smart growth plan. The Denver Metro Chamber of Commerce, composed of over 3000 metropolitan area businesses, and other regional business associations have been supportive of many elements in Metro Vision, especially measures to improve air quality and traffic congestion. The mayors and county commissioners have also been unified in support and have forged new regional alliances through organisations such as the Metro Mayors Caucus (MMC). The MMC was formed in 1993 as a voluntary, consensus-based organisation focused on addressing issues of regional importance. The mayors felt that there was a need for a more co-operative and collaborative forum to exchange ideas and viewpoints outside the more traditional and confrontational arenas (Goetz et al., 2011). The MMC and the Chamber of Commerce espoused a more cohesive vision for the region than had previous planning efforts which had been typified by discord and parochialism. One such previous example was

2187

the 1974 Poundstone Amendment to the Colorado Constitition that effectively limited the ability of counties to annex land from other counties. Concerned about potential annexations by the City and County of Denver, a suburban mayor pronounced that ‘‘we will fight Denver in all ways possible like Poland did when Hitler decided he needed more land . We will fight until they are as bloody as a bull’s hock’’ (Leonard and Noel, 1990, p. 293). In contrast, the Denver Metro Chamber president said in 1990 that the world sees Denver as you see it from an airplane—without artificial boundaries. We should treat it that way and deal together on common problems of air pollution, economic development, transportation and water (Leonard and Noel, 1990, p. 473).

In the mid 1980s, the City and County of Denver decided to build the new Denver International Airport and to close Stapleton Airport to all aviation activity. In 1995, Stapleton Airport was closed and Denver proposed to redevelop the 4700-acre site into a mixed-use development based on Peter Calthorpe’s new urbanist principles as espoused in the Stapleton Development Plan (aka the ‘Green Book’). Urban social coalitions in Denver ensured that a wide range of housing styles from apartments, townhomes and rowhouses to larger singlefamily dwellings would result in Stapleton becoming a mixed-income neighbourhood with substantial affordable housing. These same coalitions also pressed for more schools to be built to encourage more families to move there. In 1998, Denver hired Forest City Enterprises to lead the massive redevelopment effort that was expected to occur over a long time horizon. As of 2010, Stapleton had nearly 10 000 residents, six schools and more than 200 shops, restaurants and services.5 The full build-out calls

2188

ANDREW GOETZ

for 12 000 residential units, 10 million square feet of office space, 3 million square feet of retail space and 1100 acres of parks and open space (Leccese, 2005). Stapleton is already one of the largest urban infill projects in the US and it has received several national and international awards for sustainable urban development. Other smart growth projects in Denver that are consistent with the Metro Vision plan include the 16th Street pedestrian retail mall that was closed to automobile traffic, the redevelopment and gentrification of the Lower Downtown (LoDo) area near Union Station and Coors Field, and the redevelopment of several suburban auto-oriented shopping malls into pedestrian-friendly ‘new downtowns’. However, the most ambitious smart growth project in the metropolitan area has been the Regional Transportation District (RTD) FasTracks programme that will add 122 miles of light and commuter rail transit and 18 miles of bus rapid transit in six corridors radiating outward from a redeveloped Union Station (see Figure 2). This expansion builds upon the 7-mile Central Corridor and Central Platte Valley, the 9-mile Southwest (SW) Corridor and the 19-mile Southeast (SE) Corridor light rail lines that were built in the 1990s and early 2000s. In 2004, voters in the RTD area approved a 0.4 per cent sales tax increase to fund the $4.7 billion FasTracks expansion.6 In a metropolitan area that had previously voted down efforts to build a regional rail system in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s, the 2004 vote in favour of a vastly expanded rail transit system was a significant departure from the automobile/highway orientation of the post-war period. Residents had become disenchanted with the ever-worsening traffic congestion on the major interstates and arterial roads and, after having seen RTD deliver the SW and SE Corridor rail lines on time and under budget, with actual ridership

