Why the "split" between "old" and "new" Coloradans . . . (Denver: renting, limousine)

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by Rawlings

You sound quite a bit different than me and it makes me wonder if a place like Vegas, LA, Seattle, or Boston wouldn't be more your style. Most of my college pals (I went to CU) left the state because they found Denver so UNsophisticated and too family-oriented. I would hate to be Boston or Seattle--I love Denver's family-friendly atmosphere.

Ok, so lemme get this straight... people are allowed to live in Denver only if they agree with YOU 100%.

Funny thing is, I've never felt this "us...them... get out!" mentality directed towards me from other Coloradans more strongly than on this forum! You should listen to yourself talk... nothing but presumptions, assumptions, self righteousness... and you don't know one thing about me! You should get out more-- there is a tremendous amount of diversity of people who live in Denver AND its suburbs, from ALL walks of life. For self-identified "Conservative Christians" like yourself, sure, Denver has a lot to offer (although, to play the same game you do... Colorado Springs seems more of your kind of town...). But it also has a lot to offer to moderates, people of other religious persuasions, political affiliations, and cultures. I'm not speculating about this here... I know this for a fact!

Finally, about suburban vs. urban--

Suburban is not urban. Have you read Joel Kotkin's book, The City? He details how the efforts to create a 'creative class' based upon young urban singles, gays, etc. actually creates a feudal system of fancy pants elites and the poor folks who serve them. That's the ethos of most urban areas--while the suburbs are built around families and the middle class. People in suburban areas are categorically different than those in urban areas.

Funny that you bring up Kotkin-- I happen to be a major fan of his writings! Yes, he's a champion of the suburbs, but not business as usual. He has a great essay, called the New Suburbanism, http://www.joelkotkin.com/Urban_Affa...uburbanism.pdf, where he talks about a concept called "suburban villages." Oh yeah, and Kotkin is NOT a Christian.

[Rawlings]

We probably agree on more than you think. Denver is very diverse and it's all the better for it. I'm only saying it isn't the latte-sipper's paradise you seem to think it is. Denver is not Boston, not New York, not Chicago--and I'd argue it's all that much better for it! I like that it's about families--not urban hipsters (to use Kotkin's term). A city, at its root, has to be about the middle class, about families, and about jobs.

Kotkin is all about creating a 'sacred space' in communities where values are shared and identity is formed. He notes that the most effective place for this to happen is churches and synagogues. It has always been that the place of worship has been central to any thriving neighborhood. Parks, ball fields, etc can also work as sacred spaces (think Mile High Stadium).

Kotkin always praises Denver--and ridicules Boston and San Fancisco--for it's pro-business and pro-family climate. If you look at suburbs like Highlands Ranch you see so much more than a bland, vanilla cluster of homes. You see schools, parks, and giant churches where people congregate to share values, stories, ideas, etc. I don't think it's any mistake that Denver, Boise, and Houston--some of Kotkin's faves--are conservative cities while Boston and San Francisco are very liberal towns. If you creat a pro-business, pro-family, pro-faith climate the masses will come. That's why Denver and Houston are growing while the other cities are shrinking--leaving for the West and South.

The urban model you're advocating--sophisticated, hip, urbane--is not Kotkin's. It's Richard Florida's 'creative class.' Denver is one of the least sophisticated, least hip places you'll find. And I argue that it is precisely that which makes Denver so pro-family and pro-business.

[vegaspilgrim]

Rawlings,

I'm not sure what this "Latte sippers paradise" you keep talking about is. Last time I checked, there's a Starbucks in practically every strip mall in the suburbs-- including republican areas-- and last time I checked, they do serve Lattes. I think we do agree on a lot of stuff... problem is, you keep putting words in my mouth.

About a month ago, I started a thread called "In defense of Phoenix," http://www.city-data.com/forum/phoen...e-phoenix.html, a city that has even less "urban" elements than Denver. If you check out my posts there, you'll see that I am NOT a "new urbanist." I actually defended strip malls-- the biggest evil in the eyes of "new urbanists." Somebody responded to me mentioning a whole bunch of cities that were cooler than Phoenix, including Denver and LoDo. The record is there... I told them LoDo is NOT what makes Denver a great city. I said that the old, mature neighborhoods in central Denver like Washington Park are fundamentally SUB-urban. I defended Phoenix against the charge of "cookie cutter houses."

Another piece of information-- I want to become a real estate developer as a career. I believe in the American dream. I think it is hypocritical when some people who live in houses, in the suburbs, built by a developer, talk about how growth and homebuilding is evil. You'll also see on that thread, that I put "sprawl" in quotes, because I don't think that word accurately describes the growth patterns of western cities. Highlands Ranch in my opinion is pretty dense when you compare it to those parts of Elbert county I mentioned awhile back. I think that a great city has both a strong downtown AND prosperous suburbs. You need both, not just one or the other.

[jazzlover]

Well, Vegaspilgrim, all I can say is if you think that Phoenix is any example of responsible development, then you are in for a real shock. Las Vegas and Phoenix, two cities you mention prominently in your posts, are probably the two most glaring examples of irresponsible and unsustainable development on this planet. They are hopelessly reliant on the two resources that will dwindle in supply: water and petroleum. Not only will they eventually see a catastrophic economic collapse, there is likely to be large portions of all of that "development" that you exhalt that will become uninhabitable. Phoenix had a population of about 50,000 in 1940. Massive water diversions (out of the grossly overappropriated Colorado River basin), cheap oil, and the ascendency of mechanical air conditioning (powered increasingly by coal-fired power plants) made the growth since then possible. When the cheap water, electricity, and gasoline runs way short (and IT WILL), Phoenix will retrench into a little desert outpost.

