Residents migrate to Colorado's cities (wages, living, vs)

[livecontent]

You are not seeing the point of the article and are arguing over nothing. Yes, people are returning to Denver--that is not a dispute because Denver was losing population a few decades ago. In comparison, to other decaying cities, Denver is indeed growing and neighborhoods are improving. Also, there is an increase of resident housing in the downtown area over past census data.

That does not mean that Denver is growing faster than many outlying counties, that have fast growing suburban cities. It just means that Denver is not only holding its own, but is a very attractive place to live for many people, for many reason. Just are the suburbs are a very attractrive place for many people. There certainly is no dramatic white flight to the suburbs but we are seeing an increase of the lower class to the outlying suburbs. That will mean that the poorer areas or worse areas may be in the suburbs, over time, than in the prime cities. It will mirror exactly the situation in European cities where the city is the desirous place and the suburbs, less so.

The city of Denver does have a broad range of housing over the gamut of economic choice. In many ways, it allows more options than some suburban areas. It is not yet totally expensive because it not as dense and compacted like San Francisco or most areas of New York City; most areas of Denver have not reached that pinnacle of insane desire to live, as these cities--so Denver is still affordable to most.

We can argue the point about which place is better but really people will choice what they want. Of course, there will be changing times where high energy cost will make far out areas less attractive; because it has ocurred in the past, with the same stresses of energy. Many people will pay for gas, no matter what the cost, and many have the financial means; that is assuming, if the gas is available. To say that electric cars "will save the suburbs" that is not necessarily true because electricity is a conversation of some sort of energy source that has to be available and that price can rise dramatically. Make no mistake, as the demand for electric mobility increases, there will be increased electric energy cost. Also, It does not have to be an increase based on reality of the stress of supply, because the capital markets will seek a reason to squeeze more profits where they see there is no choice but to buy--yes, the beauty and greed of capitalism.

The viability and sustainability of far out suburbia is best served if most services and the jobs are located close in the same vicinity. These suburbs will certainly suffer if people continue to commute long distances to their employment and to receive other services; assuming that energy costs will continue to increase--can we really doubt that future.

Livecontent

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by CTC

yes let's build Soviet style housing blocks-much better

America had plenty of transit-friendly, pleasant communities surrounding cities nearly a century ago. They weren't "Soviet style housing-blocks," nor were they the pedestrian-unfriendly, cookie-cutter, energy guzzling suckholes that our present model of suburbia has become. It's a real pity that Americans have gotten brainwashed in the last three-quarters of a century to think that having to plunk their a**es into automobiles for 1, 2, or 3 hours a day just to get to work and back, having nothing within walking distance of their homes, being two income-earner slaves in a family to support all of that superfluous bull**** is somehow living "the good life." I figured out by the time I got out of high school (four decades ago) that such a lifestyle was no way to live, and pretty much have avoided it ever since. The sheeple can have their "suburban dream"--and they can also watch it turn into an even bigger nightmare as things necessary to support it disintegrate.

[Idunn]

As this situation evolves, and rather quickly, the equation will not be so much where people want to live, as where they can.

There is every reason to expect $5 per gallon petrol in the relatively near future, and higher. The recent paradigm shift throughout north Africa and the Middle East, ongoing, may be exactly the spark to push oil prices off balance and inevitably higher. At such a price point many of the rationales in America will fall apart. Consider what happened when we briefly touched $4, and then extrapolate from there. Only this time with oil prices in trend only climbing. It could be, possibly, this moment but a mild upset; but the fact that the reality of declining oil reserves will catch up with us sooner than later.

If many people prefer suburban living, they may continue only to the extent they can adapt to much higher energy costs. If work and shopping can be more closely associated within such communities, then maybe so. It is a different budget equation of perhaps only driving a few miles a day, versus regular commutes, etc. of 50 miles or more.

Then, too, I wonder how such a reality will affect all those truly in the hinterlands. One thing if you are driving a mile or two down into Boulder, but what of those living in places such as Lake City? Most everything is transported in, and with some of our supply lines reaching as far as grapes from Chile, all will become appreciably more expensive. Particularly for smaller markets which cannot spread costs over larger populations.

It will prove interesting, and that a kind way of expressing what some may not like.

[Bideshi]

As suburbs de-populate and the demographics inevitably change, support for their sustenance will fade; convenience stores, clinics, police, etc.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

As suburbs de-populate and the demographics inevitably change, support for their sustenance will fade; convenience stores, clinics, police, etc.

I don't know where the 2 1/2 million people who currently live in the Denver suburbs would be expected to live if the suburbs "depopulate". They won't all fit in Denver.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I don't know where the 2 1/2 million people who currently live in the Denver suburbs would be expected to live if the suburbs "depopulate". They won't all fit in Denver.

Many metro areas, such as Denver, don't always have distinct suburbs, and you can't tell when you've crossed the line between the suburb and the city. That is a classic situation for mass transit. I'm referring to communities that are a 30 minute or so commute from the metro area. I see this as a shift which will be all too obvious in the not-so-distant future.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Bideshi

Many metro areas, such as Denver, don't always have distinct suburbs, and you can't tell when you've crossed the line between the suburb and the city. That is a classic situation for mass transit. I'm referring to communities that are a 30 minute or so commute from the metro area. I see this as a shift which will be all too obvious in the not-so-distant future.

There aren't too many of those. Maybe Longmont, Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono, Berthod, Windsor. I don't think very many of the people in those cities work in Denver; they may work in the northern suburbs, e.g. Broomfield or Boulder. I don't know why you'd expect these places to de-populate.

[chilicheesefries]

Originally Posted by Katiana

There aren't too many of those. Maybe Longmont, Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono, Berthod, Windsor. I don't think very many of the people in those cities work in Denver; they may work in the northern suburbs, e.g. Broomfield or Boulder. I don't know why you'd expect these places to de-populate.

Castle Rock, Parker and SE Aurora are often cited as examples. There's a few points I want to make about this theory:

1)Suburbs have jobs too so the city center cannot be always thought of as the 'core'. The majority of the metro area does not work in downtown Denver.

2)What is the point at which a city/suburb is 'worthy' of existence. Certain posters have stated their hatred of suburbia. Some are obvious like Frederick/Firestone. But what about cities that just happen to be in the metro area and are then called suburbs - Longmont, Boulder, Golden. Are they any more of a strain on resources with high transportation than say Sterling?

[Katarina Witt]

Well, I was thinking Castle Rock, too, but it seems part of the metro area, although the southern border.

[Bideshi]

Originally Posted by Katiana

There aren't too many of those. Maybe Longmont, Frederick, Firestone, and Dacono, Berthod, Windsor. I don't think very many of the people in those cities work in Denver; they may work in the northern suburbs, e.g. Broomfield or Boulder. I don't know why you'd expect these places to de-populate.

I wouldn't. If they are self sustaining and have their own reason for existence apart from a metro area then they aren't suburbs at all. Commute times/costs won't cause them to de-populate.