Looking for the perfect mountain town! (Denver, Colorado Springs: ski resorts, real estate, condo)

[Kel2011]

I am hoping to move to a mountain town sometime in the next few years, preferably in Colorado but that is not a requirement. I would really like to be IN the mountains, not just on the outskirts, though I do love Boulder. Nothing too small, or at least something within an hour of a bigger city. Living cost isn't a giant consideration at this point. The main requirement here is lots of natural beauty and a place where I could get a small parcel of land, maybe a couple acres. I am open to the Southwest and towns further north too! I thought this would be a good place to get some opinions. I am considering Estes Park, Frisco, Boulder, and Telluride, in that order, but other suggestions and advice are welcome!

[dude_reino]

Is Skiing a priority to you? If so, the ski towns (Telluride, etc.) have much higher cost of living than the other mountain towns (like Estes Park). Also, you won't get a 'couple acres' of land in a ski town.

If skiing is not a priority, then check out towns in Teller county, the Arkansas Valley, Gunnison, Estes Park, or Red Feather Lakes.

[StealthRabbit]

Need to know more...
What do you want to do with your land?
If just "look at it"... much easier to live next to National Forest.
if you plan to USE IT, you need water (very hard to find)

How close to , internet / phone, job, shopping, airport, medical, activites, or civilzation?

If you are a hermit, MANY more options.

Why Colorado? (land costs and population pressure on Scenery is high) Many other choices for mtn beauty that will be MUCH cheaper than CO,

City within 1 hr.... I would look to areas around Salt Lake City (more jobs / mtn access in UTAH). Then, Montana, ID, SD (Rapid).

For CO, your choices are best centered around Colorado Springs. (it is MUCH closer to the Mtns than Denver. Boulder has had building restrictions since the 1960's driving properties too high. Glenwood Springs is NOT a larger city, but has MOST stuff. it is spendy as of late.

[Dreaming of Hawaii]

Living cost is not a consideration, you say, so I imagine you mean that you would not need to be close to a job? Does that also mean that the cost of the land doesn't matter? These are important questions, because small mountain towns are not going to have jobs.

You want to be within an hour of a "bigger" city? The bigger cities in Colorado are all on the Front Range except for Grand Junction (which is a smallish big city). That leaves out Telluride and Frisco. Do you realize that thousands of people want the same thing, so prices for a couple acres of land are going to be really high.

I suggest that you spend some time either using the search function or merely scrolling down through the threads. I found two on the first two pages that discuss this very issue at some length.

[lovethehighcountry]

Definitely need to know more! What do you like to do with your time? Is employment a concern? What's a "bigger city"?

[Neditate]

Boulder is not a "mountain town" -- it sits at the base of the foothills east of the mountains. The mountain towns west, NW and SW of Boulder: Nederland, Jamestown, Gold Hill. There are areas without actual towns such as Sugarloaf, Boulder Heights, Coal Creek Canyon.
Frisco is a great place but very expensive since it's close to several ski resorts.

[jim9251]

Perfect mountain town? Wow good luck. What may be perfect to me, Ridgway, Ouray, might not be perfect to you. I would suggest spending some time visiting.

[Dogmama50]

Visit first and be sure you do in the winter. What may look like a lovely long driveway in the summer is actually an icy rutted mess in the winter.

[Idunn]

The towns you've mentioned as possibilities—Estes Park, Frisco, Boulder, Telluride (in that order)—are all distinctly different. As others have quite rightly pointed out, Boulder not even in the mountains. You'll find the same disparity often plays out elsewhere, should your consideration run as far afield as Santa Fe, NM or Missoula, MT. So unless just chucking darts at the board, perhaps first some idea of where you'd like them to land?

Nevertheless, some comments on those selected thus far.


Estes Park enjoys one of the most scenic locations in Colorado, being nestled adjacent to the high peaks of Rocky Mountain National Park; anywhere in town one needn't look hard to discover yet another marvelous view. For scenery alone, one would be hard pressed to do any better.

One has easy access to RMNP and all the many splendors of that lovely national park. There even used to be skiing, although now one only has the option of cross country skiing (at elevations high enough to reliably have snow). For hiking it is superb. If less so in consideration of the conga line of tourists you may find yourself sharing the trail with.

