denver

Cities, Vol. 19, No. 4, pp. 283–294, 2002 2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reservedPergamon

0264-2751/02 $ - see front matter

www.elsevier.com/locate/cities

PII: S0264-2751(02)00018-5

City profile

DenverMichael Murray*Reader in Environmental Planning, School of Environmental Planning, Queen’sUniversity, Belfast, Northern Ireland, UK

Denver has emerged from the 1990s as a city region experiencing rapid growth. This has beenfuelled by a vibrant local economy, which has adjusted itself from dependency on an earlier oilboom to greater reliance on the information and communications technology sector. The currentplanning and development challenges are dominated by the need to deal with urban sprawl andpressured transportation infrastructure. The contemporary restructuring of the physical fabric ofDenver is marked by a progressive downtown revitalisation effort and a number of space extensivebrownfield development projects. The interplay of state and local governments with commercialinterests and citizens is a powerful dynamic in shaping these negative and positive outcomes.2002 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

Geographical and historicalcontext

The popular imagery of Denver as afrontier town is reinforced by itslocation at the foot of the Rocky Moun-tains on the western edge of the highplains comprising the rural heartland ofthe United States (Fig. 1). Knownwidely as the “Mile High City”, Denveris one of the few cities at altitude inNorth America. This perception as aplace apart translates to strong tra-ditions of privatism, which is workedthrough as a rugged individualism anda strong business ethic. These charac-teristics have helped evolve a cityregion of almost 2.5 million people,which represents some 56% of the Col-orado total for 2000.1 ContemporaryDenver, therefore, comprises muchmore than the administrative area of theCity and County of Denver. Rather itis an eight county territory of whichsome 535 square miles are classified asurban land. The extent of semi-urban

*Tel.: +44 2890 274743; fax:+44 2890687651; E-mail: [email protected] and household information for2000 from Denver Regional Council ofGovernments.

283

land, where housing density is in therange of 1 acre to 35 acres per dwell-ing, adds a further 846 square miles.2

The marketing literature for new homeson the urban edge of Denver makes fre-quent use of a high amenity associationwith the ‘Great Outdoors’ and residen-tial exclusivity as powerful metaphorsfor carefree living. On the other hand,one commentary has described the spa-tial outcome as ‘an amorphous, auto-mobile addicted metropolis comprisingsubdivisions, shopping centres andsmog’ (Leonard and Noel, 1990).

Road based transportation infrastruc-ture not only seeks to facilitate intra-city region mobility, but has allowedDenver to exert a wider influence forservice take-up and daily commuting.Interstate 25, for example, which runsparallel to the Front Range, hasprompted intense development pressurealong a 140 mile corridor between FortCollins in the north and ColoradoSprings to the south. Interstate 70,which crosses the Rockies, has facili-tated considerable growth to the west

2Denver Regional Council of GovernmentsmemorandumDraft forecasts for the semiurban area, March 7, 2001.

of Denver, not least related to the manyski resorts such as Vail, Breckenridge,Copper Mountain and Keystone. Inshort, the extensive spatial scale ofDenver and its focality combine to cre-ate a multiplicity of planning chal-lenges whose resolution brings continu-ally to the fore a blending of powerfulpersonality and interest group advocacy.

The built environment legacy of suc-cessive civic leaders is evidence of thatdevelopment and change determi-nation. From its beginning as a goldrush town in the late 1850s, Denversought to proclaim itself through, forexample, newspaper owner WilliamByers, as the “Queen City of thePlains”. In 1881, five years after Color-ado gained statehood, Denver waschosen as the state capital. Workstarted on the current State Capitolbuilding in 1886 and was completed in1904. At that point the passage of anew city charter for urban beautifi-cation, sponsored by the administrationof mayor Robert Speer, initiated a sus-tained effort through to his death in1918 to create a Denver interpretationof the City Beautiful ideal. Inspired byDaniel Burnham’s 1893 design of theWorld’s Columbian Exposition in the

City profile: Michael Murray

Figure 1 Denver and its locational conext

Chicago fairgrounds, Speer embarkedon an ambitious plan to construct a newCity Hall, completed in 1932, withinthe neo classical setting of an adjacentpublic park. Additional parks and tree-lined parkway networks complementedhis vision. During his terms of officeSpeer expanded the Denver park sys-tem from some 570 acres to almost1200 acres. A suite of mountain parksin the foothills and Front Range to thewest of the city represented a furthercontribution to this City Beautifuldream for Denver (Noel and Norgren,1987).

As illustrated in Fig. 2, DenverCounty was able comfortably to con-tain the extent of urban growth fromthose early years of the 20th centurythrough to 1940. Thereafter, the periodthrough to 1960 evidenced an outwardspread of development into the fringesof adjacent counties, a trend whichintensified greatly during the followingtwo decades up to 1980. In terms ofpopulation this grew from 454,000 in1940, to almost 940,000 in 1960, reach-ing some 1.6 million within the cityregion by 1980. The increasing domi-nance of Denver within Colorado isillustrated by the fact that its share ofthe state population increased from

284

40% in 1940 to reach its current levelof 56% over two decades ago in 1980.

While the Depression of the 1930sdid bring its share of misfortune toDenverites, the threat and subsequentoutbreak of World War Two brought aconsiderable military and federalgovernment presence to the city andprovided an essential kick-start to thisrenewed expansion. The opening of the1800 acre Lowry Air Base to the southeast of the city in 1938, followed byBuckley airfield in 1942 and the expan-sion at Fitzsimmon’s Army Hospitalgenerated new businesses and jobs.3 Acomplement of war industries providedadditional employment, including themanufacturing of bombs at RockyMountain Arsenal to the east of thecity, while the completion of a plu-tonium facility for the Atomic EnergyCommission in 1953 was employingover 6000 workers in the north west ofDenver by the 1980s.

