4 ms·

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used

I live in Boulder and attribute much of the quality of life here to walkable (and bikeable) streets. We have hundreds of miles of multi-use paths that are used extensively for getting around and for recreation. Our main road downtown has a pedestrian mall for a number of blocks that keeps traffic away and lends itself to street performers, community events, and a generally calming atmosphere. Downtown parking lots are free on the weekends and just $1.25 / hour during the week — this keeps people from circling around looking for the absolute closest spot to where they are trying to go. You can bike (or technically walk though it's >25 miles) from Boulder to Denver on a dedicated path nearly the entire time.

davidw 9y ago
Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the city, despite there being ample room to build 'in and up'. I mean... if Aspen or something like that is expensive, it is what it is, but a larger town with ample space like Boulder or Bend (where I ended up) or Palo Alto should not have these crazy prices.
- weisser 9y ago
  I don't disagree. Boulder does well by the people who can afford to live here but seemingly (I'm still new) does little to offer affordable options. You go around Boulder and it doesn't feel like a city — this is part of the charm and also part of the problem.
  - davidw 9y ago
    They don't need skyscrapers or other big city stuff. Just more 3/4 story buildings that use their available lot well. You don't even have to mandate that; just get rid of the restrictions and market forces would gradually drive things in that way.
  - lazerpants 9y ago
    A lot of the population of Boulder doesn't even get to live areas that are especially walkable. Gunbarrel and all the neighborhoods East of 30th sort of require a car. Technically you can still bike but downtown or the campus are a long way, especially in snow or rain. And, unless it has changed, the bus doesn't run all night...
- Balgair 9y ago
  Oh no, Boulder housing and land use is a mess of issues. For instance, imagine the 2011 flood with 10x the population density or the craziness of the Hill with even 2x more students. Let's not get started on Maple Hill's snootiness.
- maxxxxx 9y ago
  The prices would level out if other towns would also work on becoming more attractive. It seems Americans are conditioned to build towns that are mainly used to drive through and not live there.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - davidw 9y ago
    This book discusses why that's easier said than done: http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV There are 'network effects' at least in terms of jobs and that environment. You'd have to convince a bunch of VC's to move to wherever along with a bunch of tech workers.
    - maxxxxx 9y ago
      I think the case of Boulder it was first a nice place that then attracted companies.
      - davidw 9y ago
        There's usually a catalyst (New York was a good port or something), but after that it becomes difficult to replicate.
ams6110 9y ago
> multi-use paths that are used extensively Is that really true? I live in a smaller version of Boulder. University town, we have a walkable downtown, trails and paths, and yes you see people using them. But the reality is that it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who live here. Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them. There is a ton of money being spent on this kind of feel-good-ism, for the benefit of (relatively) very few people.
- so33 9y ago
  >feel-good-ism Trails and paths are considered (or should be considered) part of a city's recreation system as well. Chances are that the trail and bike path was converted from railway right-of-way meaning it was built for fairly cheap. I'd argue that even if a trail wasn't used for commuting it has served another purpose: to make people feel good. Also, there's a lot of reasons why people might not bike to work; a lack of biking infrastructure is just one of those reasons. >Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them. One goal of public transportation is to provide a mobility alternative to private car ownership for those who, for whatever reason, can't drive (or bike, or walk). For those relatively few people, a bus that runs every half-hour or so is much more useful than a bus that only runs twice in the morning and evening. But it's likely they depend on it. So yes, a lot of bus routes will be empty by design. It's a lot like how Amtrak uses popular routes like the Acela to subsidize train routes to very small towns.
- francisofascii 9y ago
  There is a ton of money being spent on vehicle infrastructure as well. People complain about empty buses, but we must consider that cars with a single occupant are only operating at 20%-25% capacity. Also think about all the land zoning for large backyards, and how often they are void of kids or people. Shared community parks and trails are probably a better use of space.
- weisser 9y ago
  > Is that really true? No I made it up to help prove my point. :) Yes, people young and old use these paths for nature walks, running, biking, commuting, taking the dog out for a stroll around the neighborhood, and more. We even have people do roller skiing (which I hadn't heard of before I moved here). Your town might not have self-selected for people who like the outdoors. It seems even the students at CU have chosen to attend the university because of the prevalence of multi-use paths (there are loads of them cutting through the campus and college housing areas) and proximity to nature trails (many can be reached by bike or bus).

