Thursday, March 28, 2024 -
Print Edition

Denver builds slums

WHAT IS a “slum”? A century ago it was a high density structure that was built poorly and unsafely. No doubt, many of the high density structures now going up all around Denver are built well and, of course, safety codes have advanced significantly over the last century.

Add two more caveats: Some of the residential structures going up around Denver are not high density; in fact, they’re beautiful. I have written about some of them. Then also, some of the new structures, even the ugly or boring ones, do replace older buildings that were worse.

Taken all around, however, Denver is being transformed. A city known for its open spaces and its parks is now becoming known for, and dominated by, slums.

Is that a fair word?

I think so, in three senses.

First, many of the residential structures of the past few years are packed together like proverbial sardines. Massive, wide (or wide and high), these structures are boring squares or rectangles, and stretch for blocks at a time, with nary a squeak of light allowed between one building and the next, or between what should be empty spaces at intervals in an oversized single building.

Second, not all of these residential structures are built well. A few may be dappled with color and sometimes a bit of design, but over time some will deteriorate.

Third, these buildings, taken en toto, do not serve existing population; they constitute a huge suction pump of people to Denver. Given the falling (or fallen) birth rate —not to mention the inevitable bust that follows the boom — there will at some future point no longer be enough people to fill them. That’s the classic genesis of a slum: empty or half empty buildings. Visit the Bronx.

All this would be bad for the city even if the new density did not generate increased traffic and crowding. It’s a new form of urban blight.

THE TYPICAL response to these concerns is that every prior expansion of an urban landscape brought similar complaints, yet, in the end, the changes turned out to improve the character and the economy of the city. It is typical to resist change. Change is good. Chill out.

Fair enough. Denver could end up the better for all of the current construction. I cannot say for certain that it won’t. I am not a prophet.

However:

Urban “progress” is hardly inevitable. For every case of an initial critique of urban expansion being wrong, there is at least one that is right. Think railroads. At one point they tore up the urban landscape; it took decades for cities to recover.

Think urban sprawl and the ubiquitous “strip mall” that takes decades to replace with truly inviting, high quality shopping centers.

Think cars. In the 1950s, under short-sighted, economically selfish campaigns by General Motors, light rail was torn up in many American cities, including Denver, to increase auto sales. The result was a dramatic rise in smog and traffic — a great deterioration in the environment. We’re still trying to recover. And it costs billions.

The automobile — the raison d’etre behind the tearing up of light rail in the 1950s — has hardly been an unmitigated environmental blessing. Neither will at least some of the current high density residences.

Think about the lack of planning evident in Denver. It seems that the sole criterion for zoning a new, massive, residential structure is the availability of land — not where it is, not how big or small it is, not what bounds it, not the scale of the proposed residence to it; but only its availability.

Check out the old CU medical campus whose corner was 8th and Colorado Blvd. Do you discern any holistic design, congruent with surrounding neighborhoods, in the residential structures going up near there? I don’t.

Check out parts of Cherry Creek. Do you see a semblance to its charm and character even five years ago? I don’t.

Check out the corner of 6th and Grant St. Do you see any proportion between the emerging, massive structure there and the very small size of its lot? I don’t.

I see slums in the making.

I see a lack of foresight.

I see the legitimate concern for a viable tax base overbalanced against all other legitimate concerns in city planning.

I see beautiful success stories in Denver, such as the Lowry and Stapleton neighborhoods, and just the opposite in many other areas of Denver.

Hillel Goldberg may be reached at [email protected].

Copyright © 2015 by the Intermountain Jewish News



Avatar photo

IJN Executive Editor | [email protected]


Leave a Reply