The overall scale of these develop-ments has exerted a considerableinfluence on shaping the urban foot-print of Denver and in the case of

3A full discussion of this wartime era is con-tained in Leonard, S and Noel, T (1990) opcit, pp 219–234.

Lowry Air Base, as discussed below,has created a major brownfield devel-opment opportunity following theannouncement of a decision to close thebase in April 1991. However, the trans-formation of the physical fabric ofDenver in recent times, especially itscentral business district, owes much tothe operations of the oil industry whichincreasingly saw Denver as an invest-ment locale from the 1960s.4 The shockof rising petroleum prices in the after-math of the 1973 global oil crisisprompted rediscovery of Colorado’s oilshale deposits. Energy and finance cor-porations viewed Denver as an attract-ive location for regional offices andthus began a flurry of skyscraper con-struction projects, which today giveDenver its distinctive downtown sky-line. Almost 20 million square feet ofprime office space was provided by theearly 1980s (Goodstein, 1999). How-ever, falling oil prices in the mid 1980scombined with corporate policydecisions rejecting the viability of oilshale extraction led to a combination ofbusiness downsizing, withdrawal from

4An excellent account of the oil industry inDenver is set out in Goodstein (1999).


Figure 2 The changing footprint of Denver metropolitan region. Source: Denver Regional Council of Governments

Denver and bankruptcy. Commercialproperty vacancy was endemic, rentalcosts collapsed and through the 1990sDenver increasingly ceased to be aleading oil centre. Economic and physi-cal regeneration thus loomed large aspolitical imperatives in the aftermath ofthat experience. This profile will dealmore fully with the outputs and conse-quences of that revitalisation effort dur-ing the past decade, but before movingon to these substantive matters it isnecessary to review very briefly therecent socio-economic and citizendiversity situations in Denver, togetherwith the governance arrangements inplace for planning and development.

The contemporary socio-economic context

Between 1990 and 2000 the populationof Colorado increased from 3.3 millionto 4.3 million. This growth, of almost31%, ranks the state third on the basisof per cent based change in the USAand eighth on the basis of numericchange. The growth dynamic in theDenver city region underpins this per-formance with population over that per-iod increasing by some 555,000. A keyengine for the increase has been net

285

migration with estimates5 suggestingthat this can account for some 59% oftotal population gain. Over the next 20years the Denver region’s populationcould grow to about 3.225 millionpeople representing 1.35 million house-holds, up from a current count of959,000 households.6 This translates toa continuation of development pressurefor new housing and related infrastruc-ture and has implications for currentwork related to longer term growthplanning.

The strong population dynamic inColorado in general, and the Denverregion in particular, reflects a dramaticrestructuring of the state economy dur-ing the past 20 years. From a heavydependence on resource-based indus-try, notably the mining and agriculturesectors, the economic base has shiftedto creative business ventures, linkedespecially to information and com-munications technology along withfinancial services and retailing. Thus,for example, farm based employmentin the state decreased between 1981

5Denver Regional Council of Governmentsregional growth data.6Denver Regional Council of Governments2020 Regional Forecast Summary.

and 1990 from 44,650 jobs to 43,600jobs, while mining decreased from50,000 to 26,500 jobs (Murray andDunn, 1996). In contrast, 47,900 newhigh tech jobs were added to stateemployment between 1993 and 1998.During the 1990s Colorado was thefourth fastest growing economy in theUSA with the Denver city region at itscore. The continued expansion of the1970s Denver Tech Centre in the southeast suburbs of the city has been comp-lemented by the clustering during the1990s of convergence industry corpora-tions in the north west along the US 36Denver–Boulder Corridor.

Concerns have increased since mid2000 about recession, as manifested bylower earnings and redundancies,although some commentators doremain bullish about future prospects.7

Thus, within the Denver metropolitanarea the unemployment rate of 2.3%has remained largely unchanged fromthen through to mid 2001. The strengthof the Denver economy is now seen asresting on its greater diversity in com-parison with the earlier reliance on oiland gas up to the late 1980s. Almost80,000 new jobs were created in

7Rocky Mountain News, 21st July 2001.


Denver City and County alone between1991 and 2000.8 Nevertheless, theannouncement in January 2002 of theclosure of Merrill Lynch at its 420,000square feet Denver campus and its offerof relocation to New Jersey or Floridato its 1065 employees suggests a slip-ping economy. When set beside thefacts that metro-wide around 2.2million square feet of new office spacewas sitting empty at that time, and thatColorado employers are expected tocreate only 10,000 new jobs in 2002compared with an average of over69,000 per year for the last decade, itwould seem fair to conclude that amajor reversal of positive projections isindeed plausible. It is predicted that anyrecovery of the Denver area office mar-ket from this economic slowdown maywell not be before 2005.9

Citizen diversity and Denverneighbourhoods

When analysed in terms of race andethnicity, the population structure ofthe Denver metropolitan area displaysgrowing diversity.10 Across the eightcounty city region the White populationincreased from 1.61 million in 1990 to1.95 million in 2000, but experienceda fall of some six percentage points to80.56% of the total population. AfricanAmericans increased from 96,592 to118,858 persons though their share ofthe population remained relativelyunchanged at around 5%. The muchsmaller Asian population almostdoubled from 42,357 to 74,311. A mostpronounced rate of growth is apparentwithin the Hispanic grouping whichrecorded increments of over 100% infive out of eight counties, with overallnumbers rising from 223,670 in 1990to 428,225 by 2000. While all countiesdisplay deepening diversity the concen-tration in 2000 of Hispanics (175,704or 41% of the grouping) and AfricanAmericans (61,649 or 52% of thegrouping) within Denver County isespecially striking. Older neighbour-

8The City and County of Denver Mayor’sOffice Press Release, 18 December 2000.9Denver Post, Wednesday 9th January andThursday 10th January, 2002.102000 and 1990 Population by race, eth-nicity and age, Denver Regional Councilof Governments.

