View Full Version : Boulder architect eyes homeless village at Valmont City Park
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_29617680/boulder-architect-eyes-homeless-village-at-valmont-city
Normalizing homelessness?
A Boulder architect has a vision of a New Chautauqua Eco-Village where a self-governing group of homeless people can find both shelter and community in a collection of tiny homes or tents with basic city services.
So electricity (heat), water, sewer likely subsidized by taxpayers.
Anyone who says the economy is declining is lying
I suppose we'll always have homelessness. It's somewhat of a choice for most given the private charities and public programs. But why would Boulder hippies want to create an incentive and attract more?
Colorado is becoming a bad joke.
Ive heard there are people in Boulder that are concerned about this. This was the article I read:
http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_29602823/boulders-sense-itself-challenged-by-homeless-youth-plan
A proposal to build a three-story complex to provide long-term housing and services for young people struggling to find shelter is challenging Boulder's sense of itself.
Seems like Boulder will be a hotbed for homeless.
.455_Hunter
03-10-2016, 12:45
Just because some loony bin architect proposes something does not mean that all of Boulder is jumping up and down to get it implemented.
Aloha_Shooter
03-10-2016, 12:50
Just because some loony bin architect proposes something does not mean that all of Boulder is jumping up and down to get it implemented.
I don't know. Boulder seems to be the Berkeley of Colorado so I'm looking at this with all the amusement of someone watching a trailer trash cat fight over a toothless alcoholic druggie. Then I realize what this portends for the future of our state and I cry.
Zundfolge
03-10-2016, 12:55
Suggest we stop allowing people from the Islamic world into the country temporarily while we "figure out what's going on" and you're a NAZI sympathizer and Hitler wannabe ... suggest we put the homeless in "camps" and you're a good, big hearted progressive?
I don't know. Boulder seems to be the Berkeley of Colorado so I'm looking at this with all the amusement of someone watching a trailer trash cat fight over a toothless alcoholic druggie. Then I realize what this portends for the future of our state and I cry.
That's where I am too. The folly of Libs is fine if it's their money/time/safety. Colorado seems to be putting everyone "all in" the more we slide to the Left. On one hand, it's getting harder for honest working people to make it (cost of living). On the other, the gov(s) is putting out the freak light for anyone who wants to come live on the backs of others.
Just because some loony bin architect proposes something does not mean that all of Boulder is jumping up and down to get it implemented.
The proposal suggests there is opportunity. This isn't the first time I've heard the idea of legitimizing a shanty town in Denver/Boulder but it is the first time I've seen it approached from a city planning perspective. Colorado Springs has their own too but it exists without approval/support.
Suggest we stop allowing people from the Islamic world into the country temporarily while we "figure out what's going on" and you're a NAZI sympathizer and Hitler wannabe ... suggest we put the homeless in "camps" and you're a good, big hearted progressive?
Unless you are Eric Cartman with the intent to round up and exterminate the hippies, which is comedy gold.
Fine, let them infest Boulder.
.455_Hunter
03-10-2016, 17:34
Yup- No homeless problems in Colorado Springs or Fort Collins. [facepalm]
Sometimes the anti-Boulder theme on this board gets tiresome.
... but it is the first time I've seen it approached from a city planning perspective.
A wack job makes a proposal to a city planning board, just like ANY CITIZEN can do, and now its being "approached from a city planning perspective"?
Here was their response. Sounds like they jumped right on the bandwagon to me...
"Please note that the property is currently owned by the City of Boulder and is slated for the development of the second phase of Valmont City Park," city planner Charles Ferro wrote to Bean in an e-mail. "The subject property is not available for the establishment of any other uses at this time."
To be honest, putting all of the "homeless" folks in a somewhat controlled area is preferable to what is happening now along Boulder Creek, and would probably help separate those who are truly "homeless" and need help from those who are "vagrants" and need a swift boot in the ass out of town. Make them earn their keep doing basic jobs, like weed control, and it kinda makes sense.
speedysst
03-10-2016, 17:51
If you're so tired of the "anti-Boulder theme" then perhaps you should not have read this particular thread. Just saying.
I love the term "homeless". It avoids the real issues of mental health and/or substance abuse by focusing on the lack of a residential structure.
