Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I call it the mountain tax. Some want to live in a "pretty" place so much they will take less pay and pay more for a smaller house. Im not a fan of taxes and do not find DFW to be ugly but neither do I find any where in Colorado pretty. Looks are superficial. Its the people that make a place not the natural beaufy when it results in a "mountain" tax situation/
Wait, really??? I find it kind of hard to believe someone wouldn't find something they didn't like in Colorado, regardless of if they want to live there or not.
Even if that is the case though, I don't think there is any such thing as a "Mountain Tax" alot of the most beautiful parts of the country are "Poverty with a view" type situations. Denver and resort towns aside, the mountain west is pretty affordable. Same with Appalachia, most of Appalachia is pretty cheap.
Anyway, more people have moved to DFW than Denver, I think the principal reason DFW has stayed cheaper is because we build to meet demand.
As a result, on average, DFW costs of housing in DFW has gone up less than just about anywhere else in the country, barely beating inflation in the last 30 years.
Denver has plenty of land to the east, so they could have done the same thing if they wanted to.
I don't know what the solution is. Clearly people need to live somewhere, but never ending sprawl is ugly and costly to the public. Sprawl as it currently is built wouldn't be sustainable under a free market, but we are so deep into this mess, and to upzone areas that should be upzoned it too difficult politically speaking.
Ultimately, it has nothing to do with the mountains costing more. Denver could be as cheap as Dallas if they gave in and totally sold their soul as we have, but they choose not to and instead do the a similar thing, just at a slower pace (with ultimately a similar end product but higher price tag).
I guess you are correct that people will put up with this and pay more for nicer weather, better views, and more recreation, but those aren't the cause of the increased price. This isn't a great apples and oranges comparison, you would need to match growth, job opportunities etc to really make a great comparison.
Last edited by Treasurevalley92; 10-08-2018 at 08:12 AM..
We just got back from scoping out Chattanooga as a possible retirement destination. We really liked it! Close to the mountains, closer to good beaches than here, closer to family, low COL, lower housing prices and MUCH lower property taxes, no state income tax, beautiful scenery all around, lots of history, still a warm climate but more moderate than here, more four seasons, a prettier fall, a bit more snow, it's a foodie city with a big emphasis on farm to table dining, craft beers, whiskey, etc. We aren't ready to move and we do love a lot about NE Texas, but Chattanooga definitely makes the short list!
Sounds REALLY nice if you don't need to work.
We do, so a healthy job market in our field is a must-have. I'm not sure Chattanooga would fit the bill from that perspective.
Right off the top of my head I can name a dozen American cities that are (in my opinion) prettier than Dallas because of their natural beauty or architectural integrity. In no particular order:
Denver. (Duh.)
Seattle. (Not a fan of the city, but you have to admit that the scenery is pretty.)
Newport (RI).
Washington DC.
Madison (WI).
Portland (Oregon).
Charleston (SC).
San Diego.
Portland (Maine).
Salt Lake City.
Albuquerque (don't knock it till you go).
Boston.
Note that there's only one city in California on that list. Including San Francisco would have been too easy. I only included San Diego because it is genuinely staggeringly beautiful.
I could go on.
First, I said Top 10 Major City
Secondly, I said the exception is Califronia (cities)
Architecturally significant buildings can be built, that’s something that can be easily obtained. Again, most cities in America with a population near or over 1 million, aren’t very pretty topograpchially.
You do realize money is no object for literally tens of thousands of people in DFW and they don't prefer to live in Malibu or San Diego or they would?
I'm not sure how you don't understand that.
Thats true, and plenty of wealthy people do choose to live here. However, the financial benefits of living in Texas are more pronounced the more money you have, and even people who are quite wealthy still make decisions based on fiances.
But yeah, Warren Buffet still chooses to live in Omaha. People of means still like living near where they have friends, or a church community, or their favorite restaurants, or a school they like for their kids, or a home they enjoy etc.
Wait, really??? I find it kind of hard to believe someone wouldn't find something they didn't like in Colorado, regardless of if they want to live there or not.
Even if that is the case though, I don't think there is any such thing as a "Mountain Tax" alot of the most beautiful parts of the country are "Poverty with a view" type situations. Denver and resort towns aside, the mountain west is pretty affordable. Same with Appalachia, most of Appalachia is pretty cheap.
Anyway, more people have moved to DFW than Denver, I think the principal reason DFW has stayed cheaper is because we build to meet demand.
