Colorado compared to other Western states (Denver, Aspen: real estate, houses, luxury)

[prairiestate]

I've seen just a few areas of Colorado, but it seems to be pretty unique compared with other Western states. For one thing, it's certainly more populated and more heavily traveled. The ranching/rodeo/cowboy culture doesn't seem to be as prevalent. The towns seem a little more polished, with more of a Victorian style architecture, vs. a rough hewn old west style. There appears to be a greater variety of tourist attractions and more opportunities to be near nature without necessarily immersing yourself in it. In other words, it seems to be easier to spend a day doing some light hiking and sightseeing during the day, and be able to retreat to a bustling town or city at night. Many of the mountain areas, at least in the Northern part of the state, seem to be more heavily forested, with more rivers and lakes then in surrounding states. Generally, Colorado seems a bit less rustic overall, and personally, this is something I prefer. Would you say this is a fairly accurate assessment, or am I missing some pieces to the puzzle.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by prairiestate

I've seen just a few areas of Colorado, but it seems to be pretty unique compared with other Western states. For one thing, it's certainly more populated and more heavily traveled. The ranching/rodeo/cowboy culture doesn't seem to be as prevalent. The towns seem a little more polished, with more of a Victorian style architecture, vs. a rough hewn old west style. There appears to be a greater variety of tourist attractions and more opportunities to be near nature without necessarily immersing yourself in it. In other words, it seems to be easier to spend a day doing some light hiking and sightseeing during the day, and be able to retreat to a bustling town or city at night. Many of the mountain areas, at least in the Northern part of the state, seem to be more heavily forested, with more rivers and lakes then in surrounding states. Generally, Colorado seems a bit less rustic overall, and personally, this is something I prefer. Would you say this is a fairly accurate assessment, or am I missing some pieces to the puzzle.

Yes and no. There is more Victorian architecture in many of Colorado's historic towns because they were mining towns. There was money--sometimes a lot of it--that permitted those towns to develop fairly rapidly. When fires burned a lot of the "pioneer" structures--and that happened pretty frequently--there was enough capital often available to rebuild with brick.

Bluntly, there is today way too much latter-day tourist crap in Colorado. I know a lot of turistos find this somehow "comforting," but, as a Colorado native, much of it disgusts me. Colorado is too beautiful of a place to trash it up with golf courses, tennis courts, and trophy homes. That **** can be built anywhere. Most of the "resort" scene is phony and disgusting--a sick caricature of what Colorado should be.

Northern Colorado seems more forested because a lot of it (and a lot of the mid-elevation Rockies north all the way into Canada) is dominated by even-age lodgepole pine forests. These are the forests that the mountain pine beetle is killing off at a blistering rate. Those "dog-hair" lodgepole forests just LOVE to burn--and that's the next step in the natural progression. I like the southern Colorado forests much better because aspen occupies much of the same niche there that is occupied by lodgepole farther north. Mixed conifer and aspen forests are the most beautiful in the Rockies, in my opinion. Unfortunately, drought and Sudden Aspen Decline is raising hell with a lot of Colorado aspen stands these days.

Because of its geographical location and high average elevation, Colorado has more snowpack and resulting water for streams than does New Mexico or Wyoming. Idaho and Montana, however, have much more water and larger riverflows than Colorado produces.

Colorado used to culturally be much more akin to its neighboring states than it is now. Personally, I liked that aspect of Colorado much better then. The growth, urbanization and "yuppification" of Colorado has done damned little to improve it, in my opinion.

[Katarina Witt]

Well, Denver is the largest city in the inter-mountain area. That certainly changes the "flavor" of that area from ranching/farming to city life. Metro Denver has about 2 1/2 million people, whereas the next largest city, Salt Lake City, has just over 1 million in its metro area.

[CosmicWizard]

prairiestate wrote:

Colorado compared to other Western states: For one thing, it's certainly more populated and more heavily traveled.

Compared to California, Colorado is very sparsely populated and only moderately travelled.

[downtownnola]

I'd say that your assessment is fairly accurate. I've also traveled extensively around other western states and have also lived in Wyoming. Colorado is definately much more progressive, populated and as Jazzlover said, "yuppified" than its neighboring states.

Of course, when I think of Colorado I think of the populated front range urban corridor and I-70 mountain corridor where 3/4 of the state's population resides. As you work your way into the rural areas far away from the populated areas, the culture is unmistakeably western and horse trailers and pickup trucks are a common sight.

