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.
You all are great! I am glad we have people like Jazz to cherish the past and hopefully contribute to the future. McGowdog great questions! David, I'm probably one of the few who like you lived in Ridgecrest for a year, reading some of your old posts I know exactly what you are talking about.
Let's try not to resort to shallow stereotypes about what HR and Douglas County both are... I also find it offensive that insulting an area that has a large white population is tolerated and even celebrated, but if such trains of thought and outright racial predjudice were used at say a Santa Ana, CA or any other majority other than white city, some of the people here would rise up in moral outrage (rightfully so!). You can't decry bigotry while practicing it yourself, in the end resentments build and no one moves forward.
To the other stereotypes about HR and Douglas County, big houses, energy wasting, profligate lifestyles.... sort of funny.
Our home is 2000 sqft (large I know, but small for here) our development is LEED certified (most older homes use SUBSTANTIALLY MORE energy). We don't have Kentucky Bluegrass, but have installed artificial grass (uses no water, looks better, and is oh so easy to take care of). We have solar panels on our roof and drive a 10 year old civic and 5 year old Pilot. However we are not part of some environmentalist religion, and no we don't have a shine for Al Gore. We paid less than 2X annual income for our house, we are true independant thinkers (not democrat or republican, we don't hate george bush nor have an Obama '08 sticker on our prius).
I'm not saying we're better or worse than anyone else here, we love our neighbors and our community. We just can't stand bigotry and hypocracy. We had too much of that in that "enlightened" enclave of Santa Barbara. Talk about a place where people are all about "I've got mine, but you can't have yours"
Challenge yourself to look beyond the stereotypes, you'll find the world a much more interesting place.
Back to EscapeCalifornia's question. I still say take a look at all the communities, HR is great and we aren't looking back.
They actually let you have artificial grass in HR? I thought they'd flip out over that. I saw some in a display in Lowe's a couple weeks ago and the newer artificial grass sure ain't your grandpa's Astroturf, that's for sure. Assuming its some sort of dyed, extruded plastic, I wonder how it holds up long term in the CO sun.
Everyone has their own preference of lifestyle and this country is diverse enough to support them all.
David, Highlands Ranch is highly desirable for some and not for others. I am glad you have the freedom to live in a place that is stimulating and vibrant for you. For us, we love it here. We have neighborhood BBQ's frequently in the summer, our children play on the street with a couple of other kids nightly, we sit on our back porch enjoying beautiful sunsets and the majesty of the Rockies. We take walks and hikes on some of the many trails that surround the area. We even take the light rail downtown on the weekends (station is only a few minutes from our house.) These are all things we had not found in an urban environment. I think that is why so many are drawn here, the combination of lifestyle is not what I have found most other places. I never had the ability to easily jump on a lightrail minutes from my home and travel to a downtown. For that matter, other than San Diego, SoCal has no downtown worth traveling to.
I love CO and may it continue to flourish and prosper
There's a part of me that would love to argue with that, but I just can't
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim
I'd caution some of the posters here to be careful and don't assume that the Californians moving in to Colorado are all liberal; many of them are actually quite conservative, and their choice of Douglas County, one of the most politically conservative counties in the state, indeed is no coincidence.
I'd say a majority of Californians that come here are conservative, they are trying to live a "better" lifestyle that they probably couldn't afford in Calif. They want their Rancho Santa Margarita/Mission Viejo/Lake Forest, and the status that goes along with it, but at a better price.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim
if you want to move somewhere, move because of pull factors, because you really want to live in your new destination-- not because of push factors, trying to "escape" something. Interestingly, a lot of the people talking about wanting to get out of California are actually living in some pretty nice areas in California, who don't really even have much to complain about other than high living costs. It normally isn't someone living in Compton that wants to escape the ghetto, its already upper middle class families in places like southern Orange County or the western San Fernando Valley looking for an extra boost. Nothing wrong with that, but you have to be honest with yourself as to the real reasons.
Most common push factors/excuses that people use: Illegals, gangs, lack of English speakers, graffiti, bad schools, smog, etc. I find it sad that folks would blame other people for their problems. Somehow these things had little effect on me growing up. I was in the thick of all of these things and didn't use them as an excuse to hate/change where I lived. I think the #1 reason I didn't want to stay in Southern California forever was the weather/climate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog
I think you bring up a really good point here. I agree with you. But what's the alternative? How do you get around the red-tape and create something better?
I would love to say not develop anything at all. This is going to sound Boulder of me, but reeling in development might lead to a higher quality of life and would boost property values as a side-effect. But there are probably some factors I'm overlooking in this thinking so I'll try and provide another alternative: Build into the grid, not clustered out of it, eliminate cul-de-sacs, build slowly (one at a time), build different types of homes, build some 1-2 bedroom homes, build smaller more efficient homes, build on small lots proportional to the building (no 3000 sqft homes on 5000 sqft lots), build into the landscape, not over it, leave yards alone, let grow there what grows naturally, let the individual homeowner decide what to do with it, make public transport practical to the neighborhood. There are definitely some kinks I need to work out, but if I ever took over the role of greedy developer (which I never will), this is probably the way I'd do it.