As a result, on average, DFW costs of housing in DFW has gone up less than just about anywhere else in the country, barely beating inflation in the last 30 years.
Denver has plenty of land to the east, so they could have done the same thing if they wanted to.
I don't know what the solution is. Clearly people need to live somewhere, but never ending sprawl is ugly and costly to the public. Sprawl as it currently is built wouldn't be sustainable under a free market, but we are so deep into this mess, and to upzone areas that should be upzoned it too difficult politically speaking.
Ultimately, it has nothing to do with the mountains costing more. Denver could be as cheap as Dallas if they gave in and totally sold their soul as we have, but they choose not to and instead do the a similar thing, just at a slower pace (with ultimately a similar end product but higher price tag).
I guess you are correct that people will put up with this and pay more for nicer weather, better views, and more recreation, but those aren't the cause of the increased price. This isn't a great apples and oranges comparison, you would need to match growth, job opportunities etc to really make a great comparison.
I always wonder if you throw this stuff out there just to do so, if you really believe it or if you expect others to do so?
Just a few:
* Generally a criticism of "free-market" city/area development is sprawl.
*Vis a vis Dallas building in and around Denver definitely costs more. For one factor building in the winter in and around Denver often means sealing a job site under something of a tent, using forced heat, adding antifreeze products to poured concrete etc. Permitting costs tend to be higher there and among custom builds there are far fewer skilled tradespeople so often builds take longer - adding to costs.
Secondly, I said the exception is cities in Califronia.
I don't think I would visit NYC for the river, beaches and shore on Long Island alone, but even without NYC, those features are much more interesting than anything in North Texas.
Chicago is on a pretty borring flat prairie, but the trees that grow there are much nicer than the glorified bushes that grow naturally here. Plus lets be honest, the lake is awesome.
As you go down the line of top 10 cities, every single one has a nicer natural setting that DFW, even the more boring ones at least have water access. The eastern ones have nicer foliage and the western ones have better topography.
Atlanta, which I'm not really a big fan of as a city has a much prettier natural setting than Dallas.
That isn't to say you can't find some nice spots in the greater DFW. You can, the Glen Rose area is quite nice, and Oak Cliff has some decent topography, Some particular neighborhoods have great landscaping (East Dallas around White Rock for example) but on average DFW is super boring, I just don't think there is any way around that fact.
^^^ One of the best statements on this thread There is A LOT more to DFW than most people realize, mainly because they stick to the one area that they live and work in and don't bother to explore. I have 15 trees on my property and each house in my subdivision is different. It's the newer neighborhoods that have the cookie-cutter houses but that is the same EVERYWHERE across the country.
And I swear, if I hear one more person from the West coast lament about how DFW is "ugly" because there isn't a beach nearby I'm gonna puke! As if you didn't know that before you moved here??
I'm a native Californian and spent the first 34 years of my life there and guess what?? The VAST majority of the beaches were full of trash, homeless people and drugs galore, so spare me and the rest of us with the whole "the West coast beaches are my lifeline" crap. Learn to appreciate things other than floating plastic trash in an ocean, people, sheesh.
I agree with most of your points. Those of us from the West Coast do lament our loss of the mountains and ocean despite being well-aware DFW is a prairie. Perhaps we're a bit dramatic, but there is a real culture shock in moving from one region to another. As this is a relocation forum, I believe our experiences can help others considering such a move. Many of us would certainly prefer to remain in our home cities, but circumstances often dictate decisions. Some of us left families temporarily, myself included, as my husband could not relocate with his employer. Why do it? Your state actively recruits business from other states. This is the result. Relos. Trust me, I'd rather be home! I think most of us are just trying to make it, no matter where we're from. And many are still recovering from 08.
However, as the saying goes: wherever you go, there you are. I see beauty here. Living near Sylvan Thirty gives me access to Kessler Park Parkway, and I love walking there (when it is not blazing hot). Driving near Cedar Hill State Park is nice and prairie flowers are spectacular. It's much easier to navigate this city, than say Seattle or Portland. And Ft. Worth has a nice Japanese Garden that surprised me. But, Dallas is not an outdoor city and doesn't appear to newcomers or outsiders to care about nature or preservation. I haven't even put the front wheel on my bike since moving here. Honestly, it is quite depressing. With as much space as DFW has, parks seem more like an afterthought.