exceeding projections, they felt that rail transit could provide a more efficient and environmentally friendly mode of urban transport. The local business community as represented by area chambers of commerce was very supportive of the rail transit expansion and all 31 mayors in the Denver Metro Mayors Caucus also supported the initiative. In addition, the Alliance for Regional Stewardship, an affiliate of the American Chambers of Commerce Executives committed to working across regional boundaries (co-founded by John Parr, a regional leader from Denver), played a strong role in support of FasTracks. In the years since the 2004 vote, sharp increases in the cost of construction materials plus declining revenues from the 2008-09 economic recession have resulted in a $2.4 billion funding gap to complete the entire programme by 2017 (RTD, 2010b). As of 2013, RTD, estimates that the West, East, Gold Line, and I-225 Corridors will be complete by 2016, but that the North Metro and North-west Corridors, plus the SW and SE extensions will take longer to build at current cost and revenue rates. The RTD Board of Directors considered a plan to increase the regional sales tax by another 0.4 per cent to complete the entire system by 2017, but decided not to place the referendum on the ballot for November 2010, 2011, or 2012 in light of continuing economic concerns. As espoused in DRCOG’s Metro Vision statement, it was expected that a rail transit system would help to shape future growth in the region by encouraging more highdensity transit-oriented development (TOD) in transit corridors and station areas. To help implement this vision, the City and County of Denver produced a new land use and transport plan in 2002 called ‘‘Blueprint Denver’’ that created a new TOD zoning code allowing higherdensity mixed-use development to occur in station areas and along transit corridors.


2189

Figure 2. Regional Transportation District existing rail lines and proposed FasTracks Rail Transit Program.

This designation and increased privatesector real estate interest have led to a TOD boom in Denver. Development already built or under construction within half a mile of existing or planned station areas

include 16 146 housing units, 4754 hotel rooms, 5.1 million square feet of office space, 5.2 million square feet of retail space and 5.9 million square feet of medical space (RTD, 2010a; Ratner and Goetz, 2013).

2190

ANDREW GOETZ

Most of the development has been built within the downtown area along the Central Corridor and the Central Platte Valley lines. This includes a considerable amount of development activity in proximity to Union Station, especially the area between Union Station and the South Platte River which is in the midst of a major transformation from abandoned rail yards into a residential, office, commercial and recreational district called Riverpoint Park. Union Station itself is being redeveloped as part of the FasTracks programme into an intermodal hub that will serve as the focal point for light rail, commuter rail, Amtrak, ski train, regional express bus and intercity bus service, as well as office, retail, hotel and restaurant development. Outside the city of Denver, the inner-ring suburb of Englewood redeveloped an old mall into a new transit-oriented development (along the SW Corridor) called CityCenter Englewood that now houses the Englewood Civic Center with city offices, courtrooms and library, along with on-site retail and residential development. And in Aurora (along the proposed I-225 corridor), the Anschutz/Fitzsimons Medical Campus, which is the new home of the University of Colorado Health Sciences Center, has been expanding rapidly with ambitious plans for additional growth in the future. Still, most of the transit-oriented development in Denver was built or was under construction in the 2006–09 period, while short-term projections for the 2010–15 period indicate a substantial slowdown in development due to the economic recession of 2008–09 (RTD, 2010a; Ratner and Goetz, 2013). In addition to RTD’s FasTracks financial difficulties, some other smart growth efforts in Denver and Colorado have faced obstacles. In 2000, the Colorado Voter Approval of Growth Act (Amendment 24) sought to change the State of Colorado constitution by requiring voter approval of growth area

maps that identified areas for future development in counties greater than 10 000 population and cities and towns greater than 1000 population. These jurisdictions would also have been required to identify ‘committed areas’ where growth would be allowed to occur without voter approval and to provide information to voters about the impacts of proposed growth. Despite strong support from the Colorado Public Interest Research Group (COPIRG), the Sierra Club, and other environmental organisations, Amendment 24 was defeated in November 2000 by a 70–30 margin. Key to the measure’s defeat was vigorous opposition from the development industry within and outside Colorado, exemplified by a $6 million advertising campaign to influence voters to reject the amendment (Murray, 2002). Since then, smart growth efforts have largely been confined to the local or regional scale, and mostly in Denver, other Front Range cities and fast-growing mountain communities. Impacts of Smart Growth in Denver: The Bottom Line

All of the smart growth initiatives that the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG), the Regional Transportation District (RTD), the City and County of Denver and all of the other counties and municipalities have implemented over the past 20 years with substantial support from regional business and citizen coalitions have changed the trajectory of urban development in the Denver region. Prior to 1990, the population density of the region as measured by total persons per square mile of urbanised land had decreased from 4741 in 1950 to 3309 in 1990 due to the on-going suburbanisation and decentralisation of the region’s population. However, after 1990, urban density increased to 3979 persons per square-mile by 2000, representing a 20.2 per


cent increase over the decade (Rusk 2004). Since 2000, urban density, as measured by the number of housing units per square mile of urban land, continued to increase from 1379 in 2000 to 1429 in 2006 (DRCOG, 2008). Housing and employment are both increasing in the higher-density, mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented urban centres. At the same time, however, urban land consumption continues to grow. In the year 2000, the urban land area for the Denver region was 635 square miles, which grew to 717 square miles by 2006, representing a 12.9 per cent increase. At this rate of urban land expansion, the entire urbanised area would cover 1106 square miles by 2035, thus exceeding the urban growth boundary/area of 921 square miles that was established in the Metro Vision 2035 plan (DRCOG, 2008). Large-lot development in outlying jurisdictions continues to contribute to the expansion of the urbanised land area.