286

hoods, especially those encircling thecentral business district, are quite dis-tinctively associated with these andother minority residents.

In the past, redevelopment generatedconsiderable displacement of diversepopulations living in inner city neigh-bourhoods. Notable in this context was,for example, the creation of the com-muter based Auraria higher educationcampus on the western fringe of Down-town in the 1970s. The retention ofchurch structures within this districtserve as a physical reminder of a onceclosely settled community. It is sig-nificant, therefore, that the DenverComprehensive Plan 2000 shoulddevote an entire chapter to neighbour-hoods many of which are equally vul-nerable to the economics of the pro-perty market. The Plan notes that risinghousing costs have made affordablehousing more difficult to find for lowand middle income families, whilepressure for infill development canundermine the long established visualcharacter of a neighbourhood. Onemeasure of the efforts by public agenc-ies to work with local citizens is theincreased participation of RegisteredNeighbourhood Organisations. Theprogramme began in 1976 with 30neighbourhoods and, by 1999, totalled173 groups whose concerns are spreadacross all aspects of community lifefrom schools’ provision to crimereduction. Community grassrootsorganizations and their activities arethus an important feature of neighbour-hood life and in this regard a growingbody of international research under-lines the important linkage of com-munity capacity and wellbeing. Withinthe wider Denver metropolitan area, thegrant based support given by the Color-ado Trust over the period since 1985 isa prominent illustration of interventionto strengthen families and secureaccessible and affordable health careprogrammes. Its statewide $8.8 millionHealthy Communities Initiative, begunin 1992, has worked with several citi-zen and neighbourhood coalitions inthe metro area on a wide range of com-munity enhancement projects (Murray,2000). This effort has been reinforcedby the announcement in 2000, byMayor Wellington Webb of the FocusNeighbourhoods Initiative, which seeksto concentrate public, private and non-

profit sector funding on 16 of the city’slower income neighbourhoods for par-ticipatory community revitalization.11

Planning and developmentgovernance

The state of Colorado legislature hasdelegated most authority for land useplanning and regulation to localgovernments through a range of enact-ments. An important characteristic ofthe legislation is its enabling rather thanmandatory role, which in turn hasimplications for a consistency of policyformation and application, not leastwithin the Denver area. Local govern-ment statutes provide for the appoint-ment of a planning commission in eachcounty and municipality whose duty itis to prepare and adopt a comprehen-sive plan (or master plan) to guide thephysical development of its jurisdic-tion. The identification of suitable landsfor future growth together with the gen-eral location of streets, amenity spaceand public utilities are key elements ofeach comprehensive plan. The Color-ado American Planning AssociationChapter has recently argued12 that com-prehensive plans should also include anurban growth boundary, which is basedon the jurisdiction’s ability to provideinfrastructure and services for theplan’s twenty year time frame. Linkedwith this should be a clear statement ofwhat will be permissible within andoutside that boundary. However, byApril 2000 only 23 out of 49 localgovernments within the Denver cityregion had either adopted an urbangrowth boundary into their comprehen-sive plans or had enacted an ordinanceor resolution establishing an urbangrowth boundary (Broderick, 2000).While those participating authoritiesaccount for some 92% of the regionalpopulation, a key concern remains theavailability of a long term supply ofpotential urban land. Beneath this issuelies the more serious matter of thefuture fiscal health and tax base of anylocal authority which seeks to constrainthat supply. Given this combination of

11City and County of Denver, Housing andNeighbourhood Development Services.12Colorado American Planning AssociationChapter Position Statement on Growth Man-agement Legislation, May 2001.


local scale decision making and vary-ing political support for growth man-agement clarity, it would seem appro-priate that the governance of planningand development in Denver should alsoseek strategic expression on aregional scale.

Recognition of the need for aregional perspective to co-ordinatelocal government action is longstand-ing in Denver. In 1955 the then mayorof the City, Quigg Newton, was instru-mental in the establishment of a fourcounty layer of governance dialogue,which was named the Inter-CountyRegional Planning Association. Thissubsequently became the DenverRegional Council of Governments(DRCOG, 2000) whose collectiveefforts embrace planning and growth,transportation, the environment, pro-vision of services to the elderly, andworkforce development. DRCOG isone of 14 regional planning councilsacross Colorado designated by thestate, but it is also a federally supportedMetropolitan Planning Organisationwith responsibility for the distributionof federal transportation funds to theregion. However, in relation to strategicland use planning, concerns have fre-quently been expressed that DRCOG‘ lacks teeth’ in policy implementation.Indeed this was recognised in a major1991 review of the organisation whosefindings commented more widely asfollows:

“The existing system of regionalgovernance in the Denver metropoli-tan area is comprised of a variety ofindependent, single purpose districtsand authorities providing services ona regional basis in the areas of waste-water treatment, drainage and floodcontrol, transportation, culturalfacilities, air quality, sports facilitiesand water. The only multi-functionalagency, DRCOG, though it includesmost of the region’s local govern-ments as members and providesimportant services, is fundamentallya voluntary agency whose plans andrecommendations are not binding onlocal governments, special districtsor other regional agencies. This frag-mented and often competitiveapproach is not designed for toughdecision-making, resolution of con-flicts, or implementation of a visionof future growth and development inany systematic manner. The Denvermetro area continues to evolve as aregional community without theemergence of an effective mech-

287

anism that can address metro-wideissues from a regional perspective…An integrated regional governancestructure is needed to improve co-operation and collaboration onregional issues” (The Metro Forum(1991)

The current controversy on growthmanagement in the Denver city regionhas allowed for this structural weaknessin planning and development govern-ance to be revisited and is one of anumber of key perspectives, also com-prising downtown revitalisation, trans-portation and brownfield utilisation, tobe explored in the remainder of thisprofile.

