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.
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.
The soul-selling stuff is a bit ridiculous, especially if Denver is the comparison. The Front Range is sprawl central, just like DFW. Generic tract homes on tiny lots are endemic to the area, as are chain restaurants and shopping. The sprawl that has occurred from Cheyenne to Pueblo over the last 30 years is incredible. DFW has added even more, but the development types are very similar.
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.
You very clearly miss my entire point. I've never advocated for a government building authority. I'm not sure where you think I am politically on all this, but I assure you, you are probably wrong.
And my point is not that restricting development is the same as subsidizing sprawl, my point is these two things are being done in tandem.
On one hand we restrict development in lots of ways: zoning is the biggest one. This prevents land from being used in the most economically productive ways. (Well unless you are big enough to have a lobby and a bunch of lawyers i guess)
On the other hand we build all these roads further and further out on to otherwise not very valuable land which makes the land cheap to develop. Those houses in the mid 200ks cost more than 200k when you consider the cost of the freeway to get to them.
Rather than fight the NIBYs it's just alot cheaper to use the subsidized land that was opened to development by government spending rather than to efficiently use land closer in.
It's simple. Roads are incredibly subsidized. People debate the actual numbers, but the gas tax doesn't come close to covering how much they cost. That money has to come from somewhere and generally it comes from public funds.
Sprawl (what I would define as linearly zoned car centric development with an emphasis on single family homes) is subsidized in many ways.
The point I was trying to make earlier is that Denver is more restrictive about new developments on the edge of the metro area. Denver also has higher fees.
Dallas, or more broadly, north Texas on the other hand, while it still has plenty of overbearing restrictions on increasing density, is more than willing to spend billions on expanding and building new roads that opens up cheap land to development.
Sure, fine, Denver might cost slightly more to build in naturally, but I think alot of the price difference is artificial, meaning if Denver took the DFW approach to development and DFW took the Denver approach you would see price changes.
Yeah, everyone knows that no place has perfectly free markets, but it's pretty clear how the various regulations and subsidies in north TX shape the results we get. Subsidize something, get lots of it, restrict something, you get less of it, or it finds a way around the restrictions.
The soul-selling stuff is a bit ridiculous, especially if Denver is the comparison. The Front Range is sprawl central, just like DFW. Generic tract homes on tiny lots are endemic to the area, as are chain restaurants and shopping. The sprawl that has occurred from Cheyenne to Pueblo over the last 30 years is incredible. DFW has added even more, but the development types are very similar.
Yeah, thats exactly what I said. Both have a very similar style of scrawly development, but DFW has more or less totally pulled the stops out on ours and invested Billions in infrastructure to keep sprawl cheap. The front range has done the same thing, more or less but with some reserve.
The reason developments look more or less the same all over the country has alot to do with how it is financed, on a national level, how banks work etc. Also most of the US has pretty similar linear zoning laws.
That said, Texas has taken it to a different level.
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.
What's a top 10 major city? Top 10 for what? Population? COL? QOL? What?
There is more to a city's aesthetics than its topography. I think we can all agree that Paris is a beautiful city, but if you stripped the city away and looked at the land it sits on, you'd think it was ugly and boring. It's basically a bowl with a few hills. Le yawn.
Let's go with your "top 10 major city" qualification and look at the top 10 cities BY POPULATION in the US in descending order:
1.) New York City. The city is quite pleasing to look at from a bird's eye view and a skyline view. Some parts of it are gorgeous. Architecturally speaking, I'd say it's more attractive than Dallas-Fort Worth. At least it's not a desert of strip malls with acres of parking lots in front of them.
2.) Los Angeles. I think if you stripped the city away, you'd find that LA is topographically beautiful.
3.) Chicago. No opinion. It's hard to be uglier than DFW, though...so let's say they're even.
4.) Houston. Ugly as sin.
5.) Phoenix. Suburban sprawl for days, but it has a stark beauty to it that Dallas lacks. Plus, there's the McDowell Mountains outside of town which make for some pretty views.
