With all the talk on this thread of home prices, I thought you might like to know that you don't have to be in that price range. The neighborhoods mentioned are older neighborhoods in/near downtown - you're going to pay more for those homes. When you get out to the suburbs, you pay less. If you're looking North of Denver, definitely check out Ft. Collins - although you'll be farther away from the skiing. I agree, Evergreen, Indian Hills and the mountain areas of Morrison are nice if you want a mountain feel - but again, you'll start paying more in those areas. If you are curious about real estate, here's a good local site. recolorado.com

I've lived in Denver 19 years now, having grown up in the midwest. I love it! Fort Collins is nice also if you like a smaller town, less traffic, etc. At first I missed the trees and green here, but you get used to it. The temperatures and dryness and sunny days and mountain views more than make up for it. And there are trees here like in the midwest in the older neighborhoods. We love to spend time in Estes Park with the woodsy feeling--all the pine trees. It's green here too (maybe not quite as vibrant), except for winter but that's true most places.

The median home prices here are about $260,000 with condos being about $100,000 less I think. Of course places like Cherry Creek and Washington Park will be higher. The Highlands neighborhood is a nice one. For a somewhat newer neighborhood I like the KenCaryl Valley, way southwest--it's got a particularly Colorado feel to it.

Sue

We live in historic Montclair, in central East Denver. Just west of us is a little neighborhood called Mayfair, which has nice brick bungalows in the $300,000 range. In fact, there are a LOT of homes now for rent and for sale in Mayfair. I think the market here is finally starting to slow down and favor the buyers over the sellers. It seems to be a good time to be real estate shopping in Denver as sellers might be more negotiable now. Good luck.

We lived in Cherry Creek a number of years ago and loved it. We had great neighbors and lots to do in the Denver Area. We still get back to see old friends and it is still a great area. We also like the Ft. Collins Area - a college town and all the stores and things you need and homes are cheaper than Cherry Creek. Just depends on what you are looking for but both are great. Good Luck.

Jillc and BarryK - just stumbled across this old thread. What did you decide?

Haven't moved yet, but thanks for resurrecting this. I bookmarked it so I won't lose it.

We'll be spending a couple of days in Denver the end of March, then heading to Breckenridge to ski.

I've been to Denver many times, and the mountains are indeed gorgeous.

However, I could never live there, as the topography is very flat and brown most of the year with little vegetation. Also, the extremely dry weather causes my nose to bleed and fingers to crack almost every time I'm there. Maybe that could be overcome with a home furnace humidifier, but when traveling on business, that comfort is never available so I suffer dearly.

When living in Denver you learn to never have your water bottle far away, a lot of lotion, and I suspect my grandchildren have never left their house without sunscreen on.

Hey bkluvsNola- While traveling to dry areas we fill the hotel or condo bathtub each night to alleviate dry nasal passages. Not a perfect solution but we notice a difference.

I agree with some other posters, that the brown environment in Denver would get to me. It has the lowest % tree cover of any major metro in the US, outside of Vegas.

Now, when you get to the mountains, I could certainly handle that.

To Denver's credit, they have done great things recently to improve the air quality and get rid of the smog (caused by the geography, not by industry). Also, they are building a mass transit system that will be the envy of many western cities.

Quick correction to the perceived Denver tree situation: in the last century, residents made a concerted effort to plant trees, which makes Denver quite a foliage-intensive city. Of course, all but the cottonwood tree are imported from other parts of the country, and most of the old, magnificent elm trees have succumbed to Dutch elm disease. Nevertheless, Denver is designated Tree City USA and in the summer, it's a quite a verdant place! The plains surrounding it are barren, and most suburban subdivisions have immature trees - there's an advantage to living in the city!

I agree that Denver is making great strides to make the city more "green". I'd put Denver up there in a category with just a dozen or so other American cities that are progressive when it comes to shaping the local environment.

The disadvantage that Denver has was that they started from such a barron point (similar the the surrounding area you referred to). But I agree the residents have really done alot of great stuff to the city!

I loved seeing the little wooden windbreaks on my brother's property a little further north on the prairie in Cheyenne. I wondered what the neat row of wooden Vs were all about. Plant a tree, plant a windbreak around it :-)

Years later, on a return visit, I was surprised how little the tree had grown.

starsville - that is so funny! I had a similar experience.

In a period of 3 years a long time ago, we were transferred from Denver to Minneapolis to Indiana, and then on from there.