Summary and Conclusions Ever since at least the 1960s, there has been a growing realisation that the low-density, auto-oriented suburban growth paradigm, while successful in terms of private profitability and popular appeal, has come with increasing social, environmental and broader economic costs. Efforts to change this model from the 1960s to the 1980s, whether in the form of urban renewal, growth control, growth management or top–down regional initiatives, have produced mixed results but have not seriously challenged the prevailing low-density suburban growth paradigm. The smart growth movement of the 1990s and 2000s, while bearing some similarities to previous growth control and growth management initiatives, has been more successful at creating an alternative urban development paradigm that relies on

2191

higher-density, mixed-use neighbourhoods and activity centres that are more amenable to walking, biking and transit use. The smart growth movement has been more successful because it has a broader coalition of support that includes large segments of governments at all levels, the public-atlarge and especially the development community. While many growth control efforts of the 1960s and 1970s were perceived to be too confrontational and anathema to developers and larger business interests, many aspects of the smart growth movement are supported by commercial development firms and area chambers of commerce. In short, some elements of the development and business community have embraced smart growth because there is growing market demand for alternative urban activity centres and neighbourhoods different from the typical low-density suburban development model. The smart growth movement has also benefited from new regional collaboration that has featured ‘bottom–up’ approaches involving informal networks of local government, business and citizen advocacy groups to forge nontraditional coalitions in support of regional policies. The Denver metropolitan region is an interesting example of the two major paradigms of urban growth in the post-1950 era. From 1950 to 1990, Denver followed the classic US post-war suburban and exurban low-density development model with increasing dependence on automobiles and highways. Edge-city developments, retail malls and large-lot developments on the urban fringe contributed to a massive expansion of urbanised land and the accompanying economic and environmental costs associated with urban sprawl. Yet in response to concerns over rapid population growth, urban land expansion, air quality and increasing traffic congestion, Denver reached a watershed moment in the

2192

ANDREW GOETZ

early 1990s with the development of its Metro Vision regional planning process that supported higher-density, mixed-use, infill development and a regional rail transit system to link urban activity centres. Since 1990, the Denver area has been increasing its population and employment density, especially in its transit and pedestrianoriented urban centres. The overall population density of the region has increased in spite of continued increases in the urbanised land area. The Denver metropolitan region also represents an interesting case study of how the smart growth movement of the 1990s and 2000s has been ‘more than a ghost of urban policy past’ but also ‘less than a bold new horizon’. While a number of growth control measures were initiated in the 1970s, such as the rejection of the Winter Olympics and the cancellation of the I-470 interstate beltway project, the support for these actions was relatively short-lived and faded away during the economic decline and subsequent economic development efforts of the 1980s. Principally associated with the firebrand governor Richard Lamm who was known for his incendiary statements such as ‘‘driving a silver stake’’ through the beltway project, the growth control movement in Colorado antagonised the development community and other powerful growth machine interests. By contrast, the smart growth movement of the 1990s and 2000s has largely sought to include the development community, as well as a broader coalition of government and business interests in supporting specific smart growth programmes and projects. The redevelopment of Lower Downtown Denver (LoDo), Stapleton and other new-urbanistinfluenced projects were the result of public– private partnerships and a wider recognition of the benefits of infill development. The approval of the 122-mile addition to the rail transit system known as FasTracks was a

result of unprecedented collaboration among mayors, county commissioners and chambers of commerce in the Denver metropolitan region who largely supported the rail transit expansion. The rise of non-traditional ‘new regionalist’ organisations such as the Metro Mayors Caucus and the Alliance for Regional Stewardship were critical to the support for FasTracks. Simply put, the smart growth initiatives of the 1990s and 2000s have been more widely supported, longer-lasting and ultimately more successful than the growth control efforts of the 1970s. Nevertheless, not all initiatives have been successful; thus smart growth represents something less than a bold new horizon. The failure of Amendment 24 in 2000 and the current financial difficulties of FasTracks have been setbacks for the smart growth movement in Colorado. Furthermore, the continued popularity of ultra-low-density (1–40-acre ‘ranchettes’) residential developments on the exurban fringe undermines the purpose and effectiveness of the region’s voluntary urban growth boundary/area. Even though density within the region has been increasing since 1990, the urbanised land area has also been increasing at a rate that would exceed the maximum growth area defined in the Metro Vision 2035 plan. It is not clear whether the smart growth movement will engender a full paradigm shift away from lower-density, autooriented suburban development towards higher-density, mixed-use, transit and pedestrian-oriented urban centres. Yet it is clear that the smart growth movement has been more successful at implementing the new paradigm than previous efforts. Given the substantial economic, social and environmental costs of sprawling suburban development, it is likely that more sustainable urban design approaches will continue to be implemented and will slowly replace the previous low-density suburban development paradigm.


