U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 06-09-2009, 09:39 AM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,486,879 times
Reputation: 9292

Advertisements

I don't consider myself a whacko, but perhaps I am, becasue I tremendously enjoyed living in Boulder when I lived there in the early 70s. If I was more financially successful, I would enjoy living there again someday.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-09-2009, 10:24 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,057 posts, read 99,087,775 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
I don't consider myself a whacko, but perhaps I am, becasue I tremendously enjoyed living in Boulder when I lived there in the early 70s. If I was more financially successful, I would enjoy living there again someday.
You could probably afford to live there now! After all 100,000 people call it home. Prices are high there, but not insane. There are other areas of the metro that are as expensive.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2009, 11:17 AM
 
2,437 posts, read 7,123,371 times
Reputation: 1506
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
I don't consider myself a whacko, but perhaps I am, becasue I tremendously enjoyed living in Boulder when I lived there in the early 70s. If I was more financially successful, I would enjoy living there again someday.
A little less time sitting around on your duff after work and a little more time inventing a source of organically gown free energy and you just might...

That was a joke, BTW, assuming you see the humor...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2009, 04:26 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
1,627 posts, read 3,628,267 times
Reputation: 1777
Idunn got me thinking, actually, that if Boulder had not enacted the boundaries, would it have been any less desirable a city in which to live? And if it hadn't, and homes continued to be built further out, would the expensive homes be closer to the center of Boulder or further out on it's periphery? Either way, so long as Boulder is a desirable place to live, prices would go up...or at least costs would. Whether those costs are in housing prices in the city, on the edge of the city, commute times, quality of life, environmental costs, etc...is the question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2009, 04:35 PM
 
Location: Wherabouts Unknown!
7,756 posts, read 16,486,879 times
Reputation: 9292
treedonkey wrote:
A little less time sitting around on your duff after work and a little more time inventing a source of organically gown free energy and you just might...
I would never wear organic gowns, even if they did provide some free energy. I'm more comfortable wearing shirts and pants. Gowns ain't too popular over here on the western slope, especially in public. Back in the 70s when I lived in Boulder, there may have been a few hippies wearing gowns, but I don't think gowns are too popular today....even in Boulder.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-09-2009, 10:08 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
85,057 posts, read 99,087,775 times
Reputation: 31544
Quote:
Originally Posted by zenkonami View Post
Idunn got me thinking, actually, that if Boulder had not enacted the boundaries, would it have been any less desirable a city in which to live? And if it hadn't, and homes continued to be built further out, would the expensive homes be closer to the center of Boulder or further out on it's periphery? Either way, so long as Boulder is a desirable place to live, prices would go up...or at least costs would. Whether those costs are in housing prices in the city, on the edge of the city, commute times, quality of life, environmental costs, etc...is the question.
Q #1: I doubt Boulder would be any less desirable, but its housing costs would probably be lower.

Q #2: Hard to say. Homes near Pearl St. Mall, on "The Hill", and in Chautauqua areas would proably still be expensive b/c of "location, location, location". OTOH, newer McMansion-type homes could be built on the periphery.

It is important to keep in mind that while Boulder has these "urban growth boundaries", the smaller communities grew b/c of the inability of Boulder to grow much. So that's where the new homes were built, e.g. Louisville, Lafayette, Superior (almost a whole new city went up there in the 90s), Niwot, Lyons, etc.

Also, some of Boulder's area III (or something, land to be annexed and developed at some unknown time in the future) goes right to the Louisivlle city limits, even though the land is actually in Boulder County. When Boulder was the big Kahuna in Boulder County, they had plans to exert influence in much of southern Boulder County. There is some overlap between Boulder's area of interest and Louisville's in that area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2009, 10:42 AM
 
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
2,139 posts, read 5,499,043 times
Reputation: 945
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
I have hesitated to post the following because it will obviously anger a lot of people who continue to think that their "little piece of heaven" property in rural Colorado is not having any adverse impacts on the state's fragile environment. Well, somebody besides me, namely some very knowledgeable individuals in geography and environmental matters, have weighed in on the subject.

I am currently reading a recently published book which analyzes the long-term human impacts on the environment in southwestern Colorado. The book is “The Nature of Southwestern Colorado: Recognizing Human Legacies and Restoring Natural Places” by Deborah D. Paulson and William L. Baker, both professors of geography at the University of Wyoming. The book discusses the century-plus of environmental impacts of “modern” settlement in southwestern Colorado. It talks a great deal about past impacts—mining, logging, and ranching, for example—and makes note of the positive steps taken in those industries to lessen or mitigate environmental damage. Though it discusses the southwestern Colorado area specifically, the book should be required reading for anyone considering moving to the rural parts of the Rocky Mountain West.

However, in a two-page subsection of the book, subtitled “Rural Sprawl and its Ecological Impacts” the authors make a damning indictment of the environmental havoc being wrought by rural residential development in mountain areas. The authors point out that, “Communities across the West are grappling with the effects of rapid growth, as affluent professionals, baby-boomer retirees, and vacation home builders flock to the amenity-rich Rocky Mountain states from all other parts of the country. Population increased in the Mountain West by 25 percent in the 1990s, and growth rates are predicted to remain high.”

