U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Boulder area
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
 
 
Old 12-31-2008, 10:28 AM
Status: "Fall is almost over!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,637 posts, read 59,609,548 times
Reputation: 19958

Advertisements

Insomuch as Boulder is a suburb of Denver, what goes for one goes for the other.

Boulder does have a large student population; the Colorado students are mostly from Denver metro. Boulder also has a number of major employers in the Denver metro (IBM, the Federal Labs, etc). It's not nearly so much "college town" as Champaign, IL, to give just one example where I lived for 7 years.

FWIW.

 
Old 01-01-2009, 08:41 AM
 
8,287 posts, read 22,030,562 times
Reputation: 7988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Insomuch as Boulder is a suburb of Denver, what goes for one goes for the other.
Boulder a "suburb" of Denver?

As a concept, this isn't even laughable .... they're physically 30+ miles apart, and a universe apart in many other ways.

Katiana, you couldn't possibly have lived in both places and come to such a conclusion ....
 
Old 01-01-2009, 12:31 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
5,465 posts, read 14,241,712 times
Reputation: 4450
I think "satelite city" is a more appropriate term than "suburb" when it comes to Boulder. Either way, Boulder is NOT a stand-alone city.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 12:36 PM
Status: "Fall is almost over!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,637 posts, read 59,609,548 times
Reputation: 19958
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
Boulder a "suburb" of Denver?

As a concept, this isn't even laughable .... they're physically 30+ miles apart, and a universe apart in many other ways.

Katiana, you couldn't possibly have lived in both places and come to such a conclusion ....
Uh, yes I have (well, I live in Boulder County, 3.5 miles from Boulder, and I have lived in Littleton and Denver). Maybe vegaspilgrim chose the better word, but he and I agree, Boulder is not a stand-alone city. Most of the CU students are from somewhere in the Denver area, for starts. (I am referring to in-state undergrads.) There are lots of people who live in Boulder and work in Denver and vice versa.

Quote:
Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim View Post
I think "satelite city" is a more appropriate term than "suburb" when it comes to Boulder. Either way, Boulder is NOT a stand-alone city.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 06:33 PM
 
8,287 posts, read 22,030,562 times
Reputation: 7988
Quote:
Originally Posted by vegaspilgrim View Post
I think "satelite city" is a more appropriate term than "suburb" when it comes to Boulder. Either way, Boulder is NOT a stand-alone city.
What constitutes a "stand-alone" city?

With Boulder being so far away geographically, with many other communities between them, as well as open spaces, I fail to understand how you'd rate Boulder as ______ (insert your description) of Denver.

While CU certainly has a large group of students from the Denver metro area, it's also home to many out-of-staters who pay substantially higher tuition fees, or who aggressively work to obtain "in-state" status for tuition purposes. As well as many in-state students from across the state attend here, too. Or would you make the same assertion about Fort Collins CSU because it also has a very large student body of Denver metro area folks?

When I attended CU back in the early-mid 1960's, the town was relatively small and the school year population explosion due to the students was very marked. In time, however, the town's core year-round population expanded to make for a much more stable city. But even in 1965 I'd have been unable to make any case that Boulder was a part of Denver in any way, shape, manner, or form.

And, Katiana ... I'm not challenging whether or not you've lived in the localities ... only that you could have done so and come to your conclusion that Boulder is a "suburb" or and "adjunct" or anything else to Denver. It's simply a city unto itself, with residential, industrial, commercial, open space, hospitality and other businesses which are supported by locals. Again, would you make a argument that Fort Collins is a "suburb" of Denver because Denver folks commute to work there, or go there for recreation, or for school? False conclusion in my opinion.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 07:39 PM
Status: "Fall is almost over!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,637 posts, read 59,609,548 times
Reputation: 19958
Quote:
Originally Posted by sunsprit View Post
What constitutes a "stand-alone" city?

With Boulder being so far away geographically, with many other communities between them, as well as open spaces, I fail to understand how you'd rate Boulder as ______ (insert your description) of Denver.

While CU certainly has a large group of students from the Denver metro area, it's also home to many out-of-staters who pay substantially higher tuition fees, or who aggressively work to obtain "in-state" status for tuition purposes. As well as many in-state students from across the state attend here, too. Or would you make the same assertion about Fort Collins CSU because it also has a very large student body of Denver metro area folks?

When I attended CU back in the early-mid 1960's, the town was relatively small and the school year population explosion due to the students was very marked. In time, however, the town's core year-round population expanded to make for a much more stable city. But even in 1965 I'd have been unable to make any case that Boulder was a part of Denver in any way, shape, manner, or form.