Key planning anddevelopment perspectivesGrowth managementThe pace and scale of populationexpansion in the Denver region hasgenerated considerable public debateon the impact of sprawl and the needfor greater urban containment. TheSierra Club has, for example, beenactive on this issue and has identifiedsprawl along the Northern Front Rangein the environs of Denver as compris-ing rural subdivisions isolated fromretail services and schools, scatteredsubdivisions within the urban fringeconsisting of large homes on large acre-ages, and retail developments on high-way interchanges in open countryside.The causes are cited as a weak land useplanning and regulatory environment,public subsidies for business growthand land use conversion, continuedover-emphasis on new and wider roads,a poor agricultural economy, and com-petition between communities for taxrevenues.13 However, alternative opi-nions frequently point to the benefits ofexpanded housing and communitychoices linked to perceptions of ‘betterquality of life’ .

The Colorado Public InterestResearch Group14 (COPIRG) has

13See the Sierra Club’s report Sprawl costsus all, Chapter 1: The pace of sprawl andgrowth on the Northern Front Range, Janu-ary 2000.14CPIRG is an advocate for the public inter-est and in addition to its Annual Report itpublishes CPIRG Outlook three times eachyear. Responsible growth is only one ofmany issues that COPIRG is currentlyactive on.

emerged as a powerful advocate on thismatter especially over the period since1998. In pointing to survey data15 indi-cating strong citizen support forenforceable anti-sprawl plans, compati-bility between the plans of neighbour-ing local jurisdictions and the adoptionof urban growth boundaries to limitsprawl, COPIRG co-sponsored aResponsible Growth Initiative for theNovember 2000 ballot.16 This initiative(Amendment 24) sought firstly, tochange the state constitution by requir-ing voter approval for new develop-ment plans; secondly, full disclosure onthe impacts and costs of new develop-ment on traffic, schools, open space, airquality and emergency services; andthirdly, to promote responsible growthby allowing development in those areaswhere the support infrastructure can beafforded within a ten year period.Working with citizen groups across thestate, the coalition collected over100,000 signatures and secured itsplace on the ballot. The developmentindustry across Colorado and beyond,responded vigorously through anunprecedented $6 million advertisingcampaign seeking to influence voters toreject the amendment. While the prop-osition subsequently failed by a ratio oftwo to one, it did result in new pressurebeing placed on Colorado legislators torecommence action on this issue. Com-prehensive growth management bills17

were debated by both the ColoradoHouse and Senate during 2001 but werekilled by partisan politics. Nor wereSpecial Sessions of the GeneralAssembly convened by GovernorOwens able to resolve differencesamong legislators in relation to regionalplanning for metropolitan Denver, thecreation of an alternative dispute resol-ution system between and among citiesand counties, and support for manda-tory and binding comprehensive plan-

15University of Colorado at Denver surveysponsored by the Gates Foundation.16Other co-sponsors were the ColoradoEnvironmental Coalition, Sierra Club, West-ern Colorado Congress, the American Plan-ning Association of Colorado, and Coloradophotographer Mr John Fielder.17SB148 and HB 1225. The Colorado Chap-ter of the American Planning Associationhas published a guide to this comprehensivegrowth management legislation. This isavailable on its website.


ning documents. The need to requireeach county and municipality to pre-pare a master plan and to enforce thesemaster plans through ordinances andregulations are perceived by a widecoalition of environmental interests,including the State Chapter of theAmerican Planning Association, asmajor and continuing shortcomings oflocal legislation. The protection ofopen space and farmlands in the faceof sprawling development is viewed asnecessary to help maintain the specialcharacter of Colorado.

In the meantime, growth manage-ment policies across the Denver regionat the strategic scale remain dependenton the voluntary collaboration of localgovernments with prodding fromDRCOG through its Metro Vision 2020effort. This planning process wasinitiated in 1990 by a delegated taskforce including representatives fromlocal government, business, andenvironmental groups. It was chargedwith devising a set of principles andpolicies to assist with regional land use,transportation and water planning. Fol-lowing the analysis of a range of scen-arios, the task force defined its futuredevelopment preference in MetroVision 2020. This was subsequentlyadopted by DRCOG in 1997. Coreelements of this regional vision are thedesignation of the extent of urbandevelopment within a specified area,the creation of a balanced multi-modaltransportation system, the establish-ment of a hierarchy of mixed use, ped-estrian and transit oriented urbancentres, the preservation of the physicalidentity of the four free-standing com-munities of Boulder, Brighton, CastleRock, and Longmont and the protectionof the region’s natural environment. Indefining the extent of urban develop-ment across Denver, Metro Vision2020 suggested that this should occurwithin a total area of 735 square milesby 2020 thus adding 165 square milesto the existing urban footprint. InAugust 2000 an initial 30 cities andcounties within the Denver region for-mally signed what is referred to as the“Mile High Compact” thus marking avoluntary commitment to work withinthese core elements without mandatefrom other government entities.18

18DRCOG Regional Report, September2000, pp 1–3.