[Sarcasm2]
Just like "gun control" is a lib-invented phrase that deflects from the difficult issue of stemming violence.
Seems like Boulder will be a hotbed for homeless.
It already is. And has been, just like every other liberal university town in the United States.
Although this is the first I've read of this proposal, as someone who lives in Boulder I feel this might be an idea with merit. Corralling the homeless in a specific area would certainly beat the current situation wherein they are a menace that is spread evenly around town in all but the coldest of weather. As has been mentioned already, they've ruined the first half mile of Boulder Creek upstream from downtown with trash, human waste, makeshift campsites and they harass people on their two mile trek from the homeless shelter on Lee Hill to Pearl Street where they panhandle and congregate just West of the Boulder High parking lot (basically across Arapahoe from Gunsport).
The horse is already out of the barn on the homeless situation here: when you provide fancy shelters, countless services, they will come. In light of the fact that they are now here, it might not be a terrible idea to have a focal point instead of them filtering through neighborhoods with children/schools/people just trying to live a conventional life.
With the cost of a starter house in Boulder (things essentially start at $1M now), this problem isn't going away. And this issue isn't even addressing all the people that live in their vehicles and work here.
Pick up trash for an hour a day and get a warm bed? OK
There should be a service to the community they're in.
They already have one, it's called the homeless shelter. A damn nice one at that.
If you build it they will come.
They already have one, it's called the homeless shelter. A damn nice one at that.
Indeed. I remember when they were finishing up the new one, it's far nicer than many homes in this town, and only encourages more vagrants to migrate here.
The "affordable housing" mantra is a common political topic here but the reality is that none of the city council members want that anywhere near their neighborhood as it would negatively, and understandably, impact property values. A prime example is the soon-to-be-vacant Boulder Community Hospital next to North Boulder Park in what is called the "Newlands" neighborhood. More than one person in city government lives within a few blocks of that property and when there has been faint talk of leveling it and creating "affordable housing", the same people that talk endlessly about the need for such things suddenly come up with dozens of reasons why it can't be at that location….NIMBY. The last thing anyone around there wants is for there to be bums living in their midst.
The Valmont location proposed in this article (I seriously doubt that idea will gain much traction), is across the street from the Boulder County Jail, which if you have to do such a thing, is about as good a place as any in this city.
It already is. And has been, just like every other liberal university town in the United States.
Although this is the first I've read of this proposal, as someone who lives in Boulder I feel this might be an idea with merit. Corralling the homeless in a specific area would certainly beat the current situation wherein they are a menace that is spread evenly around town in all but the coldest of weather. As has been mentioned already, they've ruined the first half mile of Boulder Creek upstream from downtown with trash, human waste, makeshift campsites and they harass people on their two mile trek from the homeless shelter on Lee Hill to Pearl Street where they panhandle and congregate just West of the Boulder High parking lot (basically across Arapahoe from Gunsport).
The horse is already out of the barn on the homeless situation here: when you provide fancy shelters, countless services, they will come. In light of the fact that they are now here, it might not be a terrible idea to have a focal point instead of them filtering through neighborhoods with children/schools/people just trying to live a conventional life.
With the cost of a starter house in Boulder (things essentially start at $1M now), this problem isn't going away. And this issue isn't even addressing all the people that live in their vehicles and work here.
You can't corral them. They have rights!!! And will need to venture out to find funds to support their way of life. I think they'll still be in the neighborhoods and be pushed further out the more there are. If each square mile offers $x opportunity for panhandling, street performance, theft, etc... the density will force them to migrate during the day.
Kind of like downtown Denver these days. They are everywhere and can't be avoided, sometimes very far from the shelters.
People working are a different matter (obviously). It might actually make sense to help those folks out if it can be transitional.
I don't know. Boulder seems to be the Berkeley of Colorado so I'm looking at this with all the amusement of someone watching a trailer trash cat fight over a toothless alcoholic druggie. Then I realize what this portends for the future of our state and I cry.
I thought Berkeley was the Boulder of California?
Jeffrey Lebowski
03-13-2016, 15:37
That's a pretty well used area in terms of the bike park and the dog park.
Shame to lose both.
That's a pretty well used area in terms of the bike park and the dog park.
Shame to lose both.
Nice, take a publicly funded and popular area and give it to a bunch of no-good homeless shitstains.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.