And, Katiana ... I'm not challenging whether or not you've lived in the localities ... only that you could have done so and come to your conclusion that Boulder is a "suburb" or and "adjunct" or anything else to Denver. It's simply a city unto itself, with residential, industrial, commercial, open space, hospitality and other businesses which are supported by locals. Again, would you make a argument that Fort Collins is a "suburb" of Denver because Denver folks commute to work there, or go there for recreation, or for school? False conclusion in my opinion.
Last things first: you said I couldn't have possibly lived in both places. I pointed out that I have (well, Boulder County).

Now, back to the top. First, it is about 20 miles from Boulder to the Denver city limits per Google maps. That is not *that* far. It is probably about 10 miles to the western edge of Arvada, which is a Denver suburb beyond a doubt. There is very little open space any more between Boulder and Denver. People live in Denver and its suburbs and work in Boulder, and vice versa. Yes, a few, a very few, people live in Ft. Collins and work in Denver, but that is not the norm as it is with Denver and Boulder.

Re: the student population, that is more of a marker for how dependent Boulder is on Denver (yes, Ft. Collins too, for that matter). With >50% of the population of Colorado living in the metro Denver area, and roughly 65% of the CU undergrad students from Colorado, Boulder is indeed very dependent on Denver for its survival.

Boulder has changed a lot since 1965. If anything, there is more interaction now between the two cities than there was then. Boulder has done a lot to attract businesses, and many people travel to Boulder from the rest of the metro area to work.

Many areas have these "satellite cities" that are neither stand-alone nor completely suburban.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 08:05 PM
 
Location: Denver, CO
5,465 posts, read 14,241,712 times
Reputation: 4450
sunsprit, you have a lot to learn. The open space between Boulder and other Boulder County/ Broomfield suburbs is artificially preserved. It's nothing more than an illusion. If Boulder had not bought that up years ago, without a doubt it would be a continuous, wall-to-wall chain of development. Your sense of history is completely backwards; since 1965 Boulder and Denver have become more and more integrated into one big Front Range megaplex-- not less. Metro areas have a tendency to gobble up nearby towns and cities, just like companies have mergers and acquisitions. And your statement of how Boulder is completely different from Denver is naively simplistic and just plain wrong. Especially when it comes to Denver's gentrified old neighborhoods-- like Washington Park, Platt Park, Highlands, the similarities with Boulder in terms of culture are immense. You appear to be mentally wedded to what I call the myth-- or ideology-- of Boulder, rather than analyzing the facts on the ground.

A good, clear example of a stand-alone city is Grand Junction. Or Rapid City. Or Fargo. You simply cannot be located 30 minutes from the downtown of a metro area of 2.8 million people with pretty much wall to wall development the whole way between other than a thin veil of artificially preserved ranch land crossed by tens of thousands of commuters every day on traffic choked freeways and surface roads and pretend to be a stand alone city.
 
Old 01-01-2009, 08:22 PM
Status: "Fall is almost over!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,637 posts, read 59,609,548 times
Reputation: 19958
Agree, vegas. sunsprit, I now get what you meant about how could I possibly have come to the conclusion I did about the Denver-Boulder relationship? In other words, what kind of a numbskull am I to think that? Yes, I know you didn't say that, just putting it in my own words. Well, I'm going to tell you how.

When we moved to Boulder Co, my DH worked in Golden and I subsequently got a job in Thornton. Our co-workers did not think this at all unusual, nor did our neighbors in Louisville. I worked with several people from Boulder. That was 1982. A number of my neighbors/friends here work in Denver and its burbs. I have met people through my own work, who work in Boulder and live in or near Denver. As vegas says, the two have been moving closer together, not farther apart in the ensuing years.
 
Old 01-02-2009, 08:58 AM
 
8,287 posts, read 22,030,562 times
Reputation: 7988
vegaspilgrim ... so, by your analysis, Broomfield is but a suburb of Denver, and so too, is Fort Collins. After all, Broomfield is but a spot along the way of uninterrupted development from the NW outreaches of Denver ... and so too, Fort Collins ... where the commercial, residential, industrial ongoing development from the Denver area is virtually continuous.

Let's see ... that would make Longmont also a Denver suburb, and with a little bit of a stretch ... Greeley, too, since they're but a modest distance separated from Denver with substantially continuuous development between localities.

IMO, preposterous. They've all grown with their own identity, and are distinctly separate from Denver.

As far as having a lot to learn about the area, I've lived in Boulder (CU dorms, on the Hill, and then South Boulder by ENCAR) through the 60's, North Denver in the early 70's (39th/Federal), and then Hilltop, Wash Park, Downtown Denver (4th/Lincoln), 6th/Marion, 7th/Downing, Englewood, Littleton, NW Denver (Sherrelwood, on Ebony Drive), Park Hill (just off Colfax/Colorado on 16th), and then in KenCaryl (Williamsburg) before moving to unincorporated Weld County (Road #5 at Hwy 52) for 5 years (close enough to Boulder and on the IBM corridor).