288

In March 2001 DRCOG published areview of the 735 square miles goal andforecast that the urbanised area couldincrease to a total of 2106 square milesby 2020 when the impact of 1371square miles of semi-urban develop-ment are taken into account. Large lotdevelopment had not been addressed byMetro Vision and, in the absence oflegislation to tighten urban growth, thislow density housing is anticipated toincrease from a 1998 base of 846square miles. There is, additionally,pressure from at least one county toextend the 735 square mile target to850 square miles.19 Furthermore, theHome Builders Association of Metro-politan Denver has been lobbying forthe reform of DRCOG to include rep-resentatives from the business and thecommunity sectors and for the “abilityto review local initiatives that have aregional impact, like growth caps andmoratoria” .20 Thus the merits of anagreed and binding growth manage-ment regional plan for all local govern-ments in the Denver area and itsrelationship with the future shape ofregional governance will continue asimportant debates for the foreseeablefuture. A key feature of that dialoguewill set pressure for edge of city green-field development against interior infill,although in each instance the politics ofthe planning arena will ensure that anypolicy outcome cannot be exclusive ofthe ‘other position’ .

Downtown revitalisationWhile planning and development issueshave contemporary prominence on theurban edge, the urban renewal perspec-tive is dominated by the transformationof downtown Denver over the periodsince the 1960s. As noted by theDenver Comprehensive Plan 2000:“Within downtown neighbourhoods,swathes of streets, homes and oldercommercial buildings were razed to bereplaced by skyscrapers, freeways andthe other trappings of a truly ‘modern’

19Colorado Chapter of the American Plan-ning Association News Release Growthforecasts alarm planners, 13th March 2001.20Growth management: problems, chal-lenges and opportunities, A paper by theHome Builders Association of MetropolitanDenver and the Wirth Chair in Environmen-tal and Community Development Policy,University of Colorado at Denver,December 1999, p 4.

city” (Denver City Council (2000). Theill-fated oil boom of the 1970s, as notedabove, was a key driver of change andleft a legacy of glass towers and adjac-ent parking lots. The visual blight ofover 200 surface lots21 in downtownDenver continues to underline the scaleof the challenge in broadening publicsupport for more sustainable mobilitysolutions.

A key agency of City government inpromoting and facilitating downtownredevelopment has been the DenverUrban Renewal Authority (DURA)22

formed in 1958 to assist with the elim-ination of slums. One of its earliestinitiatives was the Skyline UrbanRenewal Project23 located within a 29block, 113 acre tract between LowerDowntown and the retail core and fin-ancial district of Upper Downtown.Following an initial ballot rejection, thescheme was approved by voters in1967 thus facilitating a programme ofdemolition and rebuilding which,although initially slow to take off, gath-ered momentum with the oil boom ofthe late 1970s. Notable features of theinitiative included a network of ped-estrian ‘sky bridges’ which weredesigned to connect from one high risebuilding to another above the traffic,and the setting out of a 100 feet wide,three blocks long ‘skyline park’ (Fig.3). The opening of the Tabor Centre in1984 between 16th and 17th streets toinclude offices, a hotel and a multi-level suite of shops marked the com-pletion of the Skyline Project. In 2001this three storey retail complex wasundergoing a structural redesign, thesky bridges were all but obsolete orhave been removed, and the contri-bution of skyline park to downtownamenity space was being debated. Thisreflects a deeper reshaping of space incontemporary downtown Denver basedon historic building preservation andadaptation, along with entertainmentand ‘ fun’ shopping (Fig. 4).

Public and private sector interest in

21See DRCOG and Regional TransportationDistrict (2001) 2000 Off street parking costand supply report.22For more information on the DenverUrban Renewal Authority see An UrbanKaleidoscope – 2000 Status Report ofDURA.23A fuller analysis of the Skyline project isset out in Goodstein, P (1999) op cit. pp276–299.


Figure 3 Skyline Park

Figure 4 People clustering venues in downtown Denver

Denver’s legacy of late 19th and early20th century architecture has moved onfrom the creation of Larimer Square inthe mid 1960s as a solitary oasis ofrefurbished historic buildings withinthe modernism of the Skyline Project,to recognise the distinctive characterand business potential of Lower Down-town comprising the vicinity of UnionStation. This former run-down area ofcheap lodging, factories, warehousesand bars in the shadow of railwayviaducts has witnessed increasinggentrification since the early 1990s. Itwas branded with the title ‘LoDo’ andre-imaged as a Victorian style enclave

289

by new street lighting, signage, streetfurniture and historic building markers(Fig. 5). The construction of a citizenfunded stadium (Coors Field) for a newfranchise entry to Major League Base-ball (Fig. 6) has added momentum tobusiness start-ups, especially res-taurants and bars, while the glamour ofdowntown living is earnestly promotedby the building industry through exten-sive apartment developments and loftconversions.

