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.
Great point! Living in AZ I can attest to the fact that the major cities impact the region more than people think. Prior to the recession Phoenix had one of the best economies in the nation. It was incredible! The entire valley benefitted from the city's boom, but when the bubble burst in 2008 the entire state felt it.
It's the same old story that a handful of curmudgeonly posters keep repeating - Colorado is losing its distinctive character and turning into McColorado. You can't understand, because your native credentials aren't quite so bonafide as theirs. If only you were here back in [insert decade of birth or original arrival in CO], you'd understand just how much this once-lovely state has changed. Now it's the land of Walmart and suburbs, and cities from Durango to Ft Morgan are looking more and more the same as outsiders (not to mention outside business interests) come flooding in.
But here's the thing - you could travel to nearly every part of the country and see this occurring. In West Texas, where I was stuck in exile for several years, main streets are becoming ghost towns surrounded by rings of suburbs and strip malls. Cities like Lubbock and Abilene look less and less like what they used to. There, however, the xenophobia is more blatant due to its racial nature (white vs hispanic - strange but true in a state that's always had a large hispanic population). That's less the case here in Colorado, where it seems that what we have is simply have people who wish we could keep this state to themselves, protecting Colorado from the change that is happening practically everywhere else.
I suppose some folks here wish people would just stay in the state where they were born. Not a far cry from the people who just wished the Irish would stay in Ireland, the Italians in Italy, and the Chinese in China. However, immigration, fluidity, and change are rules for life. Sentimentality is denial. Sentimentality is not only arrogance and prejudice by another name - it does no one any good. It's self-gratification, patting yourself on the back for having gotten here before a bunch of other people
We love Colorado because we live here. Many of us are natives, and that makes many of us feel that we've somehow earned the unique right to enjoy this state (potentially interesting post topic: who do we hate more? transplants or tourists?) because we were the ones wise enough to choose to be born here.
But Colorado is no more special to us than New England is to New Englanders or Oregon is to Oregonians or so on and so on. We all have to face change and be compassionate to the people who are coming here for a better life, just like our parents, great grandparents, or distant ancestors did.
I can tell you as a City prospers, so does the region and as a city declines, the fall is felt in the areas that depend on its vitality--I give you Buffalo and Detroit as a good example. So, do not be so quick with a narrow vision and dismiss Denver as it makes all that you see and enjoy possible. You cannot eat the weather and the mountains will not pay your rent; for to enjoy these amenities requires a disposable income and when that income is gone, so will be many of the people.
Livecontent
I agree with you statement but would add that in Colorado its applies to the entire front range urban corridor from Pueblo to Fort Collins. The cities there prosper the entire state prospers the cities there struggle and the entire state struggles.
The Texans and Californians keep coming anyway, and the haters simply become more and more bitter over the years, blaming others for the unhappiness that they themselves have cultivated.
You know, it's funny, I don't think of myself as others apparently do, meaning I bristle at the idea of being identified as a Californian...or Texan...or Floridian...or whatever. I think of myself primarily as an American who had no choice in where she was born. However, I do have a choice in where I make a life for myself as an adult, and circumstances have brought my family and me to the Denver metro region for a few years. We all like it here.
But, all that said, this is a rehash of a long-running argument between the generations. I'd like to understand more of why the OP is interested in non-Denverites' perceptions of the city. What are you expecting to learn?
Last edited by randomparent; 10-22-2012 at 06:07 PM..
McDowdog wrote: Sentimentality is a sin based upon pride... but it's also a state of consciousness which cannot be wished away anymore than a person with a cold can shake a runny nose on sheer will.
Wether or not it is a sin I won't venture into, but I do know ( from waaaay tooooo much experience! ) that it is extremely dis-empowering. In reality, sentimentality can easily be wished away, simply by thinking of something more uplifting. The problem for me however is that sentimentality is a state of being that I tend to wallow in, weakening my will to shift out of it, into a more uplifting state of mind.
I agree with you statement but would add that in Colorado its applies to the entire front range urban corridor from Pueblo to Fort Collins. The cities there prosper the entire state prospers the cities there struggle and the entire state struggles.
Absolutely correct because Denver is the major city of a multiple state region. That does not lessen the importance of smaller cities from Pueblo to Fort Collins, as they must also be encouraged to prosper. However, if Denver prospers and maintains its vitality, it will influence all of the front range, mountains communities to the west and the city and towns of the plains to the east.