About 10 years later, we had a chance to visit Minneapolis and Denver, and see our old yards. The trees we had planted in Minneapolis had grown about 3 feet / year. The trees we had planted in Denver had grown about 5 inches / year.

It is an uphill battle to plant trees on the high plains, but I hand it to the people who give it a go!

As a long term Denver resident I find many of the prior postings interesting, humorous, and, sometimes, a little inaccurate. Unfortunately the smog is caused by too many autos and trapped by geography.

Not sure what a "brown environment" means or describes. Certainly the rural fields are brown in the summer but it is high desert. I would like to see the original source for the "% of tree cover." While I don't doubt that it could be true, I have never heard that before. Denver, not the newer suburbs, has a lot of trees and some areas complete tree canopy over the road.

With 500 miles of bike trails in the metro area and many miles completely off road, it is pleasure to ride. With the exceptions of this winter, we normally ride year around. With the low summer humidity, summer riding is terrific. When I visit the midwest and the SE in the summer, I don't understand how you people can stand to live with all the humidty and bugs. You have to constantly move from AC cars to AC buildings. Outdoor recreational activity is so limited.

We do have some problems with growth rate and access to water will be an increasing problem Greeley and Ft Collins areas have been rated near the top of several "where to live" surveys. Other areas (Colorado Springs, Boulder) make the list in lower positions.

By our standards, some of the older areas in Denver are expensive but when compared to FL, Chicago, CA or other majority metro areas the prices are pretty raesonable. A new neighbor just moved here from Seattle and thinks we are dirt cheap since he bought a bought a bigger house for about 2/3 of what he sold his house in Seattle. And no one has comment on the tax rate. It is fairly low but that also means that we do not have some on the same services as other areas expect.

Traffic flow in and out of the mountains on the weekends is a major problem and getting worse. Solutions are being proposed but none are cheap or quick. Therefore, it would helpful if some of you decide not to move here.

Going to ride today and ski on Monday. It is a good life.

I remember reading / learning in ecology classes that trees (and other vegatation) in high wind climates spend 80% of their energy just battling the wind. There's little energy left for vertical growth. In some areas, trees that are over a hundred years old still look like saplings. That's why there are tall trees in tundras. I thought I "got it" - but didn't actually "get it" when I saw proof of that on my brother's place on the plains.

fmpden -

I don't want to make this into an arborist posting, as that measure of tree "canopy cover" has many nuances (how do you count brush? what about large vs. small trees?)

However, the study I cited is one that is done periodically by both the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management. Cities range from about 5% canopy cover to 55% (Portland, OR). Denver comes in right around 6-7%, very low. But the good news is that the amount of tree cover is growing (no pun intended).

Here is a link with more info: https://www.americanforests.org/down...FrontRange.pdf

I think the main thing is that Denver needs to keep planting trees (will help with the smog) but should not ever strive to be a great tree city... just doesn't have the topography for it. What Denver does have is something that many places don't. Great climate, low humidity, and a view of the mountain just off in the distance....

Wow! I was never aware that Denver had such a dire tree situation until today. When fmpden mentioned the tree canopy over the road, I immediately thought of the Montclair neighborhood and the bike paths along the Highline Canal.

I agree that Denver and Colorado do not have the gorgeous tree-lined highways that you find back east, but the above postings make it sound like the area is treeless. Completely untrue!

The mountains have more of a tree problem with the pine beetle wiping out many of the beautiful forests.

HonestAbe, as I stated I didn't doubt the statistic but don't know what it means. Does it mean that it is desirable to have a high percentage of tree canopy? And exactly what is being measured? Total coverage or number of trees? When I have been in areas with dense canopy, nothing grows beneath it. Not sure that is desirable. To me, it is the type of stat that gets thrown on the table with a negative connotation. It's bad !!!!! Why ??

Forty years ago I worked in the Charlotte NC area with dense tree growth, high humidity, lots of bugs, and I hated it. I need to see the sky once in a while.

Denver was born in a plains environment. There were practically no trees here, before early city planners designed the beautiful boulevards of historic Denver, like 17th St., 6th Ave., Monaco Parkway, Richthofen Parkway, etc. Denver's dry environment can be tough on trees and other landscaping, so it's not a fair comparison to other cities with humidity and lush greenery.

There are still nice homes for sale in historic neighborhoods like Montclair, Mayfair and Park Hill, in the $350,000 range. For that price, you'll find a nice little brick bungalow, or a larger home that's a fixer-upper.
:)>-