Funding This research was funded in part by the National Center for Intermodal Transportation, University of Denver and Mississippi State University.

Notes 1. A previous wave of suburbanisation in the US started in the 1920s, although the size and scale of the post-1945 suburban era dwarfed that earlier period. Also, according to Jackson (1985), early forms of US suburbanisation can be traced to the mid 1800s with the beginning of the intraurban transport revolution and the erosion of the walking city. 2. See Centre for Transit-Oriented Development website (www.ctod.org/portal/; accessed 19 July 2011). 3. This case study is based on surveys, interviews and background research conducted in two research projects on regional collaboration, rail transit and transit-oriented development in Denver for the National Center for Intermodal Transportation. 4. In the latest Metro Vision 2035 plan, the urban growth boundary/area was expanded to 921 square miles (DRCOG, 2007). 5. See Forest City Stapleton website (www. about.stapletndenver.com/about/history). 6. The original cost estimate in 2004 was $4.7 billion. The cost of FasTracks is now estimated at $6.7 billion due to rapidly expanding costs of building materials since 2004 (RTD, 2010b).

References Barnett, J. (Ed.) (2007) Smart Growth in a Changing World. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association. Basolo, V. (2003) US regionalism and rationality, Urban Studies, 40, pp. 447–462. Burchell, R. W., Listokin, D. and Galley, C. C. (2000) Smart growth: more than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a bold new horizon, Housing Policy Debate, 11(4), pp. 821–878. Burchell, R. W., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W. R., Galley, C. C. et al. (2002) Costs of Sprawl-

2193

2000. Transit Cooperative Research Program Report No. 74. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. DRCOG (Denver Regional Council of Governments) (1997) Metro Vision 2020 plan. Denver, CO. DRCOG (2007) Metro Vision 2035 plan. Denver, CO. DRCOG (2008) Measuring progress: regional performance measures and indicators. Denver, CO. Ewing, R., Pendall, R. and Chen, D. (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DC. Farr, D. (2008) Sustainable Urbanism: Urban Design with Nature. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. Garreau, J. (1991) Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York: Doubleday. Gearin, E. (2004) Smart growth or smart growth machine? The smart growth movement and its implications for southern California, in: J. Wolch, M. Pastor and P. Drier (Eds) Up Against the Sprawl: Public Policy and the Making of Southern California, pp. 259–307. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Gilbert, R. and Perl, A. (2010) Transport Revolutions: Moving People and Freight without Oil, 2nd edn. London: Earthscan. Goetz, A. R., Jonas, A. E. G. and Bhattacharjee, S. (2011) Regional collaboration in transport infrastucture provision: the case of Denver’s FasTracks rail transit program. Final Report. National Center for Intermodal Transportation, University of Denver and Mississippi State University. Graham, S. and Marvin, S. (2001) Splintering Urbanism. New York: Routledge. Harris, C. D. (1997) The nature of cities and urban geography in the last half century, Urban Geography, 18(1), pp. 15–35. Harris, C. D. and Ullman, E. L. (1945) The nature of cities, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 242, pp. 7–17. Hartshorn, T. A. and Muller, P. O. (1989) Suburban downtowns and the transformation of metropolitan Atlanta’s business landscape, Urban Geography, 10, pp. 375–395. Howell-Moroney, M. (2007) Studying the effects of the intensity of US state growth management approaches on land development outcomes, Urban Studies, 44(11), pp. 2163–2178.