Elsewhere within Downtown and itsperiphery a suite of high profile, peopleclustering projects (Table 1) underlinesthe strong political and business com-

mitment to the revitalisation ofDenver’s central core. The realisationof this “fl agship” infrastructure hasinvolved the allocation of public funds,at times in contested processes con-cerning their expected benefits, andwhich critics have cited as nothingmore than subsidised private profit.Nevertheless, the collective impact ofmega-projects on restructuring a senseof place around people and vitality can-not be dismissed. A good illustration isthe transformation of 16th Street into acentral spine of pedestrian activity ser-viced by a free shuttle bus along itslength (Fig. 7). This initiative, datingfrom the 1970s, comprises a tree linedand paved boulevard with seating,fountains and artwork, fringed at streetlevel by a combination of restaurants,convenience shops for adjacent officeworkers and tourist related outlets. Formuch of the intervening period the vis-ual and functional coherence of thisstreetscape was substantially reducedby a combination of vacant buildingscaused by the closure of traditionaldepartment stores and car park lots. Inthe evenings the mall was almostdevoid of activity. But in 1992 propertyowners came together to support theestablishment of the Downtown DenverBusiness Improvement District(BID).24 Annual assessments now funda series of measures including cleaningand maintenance efforts, consumermarketing campaigns, special entertain-ment events, Christmas decorations,capital improvements and local polic-ing. Expenditure in 2000, for example,was over $2.3 million. The longstand-ing primary focus of this collectiveeffort is 16th street mall where recentinfill developments have consolidatedthe impact of this economic develop-ment work. These include the architec-turally impressive Denver Pavilionsanchored by a new cinema complexand international multiples such asHard Rock Cafe, Virgin Records andNike Town. This 350,000 square feeturban entertainment/retail centreopened in 1998 at a cost of $101m.

It is interesting to note that theDowntown Denver Partnership, in itsrole as the strategic driver of business

24Downtown Denver Business ImprovementDistrict (2000) BID Annual Review.


Figure 5 LoDo

Figure 6 History of Baseball Arch, Coors Field

growth, has adopted the vision of an‘ interactive’ Downtown. William Why-te’s assertion “What attracts peoplemost, it would appear, is other people”in his book The Social Life of SmallUrban Spaces, is cited by the Partner-ship25 as an appropriate explication of

Table 1 People clustering projects in the Denver downtown area

Project Function Date of opening Estimated cost

Invesco Field At Mile High Football stadium 2001 $400mPepsi Centre Multi-purpose indoor arena 1999 $180mColorado’s Ocean Journal Aquarium 1999 $93mCoors Field Baseball stadium 1995 $215mDenver Public Library Library Expanded 1995 $65mElitch Gardens Amusement park 1995 $118mDenver Performing Arts Complex Theatres and concert hall Expanded 1991 $34mColorado Convention Centre Exhibitions 1990 $126mDenver Art Museum Art gallery Renovated 1990 $9.3m

25Downtown Denver Partnership (2001)Annual Review: The Interactive Downtown.

290

that vision. The ongoing revitalisationof Downtown Denver is inextricablyrooted in that perspective, but this inturn raises the more fundamental issueof how citizens are perceived. Down-town Denver supports a market view ofthe citizen which is premised on an

assumption of consumerism as thedefining element in contemporarysocial identity.

TransportationMobility within the Denver metropoli-tan region remains wedded to the useof the motor vehicle and not surpris-ingly, in the context of rapid populationgrowth during the 1990s, has resultedin travel demand exceeding thecapacity of many parts of the highwaysystem. Travel survey data (DRCOG,2000) underline the scale of the prob-lems being faced during a typicalweekday, for example:

� over 88% of all trips were made inmotor vehicles;

� the afternoon rush hour extends toalmost three hours;

� 60% of Denver Central BusinessDistrict workers drove to workalone;

� 84% of workers in the suburbanareas drove alone;

� 4% of the total household popu-lation used public transport.

The consequent impact expressesitself in weekday pervasive and sever-ely congested roadway segments,26

especially along Interstate 25 to thesouth of the city centre, increasingtraffic accidents and reduced air qual-ity. A brown tinted haze frequentlymasks the snow covered Rocky Moun-tains in winter and is visual proof ofthat pollution. Evidence from a world

26Pervasive severe congestion is defined asvolume to capacity ratios over 0.95 for 3hours or more in one direction.


Figure 7 16th Street Mall shuttle bus

Figure 8 Light rail transit

Figure 9 Riverfront Park and new light rail under construction

291

survey of energy use in cities suggestsa strong inverse relationship betweenpopulation density, job density and citycentre dominance with petrol consump-tion. It is not surprising, therefore, thatan analysis of petrol use per capita ver-sus urban population density shouldplace Denver close to the top of thecurve below only Houston, Phoenixand Detroit, but above other US citiessuch as Los Angeles, Chicago and NewYork. Clusters of Australian and Euro-pean cities were well down the graph(Newman and Kenworth, 1989).

While road based solutions continueto dominate the policy landscape, therehas been a belated but necessary recog-nition of the need for multi-modalinitiatives, not least investment in rapidtransit technology. In 1994 the regionalauthority with responsibility for publictransport completed a five mile CentralLine light rail project, followed in 2000by a nine mile Southwest Line, thusmaking Denver one of only 19 cities inthe US with this type of transit system(Figs. 8 and 9). Further expansion is setto continue in line with the FiscallyConstrained Regional TransportationPlan for 2020 prepared by DRCOG inits role as the designated MetropolitanTransportation Planning Organisation.One such scheme is the $1.67 billionTransportation Expansion Project(referred to locally as T-Rex), whichwill combine highway improvementswith the construction of a light railtransit system in a corridor throughsouth east Denver. It is scheduled forcompletion by 2008. But even with thatinvestment, provision across Denverwill remain piecemeal and a campaignhas commenced for light rail in depth.This proposal, dubbed “Fastracks” ,calls for the build-out of a public transitsystem through the six major transpor-tation corridors of the metropolitanarea, but will require State Legislatureapproval to allow the Regional Trans-portation District to ballot voters on asales tax increase to fund the $4 billionscheme. That permission has been ref-used in the past and illustrates onceagain the real tension between sus-tainability and politics in Colorado.

