Page 50 - CCD Magazine - Winter-Spring 2019 Issue

Urban Perspectives Parking Lots Could Provide Solutions to Denver’s Green Space Shortage by Michael Leccese Michael Leccese Executive director of Urban Land Institute Colorado Michael Leccese grew up in New York City and Long Island in the 1960s and 70s. If you have a problem with that, fuhgeddaboudit. Watch for ULI Colorado’s program on parking futures in late May. In January, the Denver Post published Bruce Finley’s alarmist series “Concrete Metropolis,” which painted a picture of a city on the verge of environmental collapse. Though Finley made good points about the shortage of open space for a rapidly growing city, he also missed the big picture of what makes a livable city and how cities and their growing suburbs fit into the context of broader environmental preservation. Finley portrayed a city where dispirited citizens are clawing to get out for a breath of fresh air (and even wrecking Rocky Mountain National Park in the process). He blames higher-density housing for overweight kids, possible epic flooding, the destruction of natural areas—pretty much for everything except sticky floors in movie theaters. And he knocks developers and builders who have gotten away with building big without contributing their share for green open spaces. This raises big issues for our 1,400 Colorado members of the Urban Land Institute, who pride themselves in implementing best practices in land use, with a specific initiative with the Colorado Health Foundation to build healthy places. At the heart of the questions Finley raises: are dense cities bad for your health? Is Denver’s reputation as a livable city suffering? Are we destroying the natural environment while building a big city? I think all three answers are “no.” Taken in turn: Health: Denver must be doing something right – according to the Centers for Disease Control, our city is among the top 10 “fittest” cities in America. Well-planned, socially and economically healthy urban neighborhoods 50 | Colorado Construction & Design may create a sense of connectedness that benefits mental and physical health, as well as to creative culture that allows for business innovation. A 2017 study of nearly 420,000 adults by Oxford University and the University of Hong Kong found that people living in built-up, residential areas in 22 British cities had lower body-mass indexes and took more exercise than residents of more spread-out homes in suburbs. Livability. If Denver’s livability has taken such a dive, why do 10,000 people a year (including, recently, my son), continue to move here? Density is a hot consumer item. With it comes new jobs, opportunities, and customers for the arts, entertainment, food, and sports—important quality of life factors. Many young professionals I work with are dedicated to Denver’s direction; not only because they enjoy the hipster factor, but because they want to settle and raise families in the city. They are devoted to the idea of creating a more walkable, transit-friendly city with less reliance on the auto. This will not happen without urban density. Environment. Missing from Finley’s discussion are the costs of suburban sprawl. What if all of Denver’s roughly 240,000 new residents had all settled in the suburbs in lower-density communities? We would surely see more natural areas plowed up; more traffic congestion and air pollution, and vastly more paved areas. Densification is better for the environment. People in cities drive less than those in suburban or rural locations. Buildings in denser environments use fewer resources, especially energy. Clustering development makes land preservation and retention of natural features possible. Not everyone has to live in the dense urban core. Yet many suburbs (Englewood, Westminster, Wheat Ridge) are turning away from 1950s-70s sprawling land-use patterns and embracing urban density, especially around transit.