Explore Colorado Data Center Sites

Data center corridor evidence

Compare acreage, mapped infrastructure distances, zoning and outstanding diligence questions for four parcel screens and one zoning search area.

100ranked corridor parcels

5representative screens

1recorded site transaction

0sites proven viable

HighwaysFiber evidenceTransmissionWater contextCandidate screen

Screening boundary: Use this map to shortlist sites for research. Electric capacity, carrier service, water availability, entitlement, title, owner interest, pricing and investment suitability require project-specific verification.

Representative development site matrix

The same public geometry can produce different decisions after jurisdiction, zoning, and site-control evidence is applied.

Five representative screens compared by status, scale, zoning, fiber, power, and next evidence gate.
Screen	Status	Scale	Zoning context	Fiber	Power	Next gate

Scores and distances prioritize research. Status identifies the outstanding review; approval and utility service remain unverified.

Current infrastructure signals

Dated Aurora applications and Colorado's approved BEAD proposal add different kinds of market and planned-buildout context.

Application boundary: Applications are not approvals. These records do not prove target-site capacity, carrier routes or service, water availability, entitlement, site control, or investment viability.

Regional planned-fiber context

County-name matches in Colorado's official approved BEAD final-proposal deployment table.

County-level BEAD planned-fiber project counts and estimated fiber miles.
County	County-named projects	Estimated fiber miles
Adams	0	0
Arapahoe	0	0
Elbert	1	44
Weld	7	1,086

BEAD boundary: This is county-level planned context, not route geometry, construction status, parcel serviceability, splice access, carrier diversity, or capacity. It does not change parcel scores. A zero does not show that fiber investment or service is absent.

When a strong score still stops

An Aurora-edge parcel sits close to transmission, homes and a school. Its R-2 zoning requires a land-use review before further spending.

Infrastructure attraction

Public geometry explains why the parcel entered the review queue.

Transmission line0.02 mi
Substation1.16 mi
Fiber corridor proxy1.00 mi
Highway0.96 mi

Countervailing evidence

Current retained public evidence blocks automatic advancement.

Aurora zoning coverage100% R-2
Current use tableNot listed in R-2
Nearest address point0.02 mi
Nearest school point0.08 mi

Automated hold

Outreach and paid diligence remain on hold pending review of the current code, plan context, nearby homes and schools, and a credible entitlement path. That review will determine whether the site can advance.

Evidence boundary: Distances are public-data screens. Address and school points locate potential nearby receptors. Noise, traffic, environmental-justice and legal compatibility assessments require separate studies.

Evidence model

The system separates public geometry, decision policy, and external verification so proximity is never presented as capacity.

1. Public geometry

Repeatable GIS screens establish parcel scale and proximity to infrastructure or constraints.

County parcel boundaries
Transmission and substations
CDOT fiber-corridor evidence
Highways and public water systems

2. Policy overlay

Current zoning and municipal policy can override an attractive physical score.

Eligible or prohibited zoning
Rezoning and special-review paths
Municipal boundaries and moratoria
Community and aviation context

3. External proof

Only agencies, utilities, carriers, providers, owners, and title work can close the decisive gaps.

Electric will-serve and studies
Carrier routes and diverse laterals
Water and wastewater capacity
Entitlement, title, and site control

Confidence language: “Strong public geometry” means the feature is mapped nearby; it does not mean service is available. “Policy hold” means no infrastructure score should trigger paid diligence until the land-use gate is resolved.