The integration of transportationwith physical development remains,however, a crucial issue for shaping thefuture morphology of Denver in a moresustainable fashion. The City and


County of Denver, as a follow on to itsComprehensive Plan 2000, is seekingto respond to this challenge by prepar-ing an integrated Land Use and Trans-portation Plan which aims to ‘balancegrowth with livability’ . It was pub-lished in draft form in September 2001under the title Blueprint Denver. At astrategic scale this has involved theidentification of areas of stability andareas of change. The latter areespecially significant (Fig. 10) andencompass tracts of land with obsoleteuses (for example, industrial areas tothe north and south of Downtown andformer facilities such as Stapleton andLowry airfields), green field opport-unities (for example, Gateway, on landsadjacent to the new Denver Inter-national Airport), and transit orienteddevelopment (TOD) close to light railtransit stations. The attention beinggiven to TOD is evidence of progress-ive thinking, with each node set tocomprise a mixture of housing andneighbourhood businesses gatheredaround a walk-in transit station. But theextent to which this planning effort caninteract at a wider regional level withtravel demand management comprisinga combination of reduced single occu-

Figure 10 Key development areas in City of Denver. Source: adapted from Denver Comprehensive Plan, 2000

292

pant vehicle trips and trip reductionstrategies, will remain a crucial con-sideration in Denver’s mobility debate.

No account of transportation inDenver would be complete withoutbrief mention of Denver InternationalAirport (DIA) which opened in Febru-ary 1995. The bold design of the mainterminal building to mirror a combi-nation of aircraft fuselages and thesnow covered Rocky Mountains is verymuch an architectural signature forcontemporary Denver. But yet theentire project from its inception in themid 1980s was not without controversyand criticism (Dempsey et al., 1997;Goodstein, 2000). It is identified asbeing very much the legacy of MayorFederico Pena who subsequently roseto the position of US Secretary ofTransportation in the Clinton Adminis-tration. While opponents argued againstits necessity on the basis of cost andthe opportunity to expand the Stapletonairport on to vacant land at the adjacentRocky Mountain Arsenal, the booster-ism associated with the need to re-image Denver in the aftermath of the1980s oil collapse prompted voters tosupport the project by a margin of twoto one. The $5 billion facility, initially

condemned by the publicity of contractinvestigations and its fault-ridden auto-mated luggage delivery system, washandling more than 38 million passen-gers annually in its first few years,making it the sixth busiest airport in thecountry (Weiss, 2000). In terms ofphysical development (DIA) has con-siderably extended the footprint of thecity into the eastern plains and createdfurther scope for business developmenton the Gateway lands adjacent to thelengthy airport access road off Inter-state 70.

Brownfield developmentThe concept of sustainability bringswith it a preference for greaterefficiency in the use of naturalresources, not least land. In this regard,attention now focuses on the re-use ofsites associated with abandoned orunder-utilised industrial and commer-cial facilities. This phenomenon ofbrownfield development is very mucha part of the contemporary physical re-shaping of Denver and has required apartnership approach between federalbodies, local agencies and the privatesector.

The United States Environmental


Protection Agency has been especiallyactive on this front through its Officeof Solid Waste and EmergencyResponse and since 1995 has providedgrant aid to municipalities for Brown-fields Assessment Demonstration Pro-jects. Each project receives funding upto $200, 000 over two years to facilitatesite assessment, environmental clean-up and redevelopment. A total of sevenprojects are receiving support in theDenver city region aimed eventually atbringing contaminated land back intobeneficial use to include enterprise andrecreation. In Arvada, for example, anarea of just over 1000 acres, with a his-tory of mixed uses, is scheduled tobecome a business park and open spacecorridor, complete with a park andenvironmental interpretative centre. Atthe other end of the scale another clean-up project is dealing with some 2500acres of the former Stapleton Airport(discussed more fully below) and 640acres of the adjacent Rocky MountainArsenal which has been affected bygroundwater industrial pollution.Indeed it is noted in passing that oneof the running controversies in Denversurrounds the alleged groundwater con-tamination from a toxic waste landfillsite within the 65,000 acre LowryBombing Range beyond the easternperiphery of the city.27

The commitment to brownfielddevelopment in Denver is marked bythree major schemes which individu-ally seek to integrate housing choice,employment and environment. Thesecomprise Stapleton, Lowry and Riv-erfront Park, each of which has pro-gressed beyond the master planningstage and is currently under construc-tion. A short description of theseinitiatives is appropriate in this profilebecause of their large scale, complexityof implementation, and compatibilitywith the broader concept of ‘smartgrowth’ .28

The Stapleton brownfield initiative,located at the former city airport, is one

27See articles by Eileen Welsome inWestword, 12 April 2001, 19 April 2001 and26 April 2001.28For a fuller discussion of Smart Growthsee, Downs, A (2001) What does SmartGrowth really mean? Planning, April, pp20–25; see also: Lorentz, A and Shaw, K(2000) Are you ready to bet on SmartGrowth? Planning, January, pp 5–9.

293

of the largest urban developmentschemes in the US, extending over atotal area of 4700 acres. The constitu-ent elements are indeed impressive intheir scale: 12,000 new homes for30,000 residents, 10 million square feetof office space, five planned neighbour-hood town centres and two regionalretail centres. More than 1100 acreswill be devoted to a variety of openspace provision, with connectionsplanned through to the adjacent 17,000acres Rocky Mountain Arsenal Wild-life Refuge to the north. Infrastructurecosts to cover transportation, utilitiesand drainage, recreation and com-munity facilities have been estimated atjust under $300 million (at 1994prices). Planning for the future of theStapleton property commenced in 1989and on the basis of a large scale com-munity effort known as “StapletonTomorrow” , a concept plan for re-usewas produced in 1991 and subsequentlyadopted by the City Council. A moredetailed physical development plan fol-lowed in 1995 to guide implemen-tation.29 This is being led by the Staple-ton Redevelopment FoundationPartnership, working closely with theCity and County of Denver and a 42member Citizens Advisory Board. In1999 Forest City was selected to be themaster developer, and following aninitial land purchase from the City,commenced work on site in 2001.