davidw 9y ago

Boulder's a great place in many ways, but it's also what got me really interested in urbanism, and getting involved at a local level, because it is an abject failure in terms of being affordable to even middle-class people who didn't buy in 30 years ago, with average house prices somewhere around 700K or north of that. This is, in part, because they refuse to add denser areas like the downtown in more parts of the city, despite there being ample room to build 'in and up'. I mean... if Aspen or something like that is expensive, it is what it is, but a larger town with ample space like Boulder or Bend (where I ended up) or Palo Alto should not have these crazy prices.

weisser 9y ago
I don't disagree. Boulder does well by the people who can afford to live here but seemingly (I'm still new) does little to offer affordable options. You go around Boulder and it doesn't feel like a city — this is part of the charm and also part of the problem.
- davidw 9y ago
  They don't need skyscrapers or other big city stuff. Just more 3/4 story buildings that use their available lot well. You don't even have to mandate that; just get rid of the restrictions and market forces would gradually drive things in that way.
- lazerpants 9y ago
  A lot of the population of Boulder doesn't even get to live areas that are especially walkable. Gunbarrel and all the neighborhoods East of 30th sort of require a car. Technically you can still bike but downtown or the campus are a long way, especially in snow or rain. And, unless it has changed, the bus doesn't run all night...
Balgair 9y ago
Oh no, Boulder housing and land use is a mess of issues. For instance, imagine the 2011 flood with 10x the population density or the craziness of the Hill with even 2x more students. Let's not get started on Maple Hill's snootiness.
maxxxxx 9y ago
The prices would level out if other towns would also work on becoming more attractive. It seems Americans are conditioned to build towns that are mainly used to drive through and not live there.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- davidw 9y ago
  This book discusses why that's easier said than done: http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV http://amzn.to/2BbEYoV There are 'network effects' at least in terms of jobs and that environment. You'd have to convince a bunch of VC's to move to wherever along with a bunch of tech workers.
  - maxxxxx 9y ago
    I think the case of Boulder it was first a nice place that then attracted companies.
    - davidw 9y ago
      There's usually a catalyst (New York was a good port or something), but after that it becomes difficult to replicate.

ams6110 9y ago

> multi-use paths that are used extensively Is that really true? I live in a smaller version of Boulder. University town, we have a walkable downtown, trails and paths, and yes you see people using them. But the reality is that it's a tiny, tiny fraction of the people who live here. Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them. There is a ton of money being spent on this kind of feel-good-ism, for the benefit of (relatively) very few people.

so33 9y ago
>feel-good-ism Trails and paths are considered (or should be considered) part of a city's recreation system as well. Chances are that the trail and bike path was converted from railway right-of-way meaning it was built for fairly cheap. I'd argue that even if a trail wasn't used for commuting it has served another purpose: to make people feel good. Also, there's a lot of reasons why people might not bike to work; a lack of biking infrastructure is just one of those reasons. >Same with buses. There are a few routes that service big apartment complexes and go too and from campus. Those get used. The others drive around empty, or with a few people on them. One goal of public transportation is to provide a mobility alternative to private car ownership for those who, for whatever reason, can't drive (or bike, or walk). For those relatively few people, a bus that runs every half-hour or so is much more useful than a bus that only runs twice in the morning and evening. But it's likely they depend on it. So yes, a lot of bus routes will be empty by design. It's a lot like how Amtrak uses popular routes like the Acela to subsidize train routes to very small towns.
francisofascii 9y ago
There is a ton of money being spent on vehicle infrastructure as well. People complain about empty buses, but we must consider that cars with a single occupant are only operating at 20%-25% capacity. Also think about all the land zoning for large backyards, and how often they are void of kids or people. Shared community parks and trails are probably a better use of space.
weisser 9y ago
> Is that really true? No I made it up to help prove my point. :) Yes, people young and old use these paths for nature walks, running, biking, commuting, taking the dog out for a stroll around the neighborhood, and more. We even have people do roller skiing (which I hadn't heard of before I moved here). Your town might not have self-selected for people who like the outdoors. It seems even the students at CU have chosen to attend the university because of the prevalence of multi-use paths (there are loads of them cutting through the campus and college housing areas) and proximity to nature trails (many can be reached by bike or bus).