There was simply nothing similar about those areas to Boulder's attitudes and "style" other than that people lived and worked in both places. The most significant aspect of Boulder's attitude was that they wanted to limit/restrict growth and accomplished it in such a way as to make it substantially more expensive and exclusive ... a movement that started in the 60's and was championed by Paul Danish starting when he was still a CU student, later a city council member. By limiting Boulder building permits and using public funds for "open space" purchases (which were augmented by "donations" from local landowners), they severely limited the available land. Also, by aggressive zoning policies (and making them applicable after the fact to existing businesses), they've driven various businesses out of the city and now, the county ... can't have those nasty equine or ag based businesses offending our sense of smell or sight, can we, now?

I've seen little $8,000 clapboard bungalows on the South Side of Boulder become $750,000 houses in today's marketplace due to Boulder's policies. I've seen (and personally benefitted from my own investment in 1966) $30,000 three story brick houses on the Hill go up to $180,000 houses within 4 years in the late 1960's; the last sale on that house I bought on 10th St was $1.5 mil and converted back to a single family residence (which meant a lot of restoration investment to be made) from the multiple student housing bedrooms.

I haven't seen such valuation explosion happen in the Denver metro marketplace ... my house in Park Hill, bought for $29,500 (and sold for $85,000 after extensive remodeling/upgrading 3 years later) is still only a $200,000 house now. My KenCaryl (Medema built at $62,500) house is worth around $275,000 today. My little brick house in Sherrelwood, bought for $18,500 (and sold for $21,500 two years later) is still only a "starter" house worth in the very low $100,000 range ... and it was on a large corner lot, fenced in ... unlike the postage stamp parcels of land that prevail in many of Boulder's "working class" blue collar neighborhoods that have now become incredibly expensive.

So, yeah ...vegaspilgrim ... educate all of us, especially folks like me who've "walked the walk and talked the talk" and invested years of our lives, our finances, our businesses, and educated our children in the area for over 40 years as to how Boulder has any aspect that makes it a "suburb" of Denver. There are some similarities, to be sure, but that doesn't make the one a "suburb" of Denver.

At the current rate of growth going South from Denver, you could also assert that Parker, Elizabeth, or heading down I-25 to Colorado Springs would make them "suburbs" of Denver. Again, I'd say your way off base. It may be emerging (Ft Collins-Denver-CSprings) as a regional metro "monster cluster" (somewhat like the Seattle-Eugene, or SantaBarbara - San Diego, or Kansas City-San Antonio, or Orlando-Miami population clusters) ... but nobody would assert that a Wichita is but a suburb of Kansas City, or the Orlando is but a suburb of Miami, etc.
 
Old 01-02-2009, 09:11 AM
Status: "Fall is almost over!" (set 15 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
69,637 posts, read 59,609,548 times
Reputation: 19958
Well, of course Broomfield is a suburb of Denver! Why would you even question that? I thought we were talking about Boulder? As for Ft. Collins, as I said, there are a few, and I mean few, who live there and work in Denver, but the numbers are nothing like Boulder's. Further evidence that Boulder is a part of the Denver metro is that Boulder County is part of the RTD, the SCFD, the baseball stadium district, the football stadium district, etc.

As for the statement below, the "slow-growth" movement in Boulder has taken many forms over the years. The sentiments there now are not like they were in the 60s when you lived there. Most of the Boulderites have at least accetped that they are part of the general society here in Colorado. No one is taling about limiting jobs these days, and hasn't for several years. There are many people in Colorado outside of Boulder who are opposed to growth of any kind; just look around this forum. Some of the most rabid of them on the forum don't live in Boulder, they live in the rural areas, e.g. Sterling.

Boulder has changed a lot since the late 60s. You should be basing your opinions on the present, not the past.

"There was simply nothing similar about those areas to Boulder's attitudes and "style" other than that people lived and worked in both places. The most significant aspect of Boulder's attitude was that they wanted to limit/restrict growth and accomplished it in such a way as to make it substantially more expensive and exclusive ... a movement that started in the 60's and was championed by Paul Danish starting when he was still a CU student, later a city council member. By limiting Boulder building permits and using public funds for "open space" purchases (which were augmented by "donations" from local landowners), they severely limited the available land. Also, by aggressive zoning policies (and making them applicable after the fact to existing businesses), they've driven various businesses out of the city and now, the county ... can't have those nasty equine or ag based businesses offending our sense of smell or sight, can we, now? "
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.


 

Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Colorado > Boulder area

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top