HomeMy WebLinkAboutTHE LODGE AT MIRAMONT PUD - PRELIMINARY - 54-87AP - MEDIA - CITIZEN COMMUNICATIONInfill awa — but s ar
y A� p e my tree ;
his time 't' b k °� � '
3-I
, i s my own ac yard. Backyard-ism; it's
As the resident growth guru, �� another thing to
Bob Ewegen, is wont �to say, ��� ��,',��, give developers
there are only two things people _. .. „ ,''_�,a such a free hand
don't like about growth. One is sprawl.
The other is density. The truth is that if
Colorado wants to rein in sprawl, we're
going to have to learn to live with density.
The magic word here is "infill" — the
redevelopment of underused land in the
heart of existing communities. The in-
ducement for the developer is that much
of the infrastructure — water, sewer,
roads, utilities, parks, fire, police and
schools — is aiready in place, saving lots
of upfront costs and making construction
less expensive and more marketable.
The downside of infill projects, though,
is the neighbors.
Nowhere is a developer more likely to �
tap deep-rooted opposition — unless he's
planning to savage a favorite mountain
vista — as when he's about to invade an
established neighborhood.
Now iYs my block's turn to confront the
realities of infill. The five neglected old
"workingman brick" rentals just up the
block from me are about to be scraped
off to clear the way for a classic piece of
urban infill: 27 condominium apartments
in what promises to be a nicely appointed
three-story compleg with (praise be) its
own underground parking. '
The power lines are being strung, the
sales trailer is obnoxiously situated half-
way on the street and halfway on the
sidewalk, and the neighborhood is in high
panic. We're buming up the phone lines to
our city councilwoman's office, but the
planned complex, we're told, meets all
existing codes and thus qualifies as a"use
by right." In short, that means no on�'`�
must consuit the neighbors. That's tvr n�:
IYs one thing to protect compliant proj-
ects from being balked by Not-In-My-
that they don't
even need to com-
municate.
; ;;�` ""f We're left,
,�_ , �'"�'� � therefore, ta
R, � ,��,;�; •� wring our hands
'� "�°-°� about the dust
that's going to be
SUE stirred in the de-
�' BRIEN molition and con-
struction phases,
the trucks that are
going to be lumbering down the street
and the construction workers who will be
competing for "our" on-street parking.
Longer-term, we worry about further
congestion of our narrow streets and
biocked views of Downtown and the tree-
tops of Hungarian Freedom Park.
Our dog is saying goodbye to squirrels
and paying last visits to his favorite
patches of grass. I'm counting other
losses. Children are already so few on the
block that even a single trick-or-treater is
cause for celebration; the twabedroom
units in the new complex are unlikely to
replenish our supply of kids. And will the
new residents be truly neighbors, or drop-
ins, who visit our block at night and es-
cape to more exciting venues whenever
they have time to spare? You can make a
lot of friends planting crocus bulbs.
But no one's talking about the gains,
and there are some. We'll lose the charm
of the workingman brick, but to be hon-
est, those houses had passed the point at
wtuch they were worth repairing when I
moved onto the block 20 years ago. The
new buildings will not only enhance the
neighborhood aesthetics but also improve
our property values. Ours is a funny, lit-
� � • • . �
tle-known pocket of the city. We're not �
quite Washington Park, surely not Coun-,
try Club and lack the elan of Broadway:
Terrace. Our drug store closed many:
years ago; restaurants come and mostly.
go. We lack the critical mass that gener-;
ates much of the excitement and conve- �
nience of city living. Infill might add:
more amenities than it takes away. •
Nevertheless, I admit that my opti-�
mism is a bit hypocritical. I've known for;
years the lots north of us were candidates •
for infill. My only prayer has been that �
the next-door apricot tree, which blooms;
so perfectly each spring just outside the �
French doors of our breakfast room,;
would somehow survive. And, by quirk of ;
fate or stalemated negotiations, the one �
property that isn't going to be redevel-:
oped is the one immediately next door —�
the one, yes, with my apricot tree. �
There's poetic justice in being faced:
with my own backyard controversy wlule •
the Legislature is seeking solutions to.
Colorado's growth. Do I still defend infill?;
Yes — especially because I believe it �
gives us our best shot at preserving the:
prairies and foothills while bringing the;
benefits of Colorado's prosperity back in-
to our older cities and suburbs.
Do I still think builders should be pro-
tected from neighborhood balking when
they're building within code and within
the reach of existing infrastructure? Yes
— because I'm seeing firsthand what a
ruckus could be raised were it not for that
"use by righY' provision. The delays that
we could cause wouldn't be fair either to
the individuals who have money invested
in the project or to the city itself, which
has an even bigger investment in revital-
izing its older neighborhoods.
But heaven help them.��' they ever.
touch my tree.
Sue O'Brien (sobrien�a denverpost.com) lives in
central Denver and edits The Post editorial pages.
m