2194

ANDREW GOETZ

Ingram, G. K., Carbonell, A., Hong, Y.-H. and Flint, A. (Eds) (2009) Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy. Jackson, K. T. (1985) Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States. New York: Oxford University Press. Jonas, A. E. G. and McCarthy, L. (2009) Urban management and regeneration in the United States: state intervention or redevelopment at all costs?, Local Government Studies, 35(3), pp. 299–314. Jonas, A. E. G. and Pincetl, S. (2006) Rescaling regions in the state: the new regionalism in California, Political Geography, 25, pp. 482–505. Jonas, A. E. G. and Ward, K. (2002) A world of regionalisms? Towards a US–UK urban and regional policy framwork comparison, Journal of Urban Affairs, 24(4), pp. 377–401. Jonas, A. E. G. and Wilson, D. (Eds) (1999) The Urban Growth Machine: Critical Perspectives Two Decades Later. Albany, NY: State of New York University Press. Knox, P. L. and McCarthy, L. (2005) Urbanization: An Introduction to Urban Geography, 2nd edn. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Prentice Hall. Krueger, R. and Gibbs, D. (2008) ‘Third wave’ sustainability? Smart growth and regional development in the USA, Regional Studies, 42(9), pp. 1263–1274. Kuhn, T. (1970) The Structure of Scientific Revolutions, 2nd edn. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Lang, R. E. (2003) Edgeless Cities: Exploring the Elusive Metropolis. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Leccese, M. (2005) Denver’s Stapleton: green urban infill for the masses?, Terrain.org: A Journal of the Built and Natural Environments, 17, Fall/Winter. Leonard, S. J. and Noel, T. J. (1990) Denver: Mining Camp to Metropolis. Niwot, CO: University of Colorado Press. Lewis, P. (1983) The galactic metropolis, in: R. Platt and G. Macuriko (Eds) Beyond the Urban Fringe: Land Use Issues of Nonmetropolitan America, pp. 23–50. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. McCann, B. A. and Ewing, R. (2003) Measuring the health effects of sprawl: a national analysis

of physical activity, obesity, and chronic disease. Smart Growth America and Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC. Muller, P. O. (1981) Contemporary Suburban America. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Murray, M. (2002) City profile: Denver, Cities, 19(4), pp. 283–294. Newman, P. W. G. and Kenworthy, J. R. (1999) Sustainability and Cities: Overcoming Automobile Dependence. Washington, DC: Island Press. Pastor, M., Dreier, P., Grigsby III, J. E. and LopezGarza, M. (2000) Regions that Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press. Plantinga, A. J. and Bernell, S. (2007) The association between urban sprawl and obesity: is it a two way street?, Journal of Regional Science, 47(5), pp. 857–879. Raine, J., Spence, C., Church, J., Boule´, N. et al. (2008) State of the evidence review on urban health and healthy weights. Canadian Institute for Health Information, Ottawa. Raismes III, J. N. de, Hoyt, H. L., Pollock, P. L., Gordon, J. P. and Gehr, D. J. (2000) Growth management in Boulder, Colorado: a case study. Attorney’s Office City of Boulder (www.bouldercolorado.gov/files/City%20Atto rney/Documents/Miscellaneous%20Docs%20 of%20Interest/x-bgmcs1.jbn.pdf). Ratner, K. A. and Goetz, A. R. (2013) The reshaping of land use and urban form in Denver through transit-oriented development, Cities, 30(1): pp. 31–46. Real Estate Research Corporation (1974) The Costs of Sprawl: Detailed Cost Analysis. Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office. Reonnecting America (2011) Jumpstarting the transit space race: 2011, a catalog and analysis of planned and proposed transit projects in the US. Reconnecting America, Washington, DC (www.reconnectingamerica.org/assets/2011 Transit SpaceRaceIIFinal.pdf; accessed 20 July 2011). RTD (Regional Transportation District) (2010a) Transit oriented development status report 2009. Denver, CO. RTD (2010b) The 2009 Annual Report to DRCOG on FasTracks. Denver, CO. Rusk, D. (2004) Denver divided: sprawl, race, and poverty in Denver. Morgridge College of Education, University of Denver.


Scott, J. W. (2007) Smart growth as urban reform: a pragmatic ‘recoding’ of the new regionalism, Urban Studies, 44(1), pp. 15–35. Stone, B. Jr, Mednick, A. C., Holloway, T. and Spak, S. N. (2007) Is compact growth good for air quality?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(4), pp. 404–418. Sutton, P. C., Cova, T. J. and Elvidge, C. D. (2006) Mapping ‘exurbia’ in the conterminous United States using nighttime satellite imagery, Geocarto International, 21(2), pp. 39–45.

2195

Vance, J. E. Jr (1977) The Scene of Man: The Role and Structure of the City in the Geography of Western Civilization. New York: Harper Collins Press. Weiler, S. (2000) Pioneers and settlers in Lo-Do Denver: private risk and public benefits in urban redevelopment, Urban Studies, 37(1), pp. 167–179. Yin, M. and Sun, J. (2007) The impacts of state growth management programs on urban sprawl in the 1990s, Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(2), pp. 149–179.