To all yuppies destroying Colorado (Denver, Fort Collins: transplants, travel, housing)

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by HighlandsGal

Amen. Seriously, rudeness, strip malls, land development, rising costs, aggressive driving, etc. ..... you will find this in any developing, growing city across the United States.

I assume the original poster doesn't shop at any chain stores or eat at any chain restaurants.....if he/she does, he/she is contributing to the growth he/she so despises. It is NOT a new vs. old situation.....

haven't i read a thread of yours where you describe some of the driving (merging, for example) of people in the area as especially puzzling? as in, not like it is in "any developing, growing city across the United States"?

[Chris19]

Sioux Falls is going through a growth spurt similar to Fort Collins and has nearly doubled since the 1970s. Yes, there are negatives that come with growth. Change is not always easy neither. It is certainly better than shriking as in many small towns and in a number of areas in the Rust Belt (Buffalo, Detroit, etc.). I do not care for the additional traffic and people not paying attention on the roads and in the stores, but there are these loony types everywhere. I chose to embrace change and find opportunity in it and find the positives, but remember the past with pride. This will be better than being bitter and resentful of others.

I know of a number of so-called "yuppies" in Sioux Falls and many of them are very sincere and considerate people. I am sure that there are sincere and considerate yuppies in Colorado. I know of a couple, who were classmates of mine in college in South Dakota. I caution to not paint all of the Yuppies with the same brush as mentioned early in the thread. There are good ones and bad ones.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by Chris19

Sioux Falls is going through a growth spurt similar to Fort Collins and has nearly doubled since the 1970s. Yes, there are negatives that come with growth. Change is not always easy neither. It is certainly better than shriking as in many small towns and in a number of areas in the Rust Belt (Buffalo, Detroit, etc.). I do not care for the additional traffic and people not paying attention on the roads and in the stores, but there are these loony types everywhere. I chose to embrace change and find opportunity in it and find the positives, but remember the past with pride. This will be better than being bitter and resentful of others.

I know of a number of so-called "yuppies" in Sioux Falls and many of them are very sincere and considerate people. I am sure that there are sincere and considerate yuppies in Colorado. I know of a couple, who were classmates of mine in college in South Dakota. I caution to not paint all of the Yuppies with the same brush as mentioned early in the thread. There are good ones and bad ones.

again, there are places that manage their growth, maintain their character and charm, and to a seemingly relative large extent, stay pretty friendly without getting huge. they may not be huge economic engines and have an issue or two of their own, but what priorities do we want to go with? i think people allow some of these things to happen, and that some of the decay that's cited can come of periods of mismanaged growth.

[Chris19]

Good point, Hello World. Colorado has its good areas, but there are too many areas where the development is haphazard and is not planned. It stuns me to see a place like Colorado Springs, an area of 600,000 to 700,000 people, have only one interstate and Omaha/Council Bluffs has 80, 680, and 29 and is of similar size to the Colorado Springs area. I suppose that Colorado Springs grew too fast, too soon, and there was a lack of regional planning in prior decades. I have been to Colorado a number of times to visit relatives and know what you mean.

Sioux Falls tries to manage its growth and to keep crime and urban blight to a minimum. The community is active. The city has torn down blighted property west of downtown and is working to preserve its older neighborhoods. The city has grown from 124,000 to around 150,000 plus recently with a number of the nearby communities growing at a good clip (these communities are managing the growth and make sure that they are not behind the 8-ball). Sioux Falls has a strong and growing health care industry along with finance and an up-and-coming technology sector. The city's economy is diversified (local leaders are proactive in developing new niches in the city and to develop ways to keep young people here instead of losing them to places such as Colorado, MPLS/St. Paul, Omaha, and points beyond) and is the main economic engine for Eastern South Dakota and it draws from parts of Nebraska, South Dakota, SW Minnesota, and NW Iowa. It is the largest city in South Dakota. I agree that mismanaged growth leaves a mess. If there is mismanaged growth, it is time for local citizens to speak up and ask for change for better-managed growth (and vote people out if necessary during municipal elections).

[Katiana]

So I go off to a CU Independence Bowl party, and this interesting thread gets going without me? How could you? LOL! Anyway, I have distilled a little of it here. My comments are in purple.

Originally Posted by livecontent

Let see if I can make sense of this post--a "native" ,whatever that means, is upset because people, so called "yuppies" are moving into the area.