As for Vegas, its reliance on diminishing water is one problem. But, more than anything, Vegas was built on the excess discretionary income of the middle class, and those people's ability (with cheap oil) to get there. Take those away, and Vegas has little reason to exist.

What the American people are in absolute denial about is that the last 50-70 years could be called an "era"--an era of cheap petroleum and a lot of discretionary income that could be lavished about. That era is now ending. Americans don't want to hear that. Just like the drunks at 2 in the morning, Americans want the party to keep on going, even though--deep down--they know it can't and that one heck of a hangover is coming. "Just one more drink," they say, "and I'll worry about tomorrow later." Well, the bar is closing. Tomorrow's here.

[Rawlings]

Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim

Rawlings,

I'm not sure what this "Latte sippers paradise" you keep talking about is. Last time I checked, there's a Starbucks in practically every strip mall in the suburbs-- including republican areas-- and last time I checked, they do serve Lattes. I think we do agree on a lot of stuff... problem is, you keep putting words in my mouth.

About a month ago, I started a thread called "In defense of Phoenix," http://www.city-data.com/forum/phoen...e-phoenix.html, a city that has even less "urban" elements than Denver. If you check out my posts there, you'll see that I am NOT a "new urbanist." I actually defended strip malls-- the biggest evil in the eyes of "new urbanists." Somebody responded to me mentioning a whole bunch of cities that were cooler than Phoenix, including Denver and LoDo. The record is there... I told them LoDo is NOT what makes Denver a great city. I said that the old, mature neighborhoods in central Denver like Washington Park are fundamentally SUB-urban. I defended Phoenix against the charge of "cookie cutter houses."

Another piece of information-- I want to become a real estate developer as a career. I believe in the American dream. I think it is hypocritical when some people who live in houses, in the suburbs, built by a developer, talk about how growth and homebuilding is evil. You'll also see on that thread, that I put "sprawl" in quotes, because I don't think that word accurately describes the growth patterns of western cities. Highlands Ranch in my opinion is pretty dense when you compare it to those parts of Elbert county I mentioned awhile back. I think that a great city has both a strong downtown AND prosperous suburbs. You need both, not just one or the other.

Okay, okay, okay. I think I like you a lot more than I thought!

Seriously, I think you'd be a great developer and you'd be a lot more refershing than these damned fancy-pants new urbanists. I read your other posts--and your defense of Phoenix (a city I really do like)--and I agee completely with you.

I just have to ask--maybe it's petty, but I have to--what are your politics? If I were to guess you're probably a George Will conservative. Am I right?

[POdNCrazee]

Jazzlover, I love to read your stuff here. You are so on it. You should join forces with Frosty Woolridge, our local over-population activist here in the Boulder area. Keep up the writing ! I wonder, to what degree will life in the USA fall apart before people band together and try to improve things. Certainly Washington and the Feds won't be fixing things for us common folks. I like to envision all the great opportunities that will emerge as our social order slowly (or not so slowly) collapses. American has always been about boom and bust anyways. P.S. Bird lives.

[jazzlover]

Amen, to BIRD LIVES. Not all Colorado or Wyoming "rednecks" (and I'm sure many readers of these forums consider me that) are just country & western fans. There are some of us who like JAZZ, thus my moniker. Think I'll fire up a Miles CD before I go to bed . . .

[vegaspilgrim]

I'll give you one thing, jazzlover. I think you are crazy and have a paranoid, conspiracy theory worldview, but there's one thing I'll admit, from reading your posts: you are a really good writer. You remind me a lot of a group of Montana writers, like William Kittredge, Thomas McGuane, who all write about the conflict of the old west and the new west. I took a class last year about Western American Literature where we read books like Nobody's Angel, All the Pretty Horses, and The Virginian. Great reading. You said you are writing a book about the history of Colorado? Be sure to let us know when it's done.

[I_LUVNM]

Yes I agree, Jazzlover is a great writer so why not write books like Louis L'amour did on your old western towns with the old way Colorado was? They would be a hit! I dont agree with Jazzlover on the negatives he has on Colorado but I admit too, he is one heck of a writer, so use it Jazzlover for western lore, you could be the next L'amour.

[jazzlover]

Thank you, vegaspilgrim and I_LUVNM, I do like to write, though my genre is non-fiction. I actually do write a fair amount as part of my current career, but it is not the historical and "current affairs" writing that I enjoy the most. As to comments that I'm paranoid, etc., etc., well, let me throw this out:

No one would argue with me that our current lifestyle (in Colorado and elsewhere, but certainly in the Rocky Mountain West as much or more so than anyplace) is currently totally dependent on cheap and plentiful oil. Well, today Venezuela announced that it had completed nationalization of its oil fields, those fields being the largest oil reserves in the Western Hemisphere. The Venezuelan President, during the announcement was quoted as saying "Down with America." Great. Just a few days ago, the press reported (way too quietly, in my opinion) that the off-shore Mexican oil field that supplies a large portion of U.S. oil imports was in serious decline, and was--in fact--declining at a rate greater than previously anticipated. Production out of the North Slope fields of Alaska and in the North Sea have also peaked. Similar concerns were also expressed about some of the Saudi fields, among the largest in the world. Meanwhile, worldwide oil demand continues to INCREASE.

This is like everybody partying the night before Pearl Harbor. When are we going to wake up to what's about to happen? If not pretty soon, we may not WIN this one. Paranoid? Maybe. But, like the old saw, "Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean somebody isn't out to git ya!"