Another moving to Colorado post! (Denver, Colorado Springs: short sale, rent, house)

[kcofield]

I know this has been asked a million times before but everyone's situation is different.

My story:

I am 23, my fiancé is 24 and our puppy is a little less than a year old. We currently live east of Tampa, FL. It takes around 40 minutes to drive to Tampa because of the traffic. We are both Juniors at the University of South Florida. He is majoring in Chemistry with an interest in Physics and I am majoring in Psychology with an interest in Education. We were both born here. He has lived here all his life and when I was younger I lived in Alabama and a brief summer in Illinois. We bought a house here two years ago. We usually work full time and go to school part time. I have worked in fast food and office jobs. He has worked in fast food and at Tropicana orange juice in the quality lab.
I became unemployed in June and was just offered a temporary job that ends at the end of the year. He became unemployed in September and has a interview with the community college next Friday.

Ryan has always wanted to live in Colorado and his parents moved to Elizabeth two years ago. We visited last November and I fell in love with the state.

If we do not find good jobs, we will be forced to short sale our house and his parents have offered to let us stay with them for a while until we find a job and place to stay.

The problem is....deciding where to live. Which city will best suit us?
We are very liberal, non-religious. We need a city with a not so long drive to a college. We need a city that is dog friendly. Specifically, pit bull looking dogs. We don't know what breed she is but we have been told she looks like a cross between a pit bull and a boxer. No kids right now but will be having kids in a few years.

I thought Boulder would be great but when we drove through it, I was not impressed. Plus, I have heard that it is pricey.

Then we drove through Colorado Springs and we both feel in love. But after doing some research, I am iffy about it. I've heard that it is a very religious city. TWO mega churches involved in politics?! I'd rather not be pissed off everyday.

I'm not afraid of the cold. But I am afraid of driving in the snow. So MAYBE a place where it would be easy to bike to/from work? Or a good public transportation system?

Any suggestions are appreciated! Thanks!

[80skeys]

Looks like you'll have to settle in Denver. You probably wouldn't feel comfortable in Colo Springs due to the conservative bent. Personally I like Boulder, at least I did 15 years ago when I lived there, so you might want to keep it as an option.

But Denver should be good, it's best of all worlds. Driving in snow isn't bad as long as you take time to practice and learn. But pick the right neighbhoord in Denver and you shouldn't have to use your car much.

[Bideshi]

If you are moving in with parents then where is already decided. What remains is finding jobs. I wouldn't worry too much about conservatives staging drive-by tract distributions or sending cookie wielding gangs of green suited girl scouts around. They are usually pretty peaceful. Manitou Springs is more liberal from all reports.

[Mike from back east]

Yes, lots of places here would fit the bill, but Denver has BSL that might rule out a pit bull type of critter, and the OP only needs to use our search tool with the key words of: BSL or pitbull to find those very informative threads.

Sounds like Denver metro area is the right starting place. Lots of Universities within reasonable commute, lots of stuff for young people.

COLO SPGS had Colorado College, UCCS, great scenery and nearness to the mountains. It isn't some hotbed of religious unrest with mobs of torch-wielding zealots burning out non-believers. It's very tolerant here but leans hard to the right in voting.

Best if the OPs head to Denver, rent for a year until they get grounded, learn all that the area has to offer and where they end up working after college. I can't in good conscience advise any student coming here to buy a home this soon.

[kcofield]

Thanks for all the responses. I looked for the search bar last night but didn't find it until now. I'll use it next time!

Three suggestions for Denver. My only problem with Denver is that when we drove through it on the interstate, there was traffic just like there is here. I'll head over to the Denver board though and see what everyone is talking about.

Thanks!

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by kcofield

Thanks for all the responses. I looked for the search bar last night but didn't find it until now. I'll use it next time!

Three suggestions for Denver. My only problem with Denver is that when we drove through it on the interstate, there was traffic just like there is here. I'll head over to the Denver board though and see what everyone is talking about.

Thanks!

Wow! A metro area of over 2 million people--most of it built to be totally automobile-dependent in the sprawl-building orgy of the last 30 to 40 years--should have traffic? Fact is, most Western cities have seen most of their growth in the last half-century--after mass transit was ideologically and physically slaughtered in this country. Unfortunately, that reality does not square with a lot of people's fantasy of what the modern "Wild West" should be. It also means that more growth is going to mean more intractable traffic problems in those places, but the core design of much of the physical geography--the "living arrangement"--is nearly impossible to alter into something that is friendly to anything but more automobiles. It will HAVE to be eventually altered into something else to be sustainable, but I suspect it will take an economic and logistical catastrophe to wake people up the harsh reality that such alterations must happen. Meanwhile, enjoy increasing gridlock, spiraling commuting expenses, smog, and all the other "amenities" of living in an auto-dependent hell-hole in places like Denver.