Yes, many people are moving to this area. Many people are different because they have different experience from being educated, raised in many parts of the country and the world. Many have tremendous skills and attributes--that is why they are called "yuppies" as in "young urban professional". These are creative people who bring jobs, industry, tax dollars, growth and improvement and sophistication in the arts and industry in an area. They bring diversity and an understanding of tolerance for many different people of value.

At the same time--many of these young creative people bring aggression and a large ego. They have good buying power and offend the status quo of the people who are already encamped with their affluent lifestyle and their ostentatious consumption. They spread out into rural areas and acquire land and resources that for years have not been utilized; they overcome other "income makers" because they can afford to take over the resources and "buy the farmer out".

Now we have the embittered "locals" and "natives" who claim priority ownership and prime consideration because they "have been here first". And in this case we have a young 29 year old who claims more rights because of his long residency and his family history. I have been here for almost 30 years?? Do I have more of a claim as the 29 year old?? I think not. We are same, whether I am new here or been here longer then him.

I could not agree more.

So who is right, is he right, does he have a grievance?? I think not, if he lives in this society which espouses free enterprise and the concentration of wealth in a capitalistic society. So, his claim to primal rights of first claim does not apply in this society and certainly would not apply if the capitalistic idea was abandoned.

Do the yuppies add value. They certainly do. I come from an area in Western New York, near Buffalo, where very few of these creative people move. The area has economically and socially decayed, taxes are high, social programs are diminished, schools are closing, hospitals are closing, there is not enough money for civil maintenance--there are no new ideas; there are no industries; there are no new jobs----but there is cheap land, cheap housing and fewer people. Is this not the type of existence you want?? The new frontier of Western New York is waiting for you???

So relax young "native". The yuppies will get old, their arrogance and ego will be dulled, they will get old and pass away but they will have brought to this area prosperity, wealth, and betterment of culture and understanding of diversity. And you will get old and so you will pass away but do not leave without contributing more then criticism.

I was once considered a YUPPIE. Now, I think I will considered myself a MUFFIE--that is "a middle aged urban failure" soon to be a OUFFIE--an "old aged urban failure". It is a nice acceptable comfortable existence--no more competition; no more stress. My ego and aggression have passed away and so shall I someday.

That is why I

Livecontent

Originally Posted by whymsy2008

Yes, many very well-educated people have moved to Fort Collins, as the job market is highly competitive. We are lucky in this area to have the best of the best from all over the country. However, this DOESN'T excuse in any way the lack of manners some of these people bring with them. There are many in Fort Collins that are friendly, but there are also many that are not friendly and rude would be an understatement in terms of their manners. As stated in my post before, "muffie", I indicated that "change is inevitable" and it will come at a PRICE. I believe that price is too high, and it saddens me greatly at how people don't want to acknowledge that. Afterall, many natives are benefiting as the population increases. I am not one of them. However, I know we will pay for it in the future, and as a native,(a literal term) and having been born, raised, being a THIRD generation native, seeing this take place from BIRTH, I believe I have every right to point that out. It's not ego that motivates me to bother responding or even having posted this, it's about being sad at the slow deterioration of places like Fort Collins. When they're gone, they're gone and there will be no way of bringing them back. The charm will be gone, as will the peacefulness that Fort Collins once offered. Someday, I am sure, maybe not in our lifetimes, there will be no open land, there will be no place to go fishing on a Sunday afternoon, or go for a picnic. It will have all been consumed. We will probably be confined to our homes because there will be so many people not just in Colorado, but everywhere. And sure I am angry, aggrevated, however you want to define it, but a lot of people are, trust me I am not the only one. AND "muffie", I also want to point out that over two CENTURIES of living in Colorado on both my mother and father's side, that long surpasses the very long three DECADES in Colorado of your "knowledge" and "justification" of what is happening.

You did nothing to bring this about; it was an accident of birth.

Bottom line, people are going to move to Colorado. People are going to make Fort Collins their home, nothing me or my opinion can do about that, but it's still sad to see what was once the charming Fort Collins fade away so fast.

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

The only thing worse than an area that's growing and attracting people is an area that ISN'T. Ask Detroit.

Or Pittsburgh.

