U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado
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 10-25-2012, 12:20 AM
Location: 80904 West siiiiiide!
2,866 posts, read 7,099,726 times
Reputation: 1543


You wanna know why I can't stand Texans? I have lost count of how many times I've heard the phrase "Well, that's not how we do it back in (insert name of **** hole Texas town here)" That infuriates me to no end. If it was so great where you came from, THEN WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU DOING HERE?! I could care less where you're from, but don't come to Colorado and complain that it's not as good as where you came from. Nobody is holding you here against your will.

I don't ever get that from Californians, they seem to appreciate what Colorado has to offer. Oh and for the record, Texans have NO idea how to handle driving in elevation changes. Every time I'm stuck behind some idiot going 20 mph over a mountain pass, it's most surely a car with Texas plates, and it's white knuckled, terrified driver behind the wheel.

Well, there it is, in a nut shell. Before you flame me, yes, i know people from Texas aren't all bad.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

Old 10-25-2012, 01:02 AM
1,489 posts, read 1,849,148 times
Reputation: 3049
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
The "newbies" don't understand three basic things:

1. They don't understand the sorrow long-time residents of Colorado feel for what has already been lost. How could they understand? They never saw the way it used to be.

2. They don't understand how quickly growth smashed so much of what was great about Colorado, and how at risk what is left of Colorado's natural beauty and historic heritage really is from continued basically exponential growth, particularly in the 1970-2010 time period.

3. They also don't understand that resource depletion and environmental destruction increases at a rate even faster than the population, especially in the area of water resources, destruction of streamcourses and riparian areas, and destruction of things like critical wildlife habitat.

Exponential equals:

It took from 1860 to 1940 for the state to reach 1 million people.

It 30 years to double to over 2 million (1970).

In 30 year it doubled again to over 4 million (2000).

It's now over 5 million. It would probably be even more, but Colorado's economic engine is starting to fail (thanks to the real estate bubble and the state's escalating fiscal crisis) as the state becomes more hostile to productive commerce and employment.
I would like to know how it used to be, but all I hear is that it has changed. How? Also, how is this change different than what other rapidly growing state experiences? Like I have stated, I am a native Nevadan. In recent history, Nevada has grown much faster than Colorado. In fact, the city of Las Vegas has nearly 100,000 more people now than the entire state of Nevada had when I was born in 1970. The state had 488,000 people then and has more than 2.7 million people now. Some aspects of the state have changed drastically from when I was a child, but there are plenty areas that are much the same. I would never tell newcomers that they ruined the state. Did they change the dynamic a lot? Yes. But to act like the change has ruined the state beyond repair? Never. Places change and you have no choice but to adapt.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-25-2012, 08:45 AM
Location: Parker, CO
1,036 posts, read 2,641,740 times
Reputation: 1630
Originally Posted by jazzlover View Post
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.
This is all subjective. For me, Denver has a better quality of life than SLC or Omaha because it is a much larger than either of those metro areas. There are nice things about living in a smaller metro area, but the inner city areas of Denver offer a particular urban vibe that can't be found in SLC or Omaha. Denver's larger population also gives it a faster paced feel than either of the other 2 places and I personally like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-25-2012, 10:28 AM
841 posts, read 1,249,916 times
Reputation: 603
I like Denver to visit- for shopping (Park Meadows Mall), for entertainment (Comedy Works, 16th Street Mall). I have some great friends in Denver. I like the variety of foods they have there, and I like the city-feel that you can get in Denver, cause then I can return home (Colorado Springs) and not have the big-city feel around me. I like that Denver, relatively, is clean.

I also appreciate the level of expertise that the city attracts. After my son was born very ill, over five years ago, Presbyterian-St. Luke's was the hospital that received him, airlifted from the Springs, and nursed him to health- five years ago, the only hospital in the region that could take care of his worst-case scenario was in Denver. In the NICU, there were children there from Wyoming and from all parts of Colorado.

While I do get frustrated at Denver-centric news, and sometimes the politicians, I also strongly feel that a geographical area needs a large city that effectively attracts talent, both for life saving and entertainment (to name two areas!), and I think Denver does a good job.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-28-2012, 11:25 PM
2,784 posts, read 2,571,812 times
Reputation: 3727
Denver is OK I guess. I just wish it would stay put on the week-ends.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Old 10-29-2012, 12:19 PM
Location: Valley of the Sun
220 posts, read 429,690 times
Reputation: 293
Originally Posted by NW Crow View Post
Agreed. Omaha is cheap, quiet and the people are very very friendly but the city is booooooorrrrrring unless your primary hobbies are church and watching TV/football. IMHO I'd rather pay a little more and live in a mountain state.

Originally Posted by NW Crow View Post
Salt Lake City
The air quality and how I would be treated (being Methodist and not Mormon) were my concerns as well.
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.

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

Loading data...
Based on 2000-2016 data
Loading data...

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
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