The authors continue, pointing out that many of these new residents choose to settle in low-density rural development. The damaging character of this kind of development is then explained:

“Rural sprawl results when large private ranches are divided into multiple homesites, commonly thirty-five acre ‘ranchettes.’ Although this book describes many negative impacts of livestock grazing on natural communities, ranching could be reformed to better coexist with the natural world. Widespread rural subdivision, on the other hand, has inherent negative impacts, many of which cannot be overcome, not even by the most conscientious homeowner. The lower elevations around mountains provide critical winter range for big game, valleys are the most productive farmland, and streamside (riparian) habitat supports two-thirds of Colorado’s plant and animal species. Yet these are the very lands where sprawl is concentrated because they are largely private and are preferred locations for homesites.”

The authors go on to explain these impacts, including the negative impacts on animals and plants by the increased road density necessary for rural development. The authors note that, “Most insidious, roads fragment the landscape, increasing edges that favor generalist species such as skunks and coyotes and reducing large habitat blocks needed by more specialized species.”

The authors then cite a litany of problems of invasive, noxious and non-native plant species that proliferate in rural subdivisions due the disturbance of the ground inherent in such development, as well as the ignorant overgrazing of subdivision parcels by horses and other livestock that their owners allow. They also catalog the increased killing of wildlife, some rare or threatened, by domestic cats and dogs in such rural subdivisions.

The authors finally point out that the presence of rural subdivisions in close proximity to public lands is compromising the ability of those public lands to be effectively managed, particularly in the area of fire management, prevention of fuel buildups, and prescribed burning.

The last sentence of the subsection is, while understated, the most scathing (I added the caps for emphasis): “While homeowners can reduce some of their impacts by the choices they make, THERE IS CONSIDERABLE IRONY TO BUILDING A HOUSE IN THE WOODS TO BE WITH NATURE.”

This is another one of the issues that no one wants to address. The people buying and building on these tracts are often either too ignorant or too self-centered to acknowledge the damage they are doing to Colorado’s natural and historical heritage. The developers generally couldn’t care less—they are only in the business of carving land up for profit. The real estate and construction people won’t say anything—they have prostituted themselves into being part of the destruction because it is often the only way to make a living in many of these places, since most other industry has either been closed down or chased out. And, of course, the elected officials, from the state down to the local level, who could reasonably regulate such development to discourage wanton destruction of rural Colorado, refuse to do so because the development, real estate, and construction lobbies are the most potent political force in the state.

And so the “Colorado way of life” that so many of those of us who have deep roots in Colorado remember and cherish continues to be destroyed—out of ignorance, selfishness, and greed.

I had to revive this thread because I'm just about finished reading Paulson's "THE NATURE OF SOUTHWESTERN COLORADO: Recognizing Human Legacies And Restoring Natural Places." I picked it up thanks to jazzlover and and extremely thankful for this tip! It really should be required reading for Coloradoans.

Thanks again.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-19-2009, 11:00 AM
 
16,438 posts, read 18,564,117 times
Reputation: 9494
Quote:
Originally Posted by CosmicWizard View Post
...
Gowns ain't too popular over here on the western slope, especially in public. Back in the 70s when I lived in Boulder, there may have been a few hippies wearing gowns, but I don't think gowns are too popular today....even in Boulder.
You mean daishikis and jelebas are out of fashion already? I need to get out more...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-21-2009, 10:05 AM
 
Location: Londonderry, NH
41,505 posts, read 49,704,162 times
Reputation: 24555
Gowns are popular at most graduations and toga parties (do the insane frat boys still do toga parties or are they all occupied with internet porn?)

PS - There is no such thing a free energy. It all costs something. However specific kinds and uses for energy can be made more efficient. For instance collecting solar energy for low temp heating makes sense almost anywhere. Collecting it for electricity not so much.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-26-2009, 10:11 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 5,855,266 times
Reputation: 2615
Wink Direction of Boulder's growth

The political boundaries of Boulder are readily apparent if driving in on US 36 from the north. There is a row of large condos, or single family homes, straight as an arrow defining the edge of what surely is designated open space. There are indeed a few structures north of there in what is largely open prairie, but they must have been grandfathered in. All these condos are far newer, having been built but a few short years ago.

I am not privy to what must be a ceaseless internal discussion of Boulder's future. But even the disinterested will pick up hints here and there if visiting, and it should be no surprise that Boulder has a very active zoning board. Exactly what they may be doing with it enjoins a larger question.

It is not the town of but a few decades ago because of growth that has occurred within their set boundaries, thus if not spreading it out then making all more dense. I don't know if an upper limit has been decided, but it is readily apparent with more and more multi-family dwelling being constructed that all is becoming more dense, and different. And just because such growth is mandated to the far north or elsewhere doesn't mean all the many new residents don't end up on Pearl St. and other popular venues.

I hope they've thought this through. While some may never favor this town for its liberal tendencies, most anyone might acknowledge that it enjoys a marvelous setting of great beauty. Moreover that such a town might prove a marvelous home, or at least in theory it might. For how many and in which way remains an open question.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top