Originally Posted by HighlandsGal

This guy is just bitter. It happens everywhere. I could say the same thing about where I grew up: Grand Rapids, MI

Originally Posted by ditto

I must say the most recent influx of people flocking to CO in large portions are yuppie-types. This is worrisome to say the least.

I think it is better than a lot of unskilled workers moving here.

Originally Posted by livecontent

Your parents and ancestors do not bestow on you more knowledge or rights.

AMEN! AMEN! this is the problem I have with all Colorado natives who seem to look at nativity as some sort of entitlement.

So you know what a New Yorker is??? You presuppose attributes and behavior that are generalized, and are not indicative of an individual. Maybe that is why you have problems with new comers--I would suggest look past your prejudices and see the people as an individual--that is how I accept differences and diversity.

I would suggest for opportunity and the life you seek, in the wilderness, cheap land, few people---"Go, East Young Man", "The Niagara Frontier" of New York is waiting for you. Maybe you can infuse the area with new ideas; it needs you. It even has more "Native Americans" than here--so much for misconceptions.

Livecontent

Thanks, livecontent.

[hello-world]

pittnurse -

i suspect the OP is not having SUCH a hard time with people that have skills yet happen to wear the occasional ralph lauren or ann taylor. i think the issue for the OP (et al) might be MORE with exponentially growing legions of people that behave as if their personal bubble, agenda, and arsenal of stuff-to-be-stored-in-their-poorly-built-to-turn-a-profit-regardless-of-aesthetic-or-quality-mcmansion is all that matters. i think it's hard to deny that there seems to be a growing and "special" degree of this in the area and some others like it. not to say that slamming "new yorkers" or riding on a "i'm a 'native' so get out everybody else" (when you're not really a native, are you?) high horse is going to help... either way, what appears to be an issue may very well be an issue, whether you were born into it or moved into it, it seems to me. so i figure don't necessarily just judge the griever, but consider the merits of the grievance. my opinion.

[j1n]

hey, check it out...
i was the first to respond here with some sort of empathy for the original poster; and ironically, i just so happen to be, basically, a life-long east coaster. in fact, i just moved from right across the water from manhattan down to va because...why? i saw the nj of my youth become someplace that i hardly knew anymore! in nyc, they are "renovating" washington square park. yeah...renovating to discourage people from gathering. renovating...to fit the new nyc aesthetic.
and yes, i agree...this "loss of what we know and love" isn't 100% across the board. but it IS very widespread. alarmingly so! but isn't that the nature of things? haven't we always expanded, changed, and even levelled?? a scant 4-5 hours from nyc are beautiful, wild places i've grown up with. places i hoped would never change. and although they've changed very little (or very slowly) compared to the rest of the world...they have changed. and painfully so! but can we change it? or do we just accept the inevitable...accept that, in the words of ponyboy from the outsiders, "nothing gold can stay"?

[brightdoglover]

The population of the U.S. is now over 300 million. Not so long ago, it was 200 million. Regardless of the reasons (legal immigrants/illegal immigrants with larger families, fundamentalists with larger families, Russians bringing in aged parents, baby boomers having 1.8 kids but so many of them), there are more people. People tend to go where there is something to draw them, as opposed to spreading out nice and evenly in sparse areas.
Should there be a law that people should only stay and live where they are from? As a kid in a classic post-war suburb, I watched with dismay as, every year, a farm or wooded area or something that showed life existed before 1956, would go under, and be named some phony English crapola because all the first-generation Italians and European refugees from Philly wanted to think they were English lords. Is there any other reason to name a Jersey subdivision "Wexford Leas" or "Charleston Riding?" Yet there I was part of the problem, just early in. My parents had immigrant Ukranian poor parents, or sort of poor. Father had nine siblings, mother had two. All the couplings of siblings ended up in about 2.1 kids per couple, the classic demographic shift. Veterans' benefits gave a lot of easy mortgages. Etc.
Each subdivision erased some of the past (the 300-year-old Quaker cemetery. The remnants of a couple of segregated black communties. Horses. Places of the imagination, to be replaced by house after house with a paucity of imagination.

But the people, my parents' generation, didn't want to continue to jam into city tenements (although my mother famously thought, as a young girl, that she couldn't wait to get away from the waterfront! It then being a place of brutal work, rats and dank basements).

