fmpden -

Excellent question. The reasons that a higher tree cover % is desired has everything to do with soil and environmental health. It actually has little to do with aesthetics.

Higher tree cover is an indicator of better soil structure, balanced soil moisture levels, cleaner soil and air, cleanear water, etc. More often than not, an area where trees can grow can sustain most other types of vegetation, and the opposite is also true.

The other reason you want a higher cover number is that it improves air quality and, much more importantly actually, improves the water quality by cleansing storm and other runoff.

So, to we conservation types, the higher the better on the number. However, I know many people like you who love the front range for the exact reason that you can see the "big sky".

Honest Abe, I was kind of baiting you because I figure your response was going to be that more tress are better. I am not sure you can sustain that premise. I would agree that more trees are better if it is appropriate. They didn't call this the great prarie from nothing. I grew up in the sandhills of Nebraska where great environmental thinkers of the late 1800s believed that the only thing wrong with the sandhills was the lack of trees. The results was a disastrous program call, "Timber Claim." You could obtain a section of ground if you agreed to plant a quarter to timber. The sandhills were never designed to grow trees. Nor was it designed for the plow but that is another whole discussion.

Just to say more trees are better and Denver needs more trees is not supportable. Given our current water situation we could use a few more brown lawns and fewer water soaking cottonwoods or Russian Olives. Denver does just find with the trees they have. If you want tree cover, move to Charlotte --- IMO !

Personal preference on having a green, lush landscape vs. a drier brown, more dramatic landscape is purely subjective. We'll agree to disagree.

But how could it be a bad thing to have cleaner air and water? Seems like a universally accepted "good thing" to me.

""Colorado is a dryland ecology, nd with the rapid growth of population and urban areas here, it's vitally important to recognize the full environmental and economic value of urban trees. When impervious surfaces expand, tree cover needs to expand to compensate" - Gary Moll, vice president of urban forestry at American Forests.

Just to clarify, I'm not suggesting that Denver needs to get up to 30, 40, of 50% canopy cover like some other metros. But I do think focusing on growing the tree cover with species that can thrive there (like you guys have already been doing a great job of) is an effort worth continuing.

Did that mean - "More concrete added, more trees needed?" - or something like that?

Pretty much. As you add concrete, you take away grass and brush, add cars, furnaces, etc. to the mix.

The only way to negate the negative effects is to make a concerted effort to keep the tree population stable (or increasing).

Easier to do in Minneapolis or Seattle than in Denver or Las Vegas.

I honestly don't see the appeal of Denver. It would seem that if you were a mountain type person that had to go skiing all the time, then living in Seattle would fit the bill. A great, green environment yet access to the mountains.

I don't agree that the climate in Denver is mild. I was in Denver in early January after one of those snowstorms, and the high for the day was 1F with windchill probably -20. There was no sun that day and it was bitter cold. It can also get up to 100 degrees in the summer, and because of the altitude, the sun feels stronger up there.

Denver is a Great Plains city with access to mountains (Front Range is just tilted high portion of the sloping Great Plains). The Great Plains are known for being an extreme environment characterized by lots of wind and variable weather.

Once you cross into the mountains, however, everything changes.

While it was 1 degree in Denver when I was there, it was actually 20 in Aspen. The Rocky Mountains actually blocked the extreme arctic air from penetrating into cities like Aspen.

bk - people who have lived here 40+ years (i.e., all their lives) agree that this has been a horrible AND unusual winter. This is my 17th winter here and I've never seen anything as cold and snow-covered. Sure, if you were here on a day it barely got to zero, I can see where you might think every day of every winter is like that. Generally, many winters days are like they were today: sunny and in the 50s-60s. That's a lot warmer than where I grew up in Boston! I have never needed winter boots, for instance, for going to work. I abandoned my long winter coat from Boston many years ago. I'll take a Denver winter any time over one in an east coast or mid-west city!

I am willing to take the conversation off-line since it really has nothing to do with relcating to Denver. I enjoy the discussion because it is one that is on-going in this area. I assume, HonestAbe is not a resident of the area or have a lot of experience with the Denver environment.