There's a book titled "Suburban Nation", it has some good ideas in it but is obviously a pro-new Urbanism book, and anti-sprawl/McMansion. I'm not a big fan of new urbanism either, to me any new development is a bad development, I try and focus my mind on homes that have already been standing awhile.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog
But where do you think your water is coming from?...
Un/Fortunately, I've been drinking Colorado water my entire life. Where I grew up in California, we got our water from a reservoir that held water (via aqueduct) from the Colorado River in Arizona. Water isn't something I thought about much (where it comes from, etc), but I've learned it is a problem here and I know Colorado can't sustain it's current growth without it (which is fine, I don't really want it to grow). I've also learned my water bill has gone up 500 percent over what I paid in California. I think water/rain will be something to consider more when/if I move (states) again.
I chuckle at Jazz's Kentucky Bluegrass comments. The only time my grass gets watered is when it rains.
Quote:
Originally Posted by McGowdog
Instead of complaining about sprawl, I'd like to see it controlled and perfected. In other words, what's the alternative? Keep your legs crossed is the only immediate one I see! Let's get real here. That or tighten some things up. Nobody has been able to convince the masses of the virtues of this than the former.
I honestly don't see the need for new developments, aren't there enough homes on the market already? Better yet, wouldn't no development force people to live in existing neighborhoods, which would combat this inherent fear of living in a ghetto? Sprawl directly contributes to blight and failing neighborhoods, wouldn't these so-called better people that move to new suburbia improve older neighborhoods if they lived in them?
Unfortunately, I've never been to S/SE Colorado. I'm waiting for work to send me there, the furthest south in Colorado I've been so far is Pueblo. There's a town on I-25 between Walsenburg and Trinidad that I'm dying to visit simply because it bears my last name. I can't wait to see what the area has to offer.
I think the Pinon Canyon expansion is a horrible idea. There's plenty of unpopulated (people/history) Mojave Desert they could use for that.
I honestly don't see the need for new developments, aren't there enough homes on the market already? Better yet, wouldn't no development force people to live in existing neighborhoods, which would combat this inherent fear of living in a ghetto? Sprawl directly contributes to blight and failing neighborhoods, wouldn't these so-called better people that move to new suburbia improve older neighborhoods if they lived in them?
Its called supply and demand. If you stop all new development, and the number of people wanting a roof over their head doesn't change, the only thing that can change is the price. Do you have 20% down and $4000/mo for a 3 bedroom house?
Its called supply and demand. If you stop all new development, and the number of people wanting a roof over their head doesn't change, the only thing that can change is the price. Do you have 20% down and $4000/mo for a 3 bedroom house?
No, I do not, in which case I would look elsewhere. That is another reason I left Southern California.
So, the alternative is building into oblivion (like Southern California), to keep prices affordable? You can see how well that worked out for Southern California.
No, I do not, in which case I would look elsewhere. That is another reason I left Southern California.
So, the alternative is building into oblivion (like Southern California), to keep prices affordable? You can see how well that worked out for Southern California.
As long as people keep having kids and as long as people keep coming to the US, I don't think there's an easy solution. If you restrict the supply of housing, the price goes up. If you meet the demand by building, you eventually get SoCal. I don't think the Front Range will ever get as bad as SoCal simply because of the weather. Colorado also doesn't have the entire entertainment business projecting this image of how wonderful SoCal is so much that high school kids in Poland can't wait to move to LA.
So the only way to not grow and not have price increase is to kill demand. Unfortunately, the way that usually happens is for a region to have an economic collapse. You can buy some nice old houses close to the city center dirt cheap all over the rust belt. I don't think most people want the Front Range to go down that road but I'm sure some wouldn't mind as long as they were comfortable enough in their own little corner of it.
The only solution to end sprawl without driving up prices and accommodate an increasing population is to go up. The problem with that is that most people (especially with kids) prefer not to live in a concrete box in the sky. Everyone likes to complain about developers and urban sprawl but they're just meeting a need. People want to live in a house with a yard. Not all of course, but a lot do. The minute people stop wanting what they're building, they'll stop building it.
As long as people keep having kids and as long as people keep coming to the US, I don't think there's an easy solution. If you restrict the supply of housing, the price goes up. If you meet the demand by building, you eventually get SoCal. I don't think the Front Range will ever get as bad as SoCal simply because of the weather. Colorado also doesn't have the entire entertainment business projecting this image of how wonderful SoCal is so much that high school kids in Poland can't wait to move to LA.
So the only way to not grow and not have price increase is to kill demand. Unfortunately, the way that usually happens is for a region to have an economic collapse. You can buy some nice old houses close to the city center dirt cheap all over the rust belt. I don't think most people want the Front Range to go down that road but I'm sure some wouldn't mind as long as they were comfortable enough in their own little corner of it.