The Lowry project on the other handis substantially further advanced fol-lowing the closure of the 1800 acre USAir Force Base in September 1994.Through the efforts of the LowryRedevelopment Authority a masterplan was prepared and adopted jointlyby the Denver and Aurora City Coun-cils in 1995. Infrastructure improve-ments including runway demolition,allowed new home construction tocommence in 1997 set against a targetof 4000 house completions by 2004. Toa much greater extent than at Stapleton,the Lowry project is promoted throughthe imagery of history and nostalgia.Aircraft hangars have been retained andare occupied by Colorado’s official air

29See, Stapleton Development Plan preparedby Stapleton Redevelopment Foundation,City and County of Denver, and CitizensAdvisory Board, 1995 and reprinted by For-est City Development in November 1999.

and space museum. Would be residentsare invited to “ live the legend of theair” or to recall and celebrate “Glorydays” .

Finally, at Riverfront Park the devel-opment industry is transforming a 50acre area of former railway yardsbetween Denver Union Station and theSouth Platte River into high densityaccommodation (2000 + units), officesand retail provision. The proximity ofDowntown, and LoDo in particular,underlines the strategic significance ofthis site which will be given furtherprofile by the imminent completion ofa multi-modal transportation facility atUnion Station, to include an extensionof the Light Rail Transit system (Fig.9).

A number of characteristics areshared by these brownfield projects.First, is the important contribution ofmaster planning to bring forward foragreement a mixed land use profilewhich encompasses housing, employ-ment and recreation. Second, the devel-opment role of the private sector isrespected, but the solid underpinning ofpartnership based public authority sup-port remains vital. Thus, for example,DURA will use tax increment financ-ing30 to reimburse physical and socialinfrastructure costs to developers. Andthird, in each instance there is a highcommitment to achieving quality inpublic realm provision, which extendsfrom extensive and interconnected rec-reational open space, to townscapedesign and public art. These three pro-jects have been driven by a commit-ment to new urbanism and sustainabledevelopment and stand in marked con-trast to the peripheral sprawl discussedearlier in this paper.

Conclusion

This profile of Denver evidences a suiteof tensions between the promise and

30Tax increment financing allows urbanrenewal authorities such as DURA to usethe new tax revenues generated by aredevelopment project to provide a portionof the project’s financing. These must payfor infrastructure and related publicimprovements usually through the issue ofbonds or developer reimbursement. TIF hasbeen used to invest in, for example, DenverPavilions and Six Flags Elitch Gardens inthe Downtown Denver area.


outcomes of urban planning with widerapplicability. On the one hand, there isa contemporary language whichembraces regional governance, growthmanagement, economic vitality andquality infrastructure. But on the otherhand, there is the reality of city sprawl,competitive local government relation-ships, and a convergence of interestbetween citizen choice and develop-ment industry behaviour. The trans-formation of Denver during the 1990shas fuelled the emergence of ballot-boxplanning, has highlighted as neverbefore the importance of strong polit-ical leadership in dealing with complexissues of rights and values, and hascalled on planning professionals to takea visible stance in policy debates. HowDenver shapes up to these contradic-tions and tensions will profoundlydetermine progress towards its visionfor the future.

Acknowledgements

The insights offered on contemporaryDenver by those many public officials

294

with whom I have visited are deeplyappreciated. I also extend a specialthanks to Michael, Linda, Rory andRyan McGrenaghan for the warmth oftheir hospitality over many years whileundertaking research in Colorado.

ReferencesBroderick W T (2000) Innovative regional

growth management: recent Denverexperience. Paper presented at the APANational Planning Conference, 17thApril.

Dempsey, P, Geotz, A and Szyliowicz, J(1997) Denver International Airport:lessons learned. In McGraw-Hill.

Denver City Council (2000) Denver Com-prehensive Plan: A Vision for Denverand its People. Denver City Council,Denver.

DRCOG (2000) Travel in the DenverRegion: results from the 1997 householdtravel survey and 1998 roadside survey.DRCOG, Denver.

Goodstein, P (1999) Denver in our time:volume one—big money in the big city.In New Social Publications, Denver.

Goodstein, P (2000) DIA and other scams.In New Social Publications, Denver.

Leonard, S and Noel, T (1990) Denver: min-ing camp to metropolis. In UniversityPress of Colorado, Niwot.

Murray, M (2000) Social capital formationand healthy communities: insights fromthe Colorado healthy communitiesinitiative. Community DevelopmentJournal 35(2), 99–108.

Murray, M and Dunn, L (1996) Revitalizingrural America—a perspective on collab-oration and community. In John Wileyand Sons, Chichester.

Newman, P and Kenworth, J (1989) Gaso-line consumption and cities: a compari-son of US cities with a global survey.Journal of the American PlanningAssociation 55, 24–37.

Noel, T J and Norgren, B S (1987) Denver:the City Beautiful and its architects,1893-1941. In Historic Denver Inc,Denver.

The Metro Forum (1999) Regional govern-ance in the Denver Metropolitan Area:report to the Board of Directors DenverRegional Council of Governments.

Weiss, S (2000) Denver metro 2000—a cel-ebration. In Heritage Media Corpor-ation, Denver.

denver

Documents