That said, CA beaches are too crowded and polluted. WA beaches are beautiful, but rocky. Oregon, in my opinion, has the best beaches overall. Seattle is no longer the city I was born and raised in. As you note, these cities are rife with pollution (DFW as well) and an out of control homeless situation. Yet there are other cities in these states that are not like the above and still offer ample outdoor recreation opportunities year-round and stunning natural beauty.
There is much to consider in a relo. Best of luck to all.
I always wonder if you throw this stuff out there just to do so, if you really believe it or if you expect others to do so?
Just a few:
* Generally a criticism of "free-market" city/area development is sprawl.
*Vis a vis Dallas building in and around Denver definitely costs more. For one factor building in the winter in and around Denver often means sealing a job site under something of a tent, using forced heat, adding antifreeze products to poured concrete etc. Permitting costs tend to be higher there and among custom builds there are far fewer skilled tradespeople so often builds take longer - adding to costs.
* Dallas doesn't have true "Free market" housing. Basically nowhere does because of all sorts of restrictions zoning, NIMYism etc. Our Sprawl is fully subsidized. New tract housing costs less than it should under free markets.
-Denver also doesn't have free market housing either, however, they subsidize sprawl less than we do, and restrict development in general more. Housing in general probably costs more than it should under free markets.
* Building in Dallas might be marginally cheaper than Denver, but labor is the biggest factor, and since Denver is more expensive labor will be as well. Lets not forget that Dallas comes with it's own unique challenges such as our soil and foundation issues.
My main point was: It's pretty hard to do an apples to apples comparison of Denver vs Dallas, but there are plenty of other factors besides Denver having better weather/ more near by natural beauty as to why it is more expensive than Dallas.
I don't buy the "Mountain Tax" theory. If Colorado wanted to build massive new freeways all the way out to the Kansas border and reduce permitting fees, they too, could have cheaper housing.
Status:
"Worship the Earth, Worship Love, not Imaginary Gods"
(set 7 days ago)
Location: Houston, TX/Detroit, MI
8,387 posts, read 5,545,507 times
Reputation: 12355
I grew up in Torrance and moved to Dallas in 2010. I later moved to Houston.
My concern was the people. I knew quite well that the topography was going to be quite different but I wasnt too worried about that. I never was much of an outdoorsy guy though I loved looking at the mountains from a distance.
I found that like attracts like. Im a godless liberal who doesnt own guns and I never had trouble finding people to fit in with whatsoever. Same goes for Houston.
I think its somewhat naive for people from Southern California to move here and then turn around and complain about the weather or scenery.
* Dallas doesn't have true "Free market" housing. Basically nowhere does because of all sorts of restrictions zoning, NIMYism etc. Our Sprawl is fully subsidized. New tract housing costs less than it should under free markets.
-Denver also doesn't have free market housing either, however, they subsidize sprawl less than we do, and restrict development in general more. Housing in general probably costs more than it should under free markets.
* Building in Dallas might be marginally cheaper than Denver, but labor is the biggest factor, and since Denver is more expensive labor will be as well. Lets not forget that Dallas comes with it's own unique challenges such as our soil and foundation issues.
My main point was: It's pretty hard to do an apples to apples comparison of Denver vs Dallas, but there are plenty of other factors besides Denver having better weather/ more near by natural beauty as to why it is more expensive than Dallas.
I don't buy the "Mountain Tax" theory. If Colorado wanted to build massive new freeways all the way out to the Kansas border and reduce permitting fees, they too, could have cheaper housing.
I've been an economist in academia and the private sector for years. I bugs me to no end when people either out of ignorance or as so often happens for political reasons misuse specific economic terms. The people who want to tear down I-345 without properly considering the consequences do it all the time misusing induced/latent demand. You seem to be doing the same here, I think at least, implying that some very large and powerful government building authority would somehow yield a more free market outcome. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Stipulation there are no totally free markets anywhere and EVERYONE KNOWS THAT.
Explain why/how local sprawl is subsidized? And how free-markets would make sprawl as you call it more expensive. You are either misunderstanding economic concepts or misusing specific terms.
Hint: restricting development IS NOT SUBSIDIZING SPRAWL.
Your claim above was that Denver and close does not/should not cost more to build. The fact is it does cost more to build there.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
There is A LOT more to DFW than most people realize, mainly because they stick to the one area that they live and work in and don't bother to explore. I have 15 trees on my property and each house in my subdivision is different. It's the newer neighborhoods that have the cookie-cutter houses but that is the same EVERYWHERE across the country. 