<<<<Personal preference on having a green, lush landscape vs. a drier brown, more dramatic landscape is purely subjective.>>>>

I am not sure that should be personal preference. Along the front range, a lush landscape with KY blue grass and lot of plantings mean that you are pumping a lot of processed water. The focus should be living within the environment of a high desert plain. The application of xeroscape should have a high priority. It doesn't surprise me that someone in the foresty business think we should be planting urban trees. And we probably should to a limited degree. There are no "native species" that thrive on the front range. If it thrives in the city is because we planted it and we water it.

We have many of the trees that we have because Mayor Speer traveled to Paris a hundred years ago and decided that is how we should look. Since they had no idea which tress would grow, they literally planted block after block with the same trees. And then shift to another species for a few more blocks. Makes for an interesting neighborhood of trees until Dutch Elm showed up. Then whole blocks of Elm trees were lost.

The trees we have are fine and we replace what we loss but am not sure we have programs to plant more.

But none of this answers the original question. And I don't think having a 5% tree cover is a negative.

Lived in Denver for a year. So, while not a long-term resident, I did see 4 seasons.

I like alot about Denver, don't get me wrong. It is one of the few cities I would consider moving to someday, although I'm not actively trying to to relocate there or anything.

To me, the dull barren high plains are more than offset by what lies just a couple hours to the west :)

Funny all this talk about trees.... to me, the dry high plains without alot of trees is part of Denver's character. Agree that you don't just want to assume that growing trees is necessary everywhere.

You don't have to get far west and you start getting into forests.

And I'm not an authority on this, but I would suspect trees would help the smog issue. However, if they don't want to grow there, why force it? Focus on what you have.

Trees will not have much of an impact. Our smog is caused primarily by three factors. Our problems starts with car since we don't much heavy industry, then Denver sits in a river basin area which traps the snog, and then the altitude lets the sun work better on the O3 which increases the smog. BUT it is not very bad. A few days in the winter is the extent. We do not have prolonger periods of smog. We let our LA cousins worry about that.

bkluvsNola said, "I honestly don't see the appeal of Denver. It would seem that if you were a mountain type person that had to go skiing all the time, then living in Seattle would fit the bill. A great, green environment yet access to the mountains. "


bk - Seattle would NOT fit the bill for me. A couple of things important to me, which you are overlooking, are abundant sunshine and a decent (i.e., warm) summer.

I've lived in a couple of always-cloudy, frequently-drizzly locations (Pittsburgh and Syracuse,) so Seattle would not fit the bill for me.

BarryK,

Then what about living in a city like Sacramento or Reno? Greener than Denver with plenty of sunshine yet close to Lake Tahoe (one on the west side of the Sierras and the other on the east). Definitely a warm summer too...

Although Dutch Elms may not be native to the high plains, neither are parking lots or shopping centers.

Where those shopping centers were built was once open fields, and now there is little absorption into the soil. Trees help with that.

bkluvsNola, I got it, you don't like Denver. I don't have a problem with that - to each his own. But I can't believe anyone would recommend Reno over Denver. I was there once and I couldn't wait to get out of the place. I also remember seeing parking lots and shopping centers in Reno. I'll take a wild guess here, but I don't think those features are unique to Denver.

Seattle and Reno over Denver?! Time to put this thread to bed.

huh? I get the absurdity of Reno, but I think there are quite a few people who would take Seattle over Denver.

And they are probably living in Seattle. Good.

Car...I understand your appreciation of trees. I grew up in Ohio and my heart is still there. However, I never realized that I never saw much when living in the midwest- until I moved to Denver. Now I can see forever and I love it! We'd not see the mountains if we had trees. It comes with the territory. I prefer it.

There are some reasons I can think of moving to Reno instead of Denver, including no state income tax, cheap cost of living, closer proximity to mountains than Denver (no traffic getting there either), and little possibility of weather getting in the way of activities, whereas Denver can get a blizzard that stalls everything.

Also, Sacramento offers even more than both, greenery in the winter (nowhere to be had in Denver), proximity to mountains, close to California attractions such as Yosemite, Wine Country, San Francisco, and the coast.