Should I have stayed in south Jersey, having been part of the huge generation that changed it so much so fast? I moved to Boston. Am now part of the working people who have gotten a fair share of home equity with two jobs and time. If I sold, I'd only consider moving somewhere at least a little cheaper (or in retirement). Does that make me an outside invader?
That said, I do recognize the attitude that some people find so insufferable. I don't think it's an outsider's attitude, or a yuppie thing, or anything. I think it's a snotty entitled attitude of money, and it can be exerted right at one's home or wherever someone with that skewed sense of self arises or ends up. And they're insufferable wherever they are.

[hello-world]

Originally Posted by brightdoglover

The population of the U.S. is now over 300 million. Not so long ago, it was 200 million. Regardless of the reasons (legal immigrants/illegal immigrants with larger families, fundamentalists with larger families, Russians bringing in aged parents, baby boomers having 1.8 kids but so many of them), there are more people. People tend to go where there is something to draw them, as opposed to spreading out nice and evenly in sparse areas.
Should there be a law that people should only stay and live where they are from? As a kid in a classic post-war suburb, I watched with dismay as, every year, a farm or wooded area or something that showed life existed before 1956, would go under, and be named some phony English crapola because all the first-generation Italians and European refugees from Philly wanted to think they were English lords. Is there any other reason to name a Jersey subdivision "Wexford Leas" or "Charleston Riding?" Yet there I was part of the problem, just early in. My parents had immigrant Ukranian poor parents, or sort of poor. Father had nine siblings, mother had two. All the couplings of siblings ended up in about 2.1 kids per couple, the classic demographic shift. Veterans' benefits gave a lot of easy mortgages. Etc.
Each subdivision erased some of the past (the 300-year-old Quaker cemetery. The remnants of a couple of segregated black communties. Horses. Places of the imagination, to be replaced by house after house with a paucity of imagination.

But the people, my parents' generation, didn't want to continue to jam into city tenements (although my mother famously thought, as a young girl, that she couldn't wait to get away from the waterfront! It then being a place of brutal work, rats and dank basements).

Should I have stayed in south Jersey, having been part of the huge generation that changed it so much so fast? I moved to Boston. Am now part of the working people who have gotten a fair share of home equity with two jobs and time. If I sold, I'd only consider moving somewhere at least a little cheaper (or in retirement). Does that make me an outside invader?
That said, I do recognize the attitude that some people find so insufferable. I don't think it's an outsider's attitude, or a yuppie thing, or anything. I think it's a snotty entitled attitude of money, and it can be exerted right at one's home or wherever someone with that skewed sense of self arises or ends up. And they're insufferable wherever they are.

i don't know that this so much about "outside invaders", per se. i think this might have a bit more to do with what you do once you arrive for the OP, for some of the rest with similar complaints. i think it has a bit to do with some of the big box immediate gratification mentality - do people need to buy 2 computers, a 60" wide screen plasma TV, 2 ipods, a blackberry, $2000 worth of ski and snowboard gear, 2 bikes, 2 SUV's, each with a Thule box on top, and 3000 square feet and a quarter acre of kentucky blue grass that will NEVER grow without using the scant water resources that exist in the HIGH DESERT for 2 people, all on a tract parcel thrown down as quickly and cheaply as the developer could get away with, far removed from any public transportation (but nicely nestled into those big box stores! ...and perhaps strip malls that are closing doors as those cheap foundations settle and the walls crack within a decade)? do those people need to drive themselves everywhere they go, often for hours for an hour hike at least once a week? all the while on their blackberry, too distracted to pay any attention to other drivers around them or the laws of the road, and doing all they can to look like ken and barbie dolls (i.e. like their friends) and not giving a care to actually engaging with their neighbors or taking an interest in other, different, people from their cliques. they, afterall, are COLLEGE EDUCATED, (i.e., they spent 5 years drinking and watching a lot of football somewhere, and taking a few things maybe from the classes they attended), and this is what COLLEGE was sort of like, except NOW they can go SKIING in COLORADO.

it sounds to me like this is a bit of what the OP or others, are getting at. not so much the need for people to occasionally move, or be active, aware, and responsible citizens balancing some fun with some conscience concerning how their community evolves, engaging with (or at least respecting to some extent) it's other members with sincere curiosities and intent, possibly minus the tendency to knee-jerk escape people of other persuasions or run from any blight rather than facing it and doing what they can with it.

[steveco.]

Im sure the same thing was said of Denver in its early days. Its just part of a town or city maturing