RMNP sees about 3,000,000 visitors annually, Estes Park even more in those who never actually venture beyond the many tourist shops in town. The place is tourist-central in the summer, and a still huge dose of it tapering in and off in spring and autumn. Expect this reality when no more than wishing a few groceries (and, unlike winter, searching for a parking spot, etc.).

Of the four choices, Estes Park would prove the least expensive for real estate. If of course this a relative thing, and one can definitely discover many locals in Colorado with less expensive housing. Nevertheless, a few hundred thousands of dollars can see one happily ensconced, and a few more on top of that out of some ramshackle cabin into some semblance of luxury. Acreage can be had close to town, at a price.

It all can sound wonderful, and certainly is to a degree (if able to overlook the inevitable hordes of tourists). It remains a relatively small town which would surely be far larger, save for the little matter of employment. The real money tends to come from elsewhere, such as in those retired. Those working for a living would have an easier time of it, and more for their money, elsewhere. So there is that tradeoff. More than a few actually commute either to or from places such as Loveland. It will all be much nicer if money is not an issue.

Unlike ski resort areas, the demographic will be rather different. Instead of spandex and mountain bikes, expect the oft obese, RVs, and families possibly from Nebraska (or a good many other places) seeking a week or two of mountain idyll. Not to mention consistently, especially on weekends, a good many up from the Front Range for just a day or two.


As Estes Park, Frisco does not offer downhill skiing—but far readier access to it. Breckenridge is just up the road, or around the corner, Copper Mountain, and shortly in the other direction, Keystone and A-Basin. Or, a far better choice if winter sports are high on one's agenda.

Unlike Keystone, Frisco is an actual town, and a rather lovely one at that. It has a central and scenic location at the west edge of Lake Dillon. The biggest demerit could be considered the noisy intrusion of I-70 wrapping around the north edge of town. Good access, yes, but if wishing to largely avoid this then carefully choose one's location in town. Not that it seems to have much influence on real estate prices, so expect to pay a good amount of money for anything at all, and then add to that for something nicer.

As a major resort area, there are any number of goods and services on offer. If this doesn't suite, then Denver and environs are but a little over an hour distant on the easy and beautiful drive of I-70 (assuming not a snow storm and/or the regular parking lot of a traffic jam at certain times). But generally, one should be able to remain in Summit County year-round and be perfectly content, with never a need to venture elsewhere.

Downsides, as often the case, center again on money. Bring lots of that and you are home free. Without, then likely one of those working for a pittance for a year or two before becoming discouraged and decamping to the city; or, never having got that far to begin with, and dreaming of the mountains from a condo in Denver.


Boulder is a lovely and expensive town. It is not in the mountains.


Telluride is the type of place where one stands a good chance of having their cake and eating it too—if able to afford it.

Who says you can't have two or more acres of prime Colorado real estate next an ever so lovely town? There are larger spreads available, but 4.81 acres with 12,040 square feet of majestic house thrown in can be had for the low low price of only sixteen five. If you have to ask to have that deciphered, then $16,500,000, and you cannot afford it. But naturally located in the mountain village, just above the town of Telluride itself.

Telluride is that kind of place. Think Aspen, only more remote. As Ouray, the town nestles within a quite scenic box canyon, but there the similarities largely end between the two. Ouray has remained more the small mining town it began as, if now centered on summer tourism; while Telluride has expanded somewhat more and gone decidedly upscale. One can blame the great skiing for that.

As said, isolated. Silverton might outrank it in that, but not by much. If flying in with your Lear jet for a few weeks of fun in the sun as a snow bunny, then this will not be a concern. The many good restaurants and sumptuous lodging options will have you covered. Locals may find that in the longer term, if wishing much more than milk and eggs, that they need at times to venture to Montrose or beyond for some shopping. If actually working in town, then possibly commuting from nearly that distance out of pure necessity.

Think expensive. Think historic, but posh. Not to mention nearly lost and gone out in the mountains. You'll have a great time. Do bring along the black credit card.

[Mike from back east]

Woodland Park. Up UTE Pass from COLO SPGS. Should work.

A lot of people swear by Evergreen, too.