That being, said I personally don't like Reno that much, but if I were a skiing fanatic, it might make sense.

Sacramento seemed to me to be a place I could actually live, whereas I would never consider Denver.

Maybe I just don't understand the lure of Denver. People tell me it's the mountains and sunshine, but to me there are far better places that have mountains nearby and plenty of sun.

I just found out one of my best friends is moving to Denver...
They have 6 kids and will be working in Aurora.
What's a good affordable area for a large family.
Great public schools, commuting distance and a 3500 SF newer house w/big yard? I would imagine they want to stay within a 400,000.00 range.

Aurora is very large. Lots of new housing developments there, probably many that are good for a large family. You can get more square footage for your money in Aurora, than in old Denver, usually. Some very nice homes off Parker Road, heading southeast. If that's not technically Aurora, it's still commuting distance.
:)>-

Not sure where they are coming from but $114/sq ft is not a realistic figure for new housing in the Denver area. Obviously the further out on the eastern plain that you go will be cheaper. And large yards are not a common characteristic of new housing the area. Large yards are expensive to maintain because of the climate. They need to spend some time in the area so that they have a realistic understanding of the area.

TxTravelPro - you might have them look in Parker,too, just for more options.
Betsy

I had to laugh at some posts. I grew up in Denver and lived also in Aurora, Englewood, Gunnison, Colorado Springs and Englewood again. Unfortunately I now live in the Seattle area. I miss the views and drier air and the 4 seasons. I don't like the grey skies for 10 months and too many trees (they block the views)and no skiing--awfull snow!! What they call a resort here is a joke!!
I would love to move back to Denver or anywhere in Colorado. I consider the weather great because after it snows the sun comes out! With the summer breezes we didn't even need air conditioning.
I would only consider the south or southeast part of Denver. Littleton is all shopping centers and traffic. I love Cherry Creek shopping area but it is not as nice as it was years ago due to congestion. I also lived in Wyoming (tooo backwards) and MN (too hot and humid).

It appears they have settled on Castle Rock.

Littleton is all shopping centers and traffic -- ????

You have to be think of somewhere else. Outside of Aspen Grove and some off of Federal, I don't think there is another shopping center in Littleton. And you have been on main street in downtown Littleton is some time.

I was thinking the same thing fmpden!

I live near Littleton and have no idea what is meant by traffic and shopping centers, My comment should have been that she has NOT been in downtown Littleton. In fact I think the congestions towards the SE -- Parker, Highlands Ranch, Castle Rock -- is worse but since I avoid that area my assessment may not be completely accurate.

I can't agree with these statements, either:
"With the summer breezes we didn't even need air conditioning. I would only consider the south or southeast part of Denver. Littleton is all shopping centers and traffic. I love Cherry Creek shopping area but it is not as nice as it was years ago due to congestion."

Our summers nowadays are much hotter, so we do have to turn on our A/C, although we resist it as much as possible. Our ceiling fans do a great job at night, but some afternoons I relent and turn on the A/C when the sun is really beating down. I know it wasn't this warm when we moved here in the early 70s. (Can you say global warming??)

Also, we live near Cherry Creek. It's not especially congested, and is still my primary shopping center. But it's expensive housing around there.

Only to consider the south and southeast part of Denver is the biggest misstatement IMHO. I don't think the poster knows Denver today, to say that. There's Stapleton, Lowry, lots of new neighborhoods North. In fact, if the OPs territory includes Cheyenne and Jackson, maybe they should be looking primarily north. There are some nice towns north of Denver, like Niwot and Hygiene, too.

And yes, Parker road going southeast is a bear. My son does it twice a day from our house to school, so we know it well.

Other than that, her praise of Denver is well made!
:)>-

" With the summer breezes we didn't even need air conditioning"

I've been to Denver in the summer and you need air conditioning. There's a reason air conditioning is standard in new homes there.

I think that statement applies to Seattle more than Denver. Seattle is definitely a city where you don't need air conditioning.