6.) Philadelphia. I think we all know what Philadelphia looks like. Even people I know who've visited who didn't like the city agreed that it was at least attractive.
7.) San Antonio. Topographically much more interesting than Dallas. Plenty of ugly suburban sprawl but lots of gorgeous natural beauty too, particularly in the western part of the city and outside of it. Plus there's quite a bit of history there too, which makes it interesting. I'm not even going to mention the Riverwalk because most people who live in SA aren't frequent visitors, but it's lovely.
8.) San Diego. We've already gone over San Diego.
9.) Dallas is the 9th most populous city in the US.
10.) San Jose. Let's not even discuss it because you said California is the exception.
There you go. There's your "top 10 major city" qualification.
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.
Low unemployment abounds there. That being said, I guess you'd need to just look up jobs in your area of expertise.
All my husband needs is a decent airport and good internet service to work so we can literally live anywhere that has those. He will probably continue to work part time after he "retires."
What's a top 10 major city? Top 10 for what? Population? COL? QOL? What?
There is more to a city's aesthetics than its topography. I think we can all agree that Paris is a beautiful city, but if you stripped the city away and looked at the land it sits on, you'd think it was ugly and boring. It's basically a bowl with a few hills. Le yawn.
Let's go with your "top 10 major city" qualification and look at the top 10 cities BY POPULATION in the US in descending order:
1.) New York City. The city is quite pleasing to look at from a bird's eye view and a skyline view. Some parts of it are gorgeous. Architecturally speaking, I'd say it's more attractive than Dallas-Fort Worth. At least it's not a desert of strip malls with acres of parking lots in front of them.
2.) Los Angeles. I think if you stripped the city away, you'd find that LA is topographically beautiful.
3.) Chicago. No opinion. It's hard to be uglier than DFW, though...so let's say they're even.
4.) Houston. Ugly as sin.
5.) Phoenix. Suburban sprawl for days, but it has a stark beauty to it that Dallas lacks. Plus, there's the McDowell Mountains outside of town which make for some pretty views.
6.) Philadelphia. I think we all know what Philadelphia looks like. Even people I know who've visited who didn't like the city agreed that it was at least attractive.
7.) San Antonio. Topographically much more interesting than Dallas. Plenty of ugly suburban sprawl but lots of gorgeous natural beauty too, particularly in the western part of the city and outside of it. Plus there's quite a bit of history there too, which makes it interesting. I'm not even going to mention the Riverwalk because most people who live in SA aren't frequent visitors, but it's lovely.
8.) San Diego. We've already gone over San Diego.
9.) Dallas is the 9th most populous city in the US.
10.) San Jose. Let's not even discuss it because you said California is the exception.
There you go. There's your "top 10 major city" qualification.
If I could afford to live in LA or San Diego, I would. I would live in San Antonio.
Besides Dallas, I would rather not live in any of those cities, due to weather, or economics, or population. I might be the only American who doesn't like NYC. In fact, I turned down a marriage proposal because marrying him would have required living in NYC. I just couldn't do it. I don't care what kind of topography these cities have--they aren't for me. Although I will say the last time I visited NYC it was prettier than when I went in the 90's.
Lots of US cities are topographically more interesting than DFW but would be worse places to live, IMO. Detroit, Jacksonville, New Orleans, Cincinatti, all come to mind.
Low unemployment abounds there. That being said, I guess you'd need to just look up jobs in your area of expertise.
All my husband needs is a decent airport and good internet service to work so we can literally live anywhere that has those. He will probably continue to work part time after he "retires."
Sounds nice. I'd keep this job forever if I could work remote and didn't have to live in DFW.
I would rather live in some hick town in Texas or any other state than NYC. The people are rude/hostile/aggressive.
Even rich people in New York are forced to live in an overcrowded building with a lot of other people. There's no freaking way I'd live there, even if I was a billionaire.
