Denver: The good, the bad and the ugly (Boulder, Ken Caryl: credit, home)

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

That's only if you live in the Central part of the city like Capitol Hill, LoDo, Highlands, Five Points, etc. There's huge sections of the city-county that are extremely unfriendly to pedestrians. Hampden, Southmoor, Kennedy, Bear Valley, Stapleton, Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, Lowry, Indian Creek, and the huge industrial corridor that runs alongside Santa Fe Dr, I-25, and the Central Platte Valley are all examples of unwalkable neighborhoods in the city-county of Denver.

I can't speak for the above "unwalkable" areas, but my DD lives in the University area and it's quite walkable. There's a lot on University itself, plus quite a bit on Evans to walk to. Highlands is not Central Denver, either. It is the west side.

[steveindenver]

There's huge sections of the city-county that are extremely unfriendly to pedestrians. Hampden, Southmoor, Kennedy, Bear Valley, Stapleton, Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, Lowry, Indian Creek, and the huge industrial corridor that runs alongside Santa Fe Dr, I-25, and the Central Platte Valley are all examples of unwalkable neighborhoods in the city-county of Denver.

Umm, err. Stapleton is one of the most walkable communities in the ENTIRE COUNTRY. 1/3 dedicated to parks, running and biking paths, bike lanes everywhere.

There are bike lanes and some paths in every other neighborhood you mention, parks and in most cases stores and restaurants you can walk to. You mention the "industrial corridor" along Santa Fe and I-25 which by definition would not have homes -- but if it did the CC path runs that entire length and provides a quick and safe route for bikers or runners headed north or south.

Bike lanes and paths criss cross the entire city. I'd suggest you look at a map, or better yet get out on a bike and visit before you comment on these areas.

Again, if you live in suburbia these services might not be offered and yes getting from one side of the suburban area to the other can take quite some time. However, many suburban areas offer bike paths, trails and walkable ammenities.

[denverian]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

That's only if you live in the Central part of the city like Capitol Hill, LoDo, Highlands, Five Points, etc. There's huge sections of the city-county that are extremely unfriendly to pedestrians. Hampden, Southmoor, Kennedy, Bear Valley, Stapleton, Montbello, Green Valley Ranch, Lowry, Indian Creek, and the huge industrial corridor that runs alongside Santa Fe Dr, I-25, and the Central Platte Valley are all examples of unwalkable neighborhoods in the city-county of Denver.

I certainly wouldn't say that Stapleton and Lowry are "extremely pedestrian unfriendly". I walk two miles per day in Stapleton - great sidewalks, lots of paths and parks, and once the Eastbridge town center is done, I'll be able to walk to businesses in about 2 minutes.

[tfox]

To the OP: I think you've done a great job summarizing what many newcomers to the state are going to perceive.

A comment regarding Denver ugliness: I personally think that most newcomers are going to have similar impressions to the OP. Boulder, Colorado Springs, and most mountain towns show well to out-of-staters. They are impressed by the towering mountain views that those cities offer and their foothills or mountain location. Denver, on the other hand, doesn't impress so much -- we're bone-dry, and except for in the very core of the city, pretty barren compared to the lush rain forests of the northwest or the ever-present hardwood forests found in abundance anywhere in the eastern half of the country. The mountains are always there in Denver, but they don't have that impressive physical presence as they do in many other locales in the state.

On the other hand, I think as people spend more time to Colorado, many people figure out Denver's advantages. I, personally, find Denver more advantageous place to live than elsewhere in the state, but it may not be obvious at first glance.

[Katiana]

I agree with tfox. In fact, when we first came here all those years ago, it was our intent to settle either in Ft. Collins or COS. I am certainly glad we did not! Neither city offers what Denver has to offer.

Also, it is good to see ourselves as others see us.

[movementarian]

Originally Posted by tfox

To the OP: I think you've done a great job summarizing what many newcomers to the state are going to perceive.

A comment regarding Denver ugliness: I personally think that most newcomers are going to have similar impressions to the OP. Boulder, Colorado Springs, and most mountain towns show well to out-of-staters. They are impressed by the towering mountain views that those cities offer and their foothills or mountain location. Denver, on the other hand, doesn't impress so much -- we're bone-dry, and except for in the very core of the city, pretty barren compared to the lush rain forests of the northwest or the ever-present hardwood forests found in abundance anywhere in the eastern half of the country. The mountains are always there in Denver, but they don't have that impressive physical presence as they do in many other locales in the state.

On the other hand, I think as people spend more time to Colorado, many people figure out Denver's advantages. I, personally, find Denver more advantageous place to live than elsewhere in the state, but it may not be obvious at first glance.