The only solution to end sprawl without driving up prices and accommodate an increasing population is to go up. The problem with that is that most people (especially with kids) prefer not to live in a concrete box in the sky. Everyone likes to complain about developers and urban sprawl but they're just meeting a need. People want to live in a house with a yard. Not all of course, but a lot do. The minute people stop wanting what they're building, they'll stop building it.
I really hope the Front Range will not become like Southern California. I don't think the weather is a deterrent, however, because there are plenty of places more populated than here that have snowy/severe weather as well. Chicago comes to mind. Colorado does have an attractable image also, y'know the whole "Living in a cabin on top of a mountain, skiing downhill through the forest to go drink hot chocolate" scene. There is also a seemingly unlimited amount of available land to build on to the east of the Front Range.
I've actually considered (in the past) to move to the rust belt. Buy a house dirt cheap and work some menial job just to pay the bills (I know there aren't many jobs there, but all you need is one), sounds like a pretty stress-free life to me.
I see your points on the need for there to be development. But there are plenty of existing homes on the market, that would suit the needs of many families. Instead of looking in the city, or the inner-ring suburbs, people don't even consider them (for unwarranted fear of crime, gangs, illegals, bad schools, etc) and go straight for the brand-new cookie-cutter developments, without even giving the established neighborhoods a fighting chance. I find this to be a byproduct of the suburban American's constant need to strive for status, a status that exists only in their minds and one that doesn't exist in mine.
I see your points on the need for there to be development. But there are plenty of existing homes on the market, that would suit the needs of many families. Instead of looking in the city, or the inner-ring suburbs, people don't even consider them (for unwarranted fear of crime, gangs, illegals, bad schools, etc) and go straight for the brand-new cookie-cutter developments, without even giving the established neighborhoods a fighting chance. I find this to be a byproduct of the suburban American's constant need to strive for status, a status that exists only in their minds and one that doesn't exist in mine.
On the point of bad schools, I think that's a very valid concern. I frequently browse real estate listings for the Denver area and check what schools the tract is zoned for. The truth is, most of the schools within a certain radius of downtown are below average to poor performing according to the state's own statistics. So you might find a nice house in a nice looking neighborhood in Denver or Aurora only to find that the schools rate 2 out of 5 but if you go 2 miles farther out, you're in a different district that rates 4-5 of 5. I don't know if inter-district transfers are an option in Colorado but lots of people are going to use the local school district as a deciding factor on where to live.
As far as buying an existing house over a brand new one, that's not really going to change the number of houses required. If I buy an older house in Centennial, someone else isn't going to live there and may buy in Highlands Ranch and they'll push someone out to Castle Rock. People are going to buy what they can afford, where they can afford it.
On the point of bad schools, I think that's a very valid concern. I frequently browse real estate listings for the Denver area and check what schools the tract is zoned for. The truth is, most of the schools within a certain radius of downtown are below average to poor performing according to the state's own statistics. So you might find a nice house in a nice looking neighborhood in Denver or Aurora only to find that the schools rate 2 out of 5 but if you go 2 miles farther out, you're in a different district that rates 4-5 of 5. I don't know if inter-district transfers are an option in Colorado but lots of people are going to use the local school district as a deciding factor on where to live.
Again, I see your point on the schools, but what a school is rated isn't going to determine how well a child will do in said school. School ratings are based exclusively on standardized test scores, and I don't believe that is all that should equate the quality of a school. I myself, attended some "bad" schools and excelled. We all know in which neighborhoods the higher rated schools will be in, thus pushing folks further out to the less demographically and economically diverse, more affluent and new suburbs. Which is fine, I guess, I'm not trying to tell anybody how to live, just trying to live by and defend my own principles. What I have more of a problem with is people not giving schools/neighborhoods much of a chance, simply writing them off because the "numbers" don't paint a pretty enough picture, further contributing to I guess for lack of a better term: disinvestment. My stepson has attended some pretty highly-rated schools (here and in CA) and weren't particularly impressed, some even feeling like a snob's commune. Bottom line: the success of a child in any school lies with the parents.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia
As far as buying an existing house over a brand new one, that's not really going to change the number of houses required. If I buy an older house in Centennial, someone else isn't going to live there and may buy in Highlands Ranch and they'll push someone out to Castle Rock. People are going to buy what they can afford, where they can afford it.
I'm not sure I agree with this.
For example, why build a new 300 home development while there are already 500 homes sitting on the market? Doesn't make much sense to me. This just furthers the "disinvestment" in older, existing neighborhoods, making more of what the new home seekers are trying to avoid.
Poor test scores for a school is usually an indication of bigger problems. Its the canary in the coal mine for a neighborhood and its social problems.
And developers are in the business of building to make money. If no one buys their product, they won't make money. If people choose to buy the developer's 300 new houses on the edge or town over the existing 500 closer-in houses, there's a reason. Especially since brand new houses are usually more expensive than existing construction, all else being equal. Its like people complaining about WalMart or reality TV. If no one shopped there or watched it, they wouldn't be in business. No one's forcing people to drive another 5 miles out and buy a house. I don't want to live any farther out than necessary but I'll live far enough out to get a nice house in a safe neighborhood with good school.
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.