Yeah, thats exactly what I said. Both have a very similar style of scrawly development, but DFW has more or less totally pulled the stops out on ours and invested Billions in infrastructure to keep sprawl cheap. The front range has done the same thing, more or less but with some reserve.
The reason developments look more or less the same all over the country has alot to do with how it is financed, on a national level, how banks work etc. Also most of the US has pretty similar linear zoning laws.
That said, Texas has taken it to a different level.
The mountain tax comes from the restrictions on building to address needs, yet you deny it is real? Really? That is not the only driver of the high cost of living in say Colorado. Another driver is building on hilly land remote from where goods and materials needed to build are is another driver as is the instrastructure cost like roads and water and sewer or septic tank in a rocky hilly mountain area cost more.
I do not find anything about Colorado appealing to me, for my mountain fix I go to northern Mountains of NM. Dont have to drive in the mountains so long to get some place and the multi culture aspect of Pueblo Indians and Spanish heritage folks in abundance are appealing to me. I like the cooler climate a lot but in using our family place in N NM for 50 years have no desire to live in the mountains.
I agree man made restrictions on building such as zoning muddles the free market response to demand for new housing etc. The best big example of minimal zoning impacts is Houston where no zoning exists though over the years they have added a lot of restrictions without calling it zoning. One thing I like about Houston, and there are many, is how areas in great locations near DT or the Galleria evolve from rough areas to up and coming areas when the zoning forces are not an added impediment as it is in most places.
I do not like living in the mountains due to the "mountain tax" and just not a fan of driving on the curvy hilly roads there. I do not like ocean and beach needs largely due to hurricane risks and sweating on a sandy beach is not my idea of fun or comfort. I find DFW ideal for my needs if I were not here I would not move to the coasts or rockies but to Tn perhaps with its hills and greenery and similar to Texas thoughts about how much government we need.
You can decide what you like but have not a clue what we all like or need geography wise. Generalizing may be fun to you but it has you confused.
A) everything has tradeoffs;
2) everyone assigns different priorities to items.
I've now lived here almost 8 years, which practically makes me a long time resident given the number of relos here. I've said numerous times that I'm generally not a fan of DFW and will almost certainly move out once child is off to college.
My favorite city in the US is probably Portland, Oregon, and my favorite destination worldwide is probably New Zealand, so you can likely figure out what items are near the top of my personal priority list. Scenically DFW is not very pretty overall (yes, there are some areas that are pretty, and although it's "flat" it a lot less flat than, say, Chicago, but in its entirety, meh), I'm not impressed with the restaurants or the skyline(s) compared to other major metros, and the weather is too hot for my preferences.
THAT SAID, DFW has a fairly diversified economy that continues to grow. It remains quite affordable compared to many other major metros. If the weather for most of the year was what it has been the last few days/weeks, I'd enjoy it a lot more, and it is a reminder that for parts of the year it's a joy to be outside. Schools overall are quite good, especially in combination with the affordability noted. I'm sure there are other positives that people would comment on that I'm overlooking because they're not as important to me.
Again, everything is a tradeoff. If you want scenic beauty and a strong job market/economy, then you're almost certainly going to pay more for it. It's like the old "fast/good/cheap" line "scenic beauty/good economy/affordable, pick any two". Along those lines, we may spend most of our retirement in Greece - it has beautiful coastal towns, superb local foods, quite affordable...and the economy is still in the dumps, and outside of Athens (or Thessaloniki) you have limited options for hospitals or "cultural amenities".
I like certain things. Other posters here like other things. Sometimes there's considerable overlap, sometimes there isn't. DFW has certain things going for it and other things notasmuch. If the things it has are at/near the top of your priority list, you squeeze the most out of items where it's more limited. If not, you make do as you can and take steps to eventually go elsewhere, if possible (and on this board, it's mainly people who have at least some choices available or likely will in the future).
Everybody's different. It would be boring if they weren't.
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.