I mostly agree as well. Most newcomers wanted to move to the state of Colorado because they want to be in the mountains, not on the plains. Denver has the advantage of more jobs, being closer to a big airport, more malls, and a wider selection of some cultural things. I'd like living in COS or Fort Collins but compromise because of some of the above.

[denver_hacker]

Originally Posted by FunkyMonk

The bad:
Although the awesome mountains are near. Denver itself is flat and in my opinion, ugly and lacking in natural beauty. All the awesome outdoor experiences are about a half an hour drive away.
The suburban and urban sprawl is really bad. Traveling long distances is required to do most things and it's not very walkable at all.
A lack of jobs, and employers are not very welcoming or accomodating, although this is happening in many other places too.
The dryness of the air. I like dry climates, but to me it's too extreme here. Even in the de

For me, it's not so much that Denver is ugly, because I don't think it's an unattractive place. It's just that Denver has no defining natural element, everything you see is put in place by us bipeds and extremely incongruous with the native setting. Denver is a nice place with good parks and an decent tree canopy (better than the native one - ha ha, but nothing compared to others except maybe SLC or Phoenix) - so not Ugly like a third-world slum or eastern bloc industrial zone, but nothing that takes your breath away. Plus, in order to build Denver up, as much industry as possible was brought in and nature was way down on the priority list. Just imagine the Platt River Trail without the Excel Plant or Cherry Creek Trail with a good sized natural border (rather than being immediately bounded by 6 lanes of Speer).

The problem with the sprawl here is that there are no natural impediments except for the mountains on the west side - just like most of Phoenix or the Inland Empire. No lakes, ponds, forests, rivers, swamps, oceans, hills, etc. to either wrap the sprawl around or cover it up. A new development in this type of environment sticks out on the prairie.

Imagine what Park Hill or Wash Park or Platt Park looked like before there were any trees in place. Those areas were the Highlands Ranch of their days, dropped onto the dusty grasslands with no cover. Then they planted all those horrible Silver Maples, which grew nice and fast but have the structural integrity of a wet noodle.

Now, if Golden had stayed the capital of the territory and the railroads had gone through it, we might have had Colorado's Big City center in an very interesting geography. Oh well...

And the dryness gets to me as well. My sinuses go through a lot here. Our old house had a humidifier tacked onto the furnace and Holy Buckets was that worth the money. Our new place has a boiler and radiant baseboard heat, so the air isn't quite as dry but a humidifier is needed.

[denverian]

Regarding Denver's beauty/ugliness, I like it just fine. The mountains are nice for looking at and make for a nice backdrop to the city. The city is plenty green in spring/summer/fall as well. I've lived in very different places with very different geographical beauty, and the one thing I've noticed is that no matter where you live, the appeal of that beauty soon wears off. I've lived around mountains for 20 years now and rarely pay attention to them. I remember the first time I moved to California, I was amazed by the ocean and palm trees. But after living there for 12 years, neither amazed me any more. No matter where you live, you still have to get up in the morning and haul your butt to work, and the beauty or lack of it wherever you live is secondary.

[glennarbor]

If you want to see true ugliness and no walking, visit Detroit. Denver is a paradise in comparison.

[vegaspilgrim]

I have a different take on Denver's natural setting/ beauty/ ugliness. There's nothing wrong with the native high plains landscape. The problem is with all the non native vegetation that man has planted over it-- Kentucky bluegrass, trees that aren't even native to this half of the continent. If Denver actually embraced its natural setting and even tried to exploit its geographic affinities with the southwest, instead of pining for the midwest/east coast, it would look much better, IMO.

In terms of views and scenery, it really varies depending on where in the metro area you are. Some parts have virtually NO scenery. Some parts really resemble that "Saudi Aurora" feel that that one infamous local commentator observed. Some parts, like southeast Aurora south of Smoky Hill Rd, where the elevation approaches and sometimes exceeds 6,000 ft, have incredible 180 degree mountain views, plus some nice ruggedness to make the foreground look more interesting. Other cities, most notably Colorado Springs, do have better scenery, but overall I don't think scenery is the real issue. If Denver had NO scenery it would be depressing, but there is just enough where at least you feel like you're in the wide open west.

The other problem in terms of image is an overabundance of super-ugly, depressing architecture from the 1950s-80s, especially in the suburbs, but also frequently found in the city as well. Super ugly brown and gray colored office buildings (often with long and narrow hideous looking windows), Bronx-style high rise apartments, and strip malls that resemble those rock/pebble public garbage cans (I am not against strip malls-- in fact I like strip malls-- I just think some are much more attractive looking than others). Even some state of the art new urbanist developments, like the Landmark in DTC look surprisingly drab. The lower-end suburban tract home neighborhoods full of two story beige colored boxes are so bland it hurts at times. To my eyes at least, the various architectural motifs in the southwest-- Arizona, southern California, southern Nevada, and New Mexico look so much more "cheerful."