Here we go again--with the "Denver is the known center of universe" arguments. It's not. Denver and the Front Range metroplex largely exist because of the economic activity that occurs in the hinterlands. Take away the basic production that occurs in the vast Rocky Mountain region--energy and minerals production, agriculture, etc.--and watch how fast Denver whithers. Denver exists because it is a supply, commerce, and transportation center for a huge region of the US--a region endowed with a lot of natural resources. Denver is not a manufacturing center and is, in fact, less so as a percentage of its economic activity than it was decades ago. The other part of the Front Range economy is the BS F.I.R.E. economy that is destined to die an inglorious death at some point in the not-too-distant future. The other HUGE component is government--the Front Range has one of the highest concentrations of federal (including military) employment outside of Washington, DC. Of course, in addition to direct employment, there are legions of private employers on the Front Range eagerly sucking at the government (taxpayer) teat, as well. All of that is destined to severely shrink at some point because, bluntly, a country that has lived so egregiously beyond its means can not continue to support it without risking total economic and political collapse. Very soon, whomever winds up getting elected to Congress and the Presidency are going to have to concern themselves, not about growth, but how to manage long-term contraction in both the public and private sectors. That will be ugly for everybody, but it will be especially painful for places like the Front Range that are far too reliant on what are basically unproductive sectors of the economy. Then watch all of the happy trumpeters now singing about how wonderful the Front Range is today start desperately wishing that they (and their property and capital) were someplace else when the ugly truth about the Front Range's fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable economy manifests itself.
Here we go again--with the "Denver is the known center of universe" arguments. It's not. Denver and the Front Range metroplex largely exist because of the economic activity that occurs in the hinterlands. Take away the basic production that occurs in the vast Rocky Mountain region--energy and minerals production, agriculture, etc.--and watch how fast Denver whithers. Denver exists because it is a supply, commerce, and transportation center for a huge region of the US--a region endowed with a lot of natural resources. Denver is not a manufacturing center and is, in fact, less so as a percentage of its economic activity than it was decades ago. The other part of the Front Range economy is the BS F.I.R.E. economy that is destined to die an inglorious death at some point in the not-too-distant future. The other HUGE component is government--the Front Range has one of the highest concentrations of federal (including military) employment outside of Washington, DC. Of course, in addition to direct employment, there are legions of private employers on the Front Range eagerly sucking at the government (taxpayer) teat, as well. All of that is destined to severely shrink at some point because, bluntly, a country that has lived so egregiously beyond its means can not continue to support it without risking total economic and political collapse. Very soon, whomever winds up getting elected to Congress and the Presidency are going to have to concern themselves, not about growth, but how to manage long-term contraction in both the public and private sectors. That will be ugly for everybody, but it will be especially painful for places like the Front Range that are far too reliant on what are basically unproductive sectors of the economy. Then watch all of the happy trumpeters now singing about how wonderful the Front Range is today start desperately wishing that they (and their property and capital) were someplace else when the ugly truth about the Front Range's fundamentally unbalanced and unsustainable economy manifests itself.
I am still waiting for your list of larger cities that have a better quality of life then Denver.....
Absolutely correct because Denver is the major city of a multiple state region. That does not lessen the importance of smaller cities from Pueblo to Fort Collins, as they must also be encouraged to prosper. However, if Denver prospers and maintains its vitality, it will influence all of the front range, mountains communities to the west and the city and towns of the plains to the east.
Livecontent
For the most part I agree with you and I am not sure how it works in other states but I do think that since all the "larger" cities are so close that if they were to fail it would impact the economy of Denver as well. That is all I was trying to say.
I am still waiting for your list of larger cities that have a better quality of life then Denver.....
Well, in the Rocky Mountain region, I would overall prefer Salt Lake City over Denver. It is far ahead of Denver in things like mass transit, immediate proximity (literally to the city limit) to mountains, and other factors. It also has a better industrial economic base than does Denver. SLC's main "downer" for me is its severe wintertime air pollution problems and the fact that, like Denver, it is attracting far too many transplants from elsewhere. Though I'm personally not LDS, nor do I agree with some of the tenets of that faith, I don't have a problem living and working with LDS folks--and I've already done that for years.
Another metro area that has a better overall quality of life for my purposes is Omaha, Nebraska. Omaha has a surprising amount of culture for a city much smaller than Denver. Most of the metro area is fairly attractive, with relatively minimal air quality problems. It has a disproportionately large number of Fortune 500 companies, most all quite successful ones, who headquarter there. The place is economically healthy and relatively economically stable, yet maintains and very good affordability index--that is, relatively good local incomes with relatively modest living costs. Omaha's only real significant disadvantage is Nebraska's relatively high effective property tax rates and somewhat high estate taxes. That said, most people I've talked to who live in Nebraska--and that includes relatives of mine who live there--are pretty satisfied with the public services that they get for those taxes.
I have a fairly lengthy list of smaller metro areas--say, the size of Pueblo--outside of Colorado that I would consider superior for my purposes than most of the Front Range cities.
Let's face the truth: the major attraction for Denver and the Front Range is its proximity to the mountains. Take that away, and most Front Range cities are pretty mediocre in most other categories. Yes, the mountains are a major attraction, but--as the saying goes--you can't eat the scenery. When the rest of the economic pictures sours, people will go where they can earn a living. Cheap oil and the ability for people and society to, temporarily over the last few decades, to live far beyond their means made people think that geography didn't matter, anymore. In that environment, Colorado and the Front Range has flourished for the last few decades. But, that party is now ending, and geography DOES matter. In that coming geographical/economic environment, this region will no longer be very competitive in many ways. That is one of those tectonic shifts that will reshuffle the economic deck, and Colorado and the Front Range don't have many "hole" cards to play in that environment. That is why that I continue to work to divest myself of asset holdings in this region--I don't think that they have a very bright future.
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.
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.