I don't like the rain in Seattle, but I can't stand the dryness of Denver, so if I was forced to choose (and thankfully I haven't had to make such a choice), I'd pick Seattle.

I also can't understand who would not like to look at beautiful tall trees. They also help for shading, which helps keep homes cool in summer.

There should be no debate that Seattle and environs are far prettier than Denver and environs. Giant trees and greenery or a flat brown landscape....

bkluvsnda, I glad you been here in the summer so you can share your expectise with us old farts who have lived here for the past 30 to 40 years. Stay in Seattle, What you have stated is pretty superficial observation that the majority of Denver/Colorado residents would disagree with. If look to the east, pretty flat and brown especially in late summer. Look to the west, it is a magnificent view -- rugged snow capped mountains, green forests, unsurpassed skiing, great hiking. and sun shine most of the time and not the gray overcast of Seattle. And yes, you can avoid air conditioning in the summer but does require careful management of your house. Sometimes we get lazy and run it for a couple of hours in the late afternoon. Not like the midwest where turn your AC on in May and off in October. So let us that live here make the recommendations for moving even if the posting is about 18 months old.

AND you would think that Denver had no trees!!
AC is a necessity--dry or not. And 300+ days of sunshine doesn't hurt. Just as well he/she is in Seattle. Probably drives 35MPH in the left lane on I25 too. ;o)

<<...or a flat brown landscape....>>

Not exactly the Denver I know. Monday was what I consider a typical, fall day in Denver. Sunshine with a crystal clear blue sky, trees in red & gold & the mountains in the background covered with fresh snow. It was stunning. It was a pleasure driving to work with that view right in front of me.

Sorry Gretchen, I have to disagree with AC being a necessity. It is nice to have, but I only use it sparingly, mainly in July, and I turn it off at night, open the windows and enjoy the cool night air.

I'm glad I found this "Denver" post. I live in North Carolina, the Raleigh area. My husband and I will be moving to Denver in later 2008 because we want to. We're in our 50's. We don't ski but we want some kind of "view". It was between the ocean and the mountains for us. We visited Florida and hated all the sunshine and heat. We'd like a little more "mix" of seasons. Couple of comments...........(although I really hate to bring up trees again), trees aren't what they are cracked up to be. I was raised in Texas with only mesquite trees so didn't get much exposure there, but have lived in NC for 20 years now and yeeeegads I get so tired of not being able to SEE, for goodness sake. Each to his own, really. But for me, I'm ready to ditch these trees and head somewhere you can actually SEE something off in the distance. Thanks for all your comments here but I'm really having problems finding places where I can read good valuable advice for people moving to the area, other than house prices and trees. For instance, a move across country holds some challenges. I'd be interested to know how many of you just picked up and went because you'd studied Denver and wanted to be there and if so, were there pitfalls along the way you could caution about? Also, I'd love to maybe meet a "penpal" of sorts in that area who could make themselves available to answer questions as they arise. Does anyone know of any good Internet sites (safe Internet sites) where we could perhaps meet people online from Denver??

nhinson: You can email me if you would like at [email protected]

OMG... Denver is awesome. We feel the residents of Denver are darned lucky to live there!
My whole family lives in NE Texas so I am stuck here for some years to come. I may never be able to live there, but Denver (IMO) has it all. Beauty, perfect climate, nice people, flat land, mountains, water, good weather, trees, excellent restaurants, good shopping, good airport... I could go on and on.

TxTravelPro: Denver is nice, but it's not perfect.
Somethings that are really nice are: 1.Lots and lots of sunshine 2. excellent views, you can see for miles 3. very few bugs, you can leave your doors open all summer.4. although there can be a lot of snow, the next day is usually a beautiful sunny day. 5. Even in winter you usually only need your heavy jacket in the morning.

nhinson - I moved to Colorado to work at a ski area the winter after college(1975). Moved away for grad school but eventually moved back (1980). I think the biggest thing I miss is the ocean so many of our vacations head in that direction. By the way, we have no a/c but live on 5 acres at the top of a hill. It does get hot in the summer(July), late afternoon. Why don't you start a new thread if you have more questions.