The shortsightedness of latter-day development patterns in the metropolitan West is going to also cause real economic and social pain in the years ahead for metro areas like Denver, and the hundreds of others built on the same failing model. Too bad practically no one in this country recognizes that ugly beast for what it is.

[kcofield]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Wow! A metro area of over 2 million people--most of it built to be totally automobile-dependent in the sprawl-building orgy of the last 30 to 40 years--should have traffic? Fact is, most Western cities have seen most of their growth in the last half-century--after mass transit was ideologically and physically slaughtered in this country. Unfortunately, that reality does not square with a lot of people's fantasy of what the modern "Wild West" should be. It also means that more growth is going to mean more intractable traffic problems in those places, but the core design of much of the physical geography--the "living arrangement"--is nearly impossible to alter into something that is friendly to anything but more automobiles. It will HAVE to be eventually altered into something else to be sustainable, but I suspect it will take an economic and logistical catastrophe to wake people up the harsh reality that such alterations must happen. Meanwhile, enjoy increasing gridlock, spiraling commuting expenses, smog, and all the other "amenities" of living in an auto-dependent hell-hole in places like Denver.

The shortsightedness of latter-day development patterns in the metropolitan West is going to also cause real economic and social pain in the years ahead for metro areas like Denver, and the hundreds of others built on the same failing model. Too bad practically no one in this country recognizes that ugly beast for what it is.

Oookkaayyy.
I'm just saying that I'd rather live in a place with not so much traffic. I can't stand driving an hour to and from work.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by kcofield

Oookkaayyy.
I'm just saying that I'd rather live in a place with not so much traffic. I can't stand driving an hour to and from work.

Then don't relocate to a sprawled metro area that is nearly totally dependent on automobiles. Pretty simple. I escaped that over 30 years ago. I live in a small community and live about a mile from my office. I can walk if I choose to. Drive time? About 5 minutes, tops. I can (and do) often go 3-5 days at a time without having to start a vehicle. Do I make significant other lifestyle tradeoffs to be able to live this way? Yup, you bet. But worth it.

[kcofield]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Then don't relocate to a sprawled metro area that is nearly totally dependent on automobiles. Pretty simple. I escaped that over 30 years ago. I live in a small community and live about a mile from my office. I can walk if I choose to. Drive time? About 5 minutes, tops. I can (and do) often go 3-5 days at a time without having to start a vehicle. Do I make significant other lifestyle tradeoffs to be able to live this way? Yup, you bet. But worth it.

I never said I wanted to live in Denver. That was the suggestion.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Then don't relocate to a sprawled metro area that is nearly totally dependent on automobiles. Pretty simple. I escaped that over 30 years ago. I live in a small community and live about a mile from my office. I can walk if I choose to. Drive time? About 5 minutes, tops. I can (and do) often go 3-5 days at a time without having to start a vehicle. Do I make significant other lifestyle tradeoffs to be able to live this way? Yup, you bet. But worth it.

Yes, that is good. However, in most rural towns and communities, it is necessary to drive farther and more often for services. It is even more of a problem for those who need health care. In a city, or a larger metro area, one can easily get by without owning a car. Of course, you have to choice wisely where to live and where you choose to work.

Many people who can do without driving in the Denver area, will drive because that is their lifestyle. Some people will never use public transit. It is the same in NYC where many people do not use buses or subways--contrary to public perceptions. They will drive in the worse traffic; commuting from one borough to the next, when good public transit is available.

People in cities do much more walking than residents of far out surburbia and rural areas. Having lived in NYC, you can easily see that everyday. There are many people in New York City who have never owned a car and never learned to drive.

So, my point is that cities can provide the means to reduce the necessity of driving. All services and especially medical care in in easy concentrated reach. That is the advantages of cities. I do not want to start a discussion about rural vs. city but just to point out cities have positive attributes.

I think Denver has done a great job in public transit, even back in the early days. It is amazing to me that my perceptions of a western city were so wrong, when I got here, and that Denver is very proactive in public transit.

I use the buses and trains every week and I drive about 2500 miles a year. I could never do that in most rural areas. In addition, unfortunately, I have a need for extensive medical services, so cities are my best choice.

I do agree that I do not like far out sprawl of developments. They do not add to the advantages of cities and only encourage excessive automobile use. In the Denver metro area, you again have many choices and I would never choose to live in a area that would not give me good public transit.

Livecontent