Any transplants considering elsewhere because front range is too crowded (Denver: appliances, loans)

[wilberry]

wow lots of info in this thread. I am enjoying it . lots of different perspectives and opinions.

a little history

Historical median values (Denver metro)
1975 $35,921 ($124,277 in 2015 dollars)
1985 $95,447 ($180,923 in 2015 dollars)
1995 $150,736 ($217,126 in 2015 dollars)
2005 $247,100 ($291,762 in 2015 dollars)

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DENV708PCPI

per capita personal income in the area for 2005 was @ 42K

Per capita personal income is calculated as the personal income of residents of a given area divided by the resident population of the area.

the Median was @ 62K in 2005

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCOA672N


In Aurora a November 2005 high of $185,700.

2005 was a very good year to Buy a home in Colorado before the recession , before the current boom.

If my salary would have increased as much as the Cost of owning a home in Colorado from 2005 to now then I would have received @ 148 increase in pay .

I did not get that raise ....

[Thom Hanks]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

The lack of public lands in the East and Midwest are a real downer for me.

Yeah, but life sustaining water...they have plenty of public lakes and rivers to enjoy. Global warming's gonna be a real *bleep* out here after it's expedited by eight years of this current administration. Eventually living near large bodies of fresh water are going to come at a higher premium than living near some mountains in the middle of a desert.

Not sure how much public land you actually need at one time, but for most people, it's not an issue.

[Thom Hanks]

Originally Posted by wilberry

the Median was @ 62K in 2005

https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/MEHOINUSCOA672N

That shows median household income. Household and per capita income are not the same things. Per capita, I make more than the median household income in Denver. With my GF's income, we make more than double the household median income for Denver.

[Westerner92]

I'm one of the recent transplants that's ruining it for everyone else. I wish I could be apologetic, but for people my age, our hands are somewhat forced by the economy. The only cities with jobs are crowded and/or have a skyrocketing cost of living. I can either live in a crappy place with no job, a big city with an outrageous cost of living, or I can go to the "lifestyle cities" where people who have lived there for decades ***** about how my generation is ruining it for them. At least Colorado has the option to drive that extra hour and hike that extra mile to get away from the crowds, and at least people with college degrees can still afford a house if they're willing to accept the fact that they'll always have roommates.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by Thom Hanks

Yeah, but life sustaining water...they have plenty of public lakes and rivers to enjoy. Global warming's gonna be a real *bleep* out here after it's expedited by eight years of this current administration. Eventually living near large bodies of fresh water are going to come at a higher premium than living near some mountains in the middle of a desert.

Not sure how much public land you actually need at one time, but for most people, it's not an issue.

Lots of public land. It's a big part of what makes the west so special for those of us who like to explore it.

If you don't use it, you won't miss it.

As for water, yes it's an issue, but Denver is going to be just fine. Some of the younger burbs without the same water rights, maybe not.

Have you been to Israel? There is so much more we could be doing to conserve, but haven't needed to yet.

[Thom Hanks]

Originally Posted by SkyDog77

Lots of public land. It's a big part of what makes the west so special for those of us who like to explore it.

If you don't use it, you won't miss it.

As for water, yes it's an issue, but Denver is going to be just fine. Some of the younger burbs without the same water rights, maybe not.

Have you been to Israel? There is so much more we could be doing to conserve, but haven't needed to yet.

The point you are missing is that Colorado is not the only place with public lands to do things on.

Yes, there are a lot of national parks and preserves in the west. But there are also a lot of state parks and preserves across the country. It's like you're trying to portray other places as not having anything at all to do, which is far from the truth.

[JMHT13]

Originally Posted by Thom Hanks

The point you are missing is that Colorado is not the only place with public lands to do things on.

Yes, there are a lot of national parks and preserves in the west. But there are also a lot of state parks and preserves across the country. It's like you're trying to portray other places as not having anything at all to do, which is far from the truth.

There's not much skiing to the caliber I'm used to in the Midwest/East. The hiking leave a lot to be desired as well. Oregon/Washington have the same issues as Denver and the weather is terrible IMO.

If you're the type that is content with the grasslands, lakes and and snowmobiling then MN, WI, MI and IA have a lot to offer! Different strokes.

Montana is to rural for me, only other place I'd consider is Calgary. Cold doesn't get to me, just heat/humidity.

[Thom Hanks]

Originally Posted by JMHT13

If you're the type that is content with the grasslands, lakes and and snowmobiling then MN, WI, MI and IA have a lot to offer! Different strokes.

Fishing, hunting, hiking, camping, backpacking, single-tracking, cycling, ice skating, boating...yes, different strokes. But the fact is there are plenty of things to do in those regions as well.

[SkyDog77]

Originally Posted by Thom Hanks

The point you are missing is that Colorado is not the only place with public lands to do things on.

Yes, there are a lot of national parks and preserves in the west. But there are also a lot of state parks and preserves across the country. It's like you're trying to portray other places as not having anything at all to do, which is far from the truth.

Not at all. Just different. As I said, I've lived in the Midwest. People mostly "Go to The Lake" and fish and drink. Doesn't matter where you are in the Midwest, there's always a lake, people call it "The Lake" and that's what they do. I've done it numerous times and I always vow I'll never do it again. When they go hunting, it's on private property. Hiking is not done much.

The vast expanses of national forest lands in the west are unique to people who live in the east and Midwest. It's just different.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by MN_Ski

I moved to Denver to take advantage of the location and to partake in my hobbies. I'm over the city itself, but still enjoy getting out to the mountains during off peak times. The city has become the ultimate cliche for miserable trendy millennials. As a millennial myself, I just cannot stand a lot of the people in the Lohi, Lodo, Wash Park neighborhoods. I spent this past weekend going out in the city hitting up my usual spots, and something clicked with me, and I realized that I have just out grown many of the locations here.

I feel the way you do on this MN_Ski. That's why I live in the suburbs (technically inside the Denver city limits, but basically a suburban area, in SE Denver) and only visit "the City" when I feel like it, which is increasingly not very often. Now maybe that also explains why I am antisocial, date less, and have no friends. Ok, maybe a few. But I feel like the lifestyle in this trendy "urban" neighborhoods is like a party that I was never invited to. Fortunately there is a lot more to Denver, and the whole Denver metro area than just the few trendy garden spots mentioned above. There are a lot more normal, non-pretentious people living in the more boring, nondescript parts of Denver than there are the types you mentioned above.

And for me, despite all the development that has happened downtown and in the urban neighborhoods of Denver in the last 7 years, and how supposedly cool and trendy and expensive all these new apartments, bars, and restaurants are, Denver was and still is kind of boring to me, just as boring as it was a decade ago. Pretty much everything revolves around drinking. Particularly beer drinking. So basically there are 20X more places to go beer drinking than there were a decade ago, more selections of different batches of "craft" beer, which is cool, but how much beer drinking can one man do? I'm probably just getting old and just a total lightweight, but one beer, two absolute max is about all I can handle these days without feeling sick the next day.

For me it isn't the number of people here that bother me, it is the type of people that bother me. Same can be said with trails/parks. I'm not upset that I have to share a trail with dozens of other people, it's that the people I am sharing the trail with do not respect nature, and end up trashing these amazing places. This is where most of the complaints from natives come from. If the people coming into this state were just a little more respectful, not as many people would be complaining.

Another thing that ****es me off about hiking these days is the dogs. Can't go hiking, can't take a walk on a local in-town trail, can't go anywhere these days really, without having tons and tons of dogs everywhere, and many off leash dogs, some of them aggressive.