[breaksraver13]

Originally Posted by downtownnola

I'd say that your assessment is fairly accurate. I've also traveled extensively around other western states and have also lived in Wyoming. Colorado is definately much more progressive, populated and as Jazzlover said, "yuppified" than its neighboring states.

Of course, when I think of Colorado I think of the populated front range urban corridor and I-70 mountain corridor where 3/4 of the state's population resides. As you work your way into the rural areas far away from the populated areas, the culture is unmistakeably western and horse trailers and pickup trucks are a common sight.

EXACTLY........I'm really tired of hearing the crap about Colorado being "overpopulated" get out more really , there aren't even paved roads out here.

[Mr. Answers]

Half the state is farmland. That makes things interesting.

[green_mariner]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Yes and no. There is more Victorian architecture in many of Colorado's historic towns because they were mining towns. There was money--sometimes a lot of it--that permitted those towns to develop fairly rapidly. When fires burned a lot of the "pioneer" structures--and that happened pretty frequently--there was enough capital often available to rebuild with brick.

Bluntly, there is today way too much latter-day tourist crap in Colorado. I know a lot of turistos find this somehow "comforting," but, as a Colorado native, much of it disgusts me. Colorado is too beautiful of a place to trash it up with golf courses, tennis courts, and trophy homes. That **** can be built anywhere. Most of the "resort" scene is phony and disgusting--a sick caricature of what Colorado should be.

Northern Colorado seems more forested because a lot of it (and a lot of the mid-elevation Rockies north all the way into Canada) is dominated by even-age lodgepole pine forests. These are the forests that the mountain pine beetle is killing off at a blistering rate. Those "dog-hair" lodgepole forests just LOVE to burn--and that's the next step in the natural progression. I like the southern Colorado forests much better because aspen occupies much of the same niche there that is occupied by lodgepole farther north. Mixed conifer and aspen forests are the most beautiful in the Rockies, in my opinion. Unfortunately, drought and Sudden Aspen Decline is raising hell with a lot of Colorado aspen stands these days.

Because of its geographical location and high average elevation, Colorado has more snowpack and resulting water for streams than does New Mexico or Wyoming. Idaho and Montana, however, have much more water and larger riverflows than Colorado produces.

Colorado used to culturally be much more akin to its neighboring states than it is now. Personally, I liked that aspect of Colorado much better then. The growth, urbanization and "yuppification" of Colorado has done damned little to improve it, in my opinion.

Most people like familiarity to a certain extent. There are alot of people who like the beautiful scenery and the things that Colorado has to offer. With that said, many people want to have the things they had in their previous places of residence, so they bring it with them. Mnay Colorado natives want things that are familiar and to some, golf courses, tennis courts, and other things aren't familiar. BTW, I see nothing ugly about a tennis court or golf course.

[jazzlover]

Originally Posted by pirate_lafitte

BTW, I see nothing ugly about a tennis court or golf course.

Aesthetically and environmentally they can be every bit as damaging as a mine dump--especially when they are located in high altitude riparian areas, which seems to be a preferred location. One of the great lies perpetrated by the developers and their real estate lackeys in Colorado is that rural recreational, ski area, and second home development is environmentally benign. It is not and--unlike things like ranching, logging, mining, etc.--it offers no real long-term productive economic purpose. It squanders resources for pure consumption, hedonism, and a "good time." That's a luxury that we can no longer (and, in truth, never really could) afford.

[vegaspilgrim]

Originally Posted by jazzlover

Aesthetically and environmentally they can be every bit as damaging as a mine dump--especially when they are located in high altitude riparian areas, which seems to be a preferred location. One of the great lies perpetrated by the developers and their real estate lackeys in Colorado is that rural recreational, ski area, and second home development is environmentally benign. It is not and--unlike things like ranching, logging, mining, etc.--it offers no real long-term productive economic purpose. It squanders resources for pure consumption, hedonism, and a "good time." That's a luxury that we can no longer (and, in truth, never really could) afford.

Explain to me how ranching, logging, and mining don't ultimately lead to "consumption, hedonism, and a "good time" as well. People need to eat, but they don't have to gorge their faces with hamburgers and steaks every meal just to survive. People could live totally healthy lives without ever eating beef. But it tastes good and it's filling-- sounds like consumption, hedonism, and having a good time, by your definition. Lumber so people can waste enermous amount of paper and clog up landfills, as well as providing building materials for all those consumptive stick frame houses. Mining-- important for EVERYTHING of course, but a lot that is probably wasted on consumptive purposes too when you look down the value chain. Your picture of an ideal economy that only produces the hard fundamentals and nothing beyond that sounds like the Soviet Union or some kind of other state run communist country.