Talk:Street system of Denver

message: The article needs some wikification. It has long paragraphs with no links or formatting.
Also it needs a map. m.e. 11:24, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article needs wikification 

message: I've begun adding notes using cite.php. I think this is the best way to handle it, since there is a lot of information from relatively few sources. It's going to be ugly for a while (right now there's just a list of "Goodstein p. X"), but eventually it should be much better. I'll also work on wikification as I go. --Ginkgo100 talk · e@ 22:11, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notes and references

message: The street system described actually applies to the metro area, as the article says. We should restrict articles about Denver to the city proper. As this article clearly describes, the grid system was adopted by the metropolitan area as Denver grew. See also Rail transit in metropolitan Denver. As a bonus, if we renamed it, it would make more sense to include other grids that were eventually absorbed into the metro area's grid. For instance, Broomfield's grid, which restarts the avenue numbering just north of 120th Avenue. I'd also like to mention e.g. the mousetrap, the Turnpike Tangle, insert complaints about the US-36/US-287/CO-121/CO-128/Midway Blvd interchange, and perhaps describe the sordid story behind 470 and why there's still no complete beltway after almost 40 years. =) --BetaCentauri 08:12, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am fine with that. I don't think w need a separate page for just Denver, nor do I think we should just keep the Denver info. on the main Denver page. I think we can simply expand this article to incorporate the entire metro area. Vertigo700 18:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What would be a better name for this article? Street system of metropolitan Denver (following the rail transit example) or Street grid of metropolitan Denver (which I like less because freeways aren't really part of the grid) are possibilities. --Ginkgo100 talk 23:33, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like the former. Oddly enough, however, I haven't seen how other metro area articles handle the distinction. --BetaCentauri 22:30, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. Vertigo700 23:31, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking at some other articles, I like Streets and highways of Denver after Streets and highways of Chicago. Clear and succinct. --Ginkgo100 talk 00:57, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, I think part of BetaCentauri's original complaint was that the name didn't apply to the entire metropolitan area. I understand that Chicago's page does somewhat, but if we want to acknowledge some additional grids besides the main Denver one than I think Street system of metropolitan Denver is the better choice. I also like how it corresponds with the rail transit article. I think consistency amongst Denver pages is more important than consistency among other city pages, especially just considering how varied all the others are. For those reasons, I like Street system of metropolitan Denver, or perhaps as an alternative Street and highways of metropolitan Denver.Vertigo700 05:47, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Naming consistency?

message: I am not sure of the usefulness of this section. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not a street directory, and I think including every street east of Broadway clutters up the article more than it provides useful information.Vertigo700 (talk) 07:03, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Streets east of Broadway

message: I've expanded the section on the "street"/"avenue" standardization to include the other types standardized ("court", "way", "place", "drive"). If a reference is needed for this, the old Metro Denver white pages phone book published by Ma Bell/US West DEX/whoever it is now had it all written up in the info pages at the front of the book back in the 80s at least (I don't know if it still does now). John Darrow (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Street/Avenue standardization 

message: I don't agree with the statement that "Modern Denver has two grids. One is laid out diagonal with respect to the four cardinal directions and is found on Auraria Campus, downtown, and northeast of downtown into the Five Points neighborhood." Denver has three grids. Goodman's books (and others) make this clear. The first grid was Auraria's (aligned with Cherry Creek), and can still be seen on campus around 9th and Larimer. The second grid (aligned with the Platte River) was what we now call downtown. The third grid is the one aligned with the cardinal directions throughout most of the city. I know the Auraria grid isn't super relevant, since it's only about 3 blocks in each direction and is close enough to the downtown grid that they can look like the same grid if you squint your eyes. But it does exist. See page 172 of Nelson's "Denver: An Archaeological History" for more. ToddBradley (talk) 22:11, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Two grids or three?