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.
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.
First Point: I didn't call you any names, YOU Labled yourself. If you think you're a "numbskull", then so be it. I won't contest your self assessment.
Point Two: Mobility doesn't equal "suburb". I commuted between Boulder and Denver in the 1960's for work/school, and the cruise down the Boulder toll road certainly didn't make Boulder a suburb of Denver then, or now. No more than it makes Cheyenne a "suburb" of Fort Collins because so many folks make that daily commute to work ... and the time enroute is similar to your Denver-Boulder example. And I know folks who commute from Greeley to Denver for work, but they don't ... and I don't hear you asserting it ... that Greeley is a "suburb" of Denver just because it's also close for commuters. Nor is there any basis to assert that Golden is but a suburb of Denver, yet it's closer to Denver than Boulder and linked by the longest main drag in the USA (Colfax corridor).
Finally, I'd still repeat ... Boulder has gone through a very thorough development of local policies that set it uniquely apart from the local communities around it. As was mentioned many times in Boulder discussions throughout the 60-70-80-90's ... everybody wanted to be the "last person let into the place" and "close the door on anybody else to move in". They all wanted to preserve what they considered to be Boulder's unique blend of neighborhoods, local color and character. The result was to make Boulder a very exclusive enclave of wealthy folks or those who were lucky enough to have bought in when it was nothing more than a small college town (with a big university in the making).
And, yes, katiana, I am looking at Boulder as it exists and operates TODAY. I do enough business there and frequent the place enough to know what goes on there in the business, commercial, residential, industrial, educational, markets. And I get to see friends have to leave because they've been zoned out in the current political arena.
I did not accuse you of calling me names. You did however, imply that I am some sort of fool for not seeing the differences that you see.
Not all of Boulder is a wealthy enclave. Some of it is tacky student apartments like my daughter rented last year. Some of it is old 1950s homes that have become mostly rentals. You are talking about a small part of Boulder that is a "wealthy enclave". There are, as vegaspilgrim stated,wealthy areas like that in Denver as well. Every suburb in the metro has its own government that sets its policies. Everyone has zoning policies to keep their town as they wish to see it. I have lived in many cities across the country, and Boulder is the "same but different" than all these places in that regard.
We're talking about Boulder, not Greeley, or Golden. I happen to think Golden is a suburb of Denver. But that's a topic for a different thread.
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.
Quote:
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.
Take it up with the federal government, not me. The Census Bureau already has defined a "Denver-Aurora-Boulder" Combined Statistical Area which includes Denver, Arapahoe, Jefferson, Park, Clear Creek, Gilpin, Broomfield, Douglas, Elbert, Adams, Boulder, and Weld County. I know it seems scary to think of greater Denver as just about 3 million people and it seems more reassuring to break it up into little bite sized units of stand-alone cities, but that's not reality. That's the fact, the greater Denver is FREAKING HUGE! Don't blame me for asserting this fact-- don't shoot the messenger! And yeah, I think of Fort Collins as the northernmost satelite city of Denver. Larimer county is not yet officially part of the Denver CSA, but it might be included some day. Colorado Springs is not part of it, because Colorado Springs is large enough of its own with its own critical mass that it forms its own stand-alone metropolitan area. Other than Denver, there is no one city in the Denver metro area or the northern Front Range corridor that is big enough to take an identity for the whole region. Boulder, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Greeley are all about the same size, and thus each get swallowed up by the greater Denver CSA.
When it comes to LA, similar situation. I consider everything from Santa Barbara to Palm Springs, from Barstow to Santa Clarita to San Clemente to Temecula as all part of the greater LA CSA, including all possible satelite cities. Greater LA CSA is possibly the largest city in terms of land area and sprawl (although not population) in the world. San Diego, on the other hand, is a big enough city and isolated enough with enough critical mass that it forms a metro area of its own. Look at a google earth satelite view of the entire region, in our case the Front Range corridor, and what I'm saying becomes pretty apparant. In order to make sense of the whole thing, you have to take a step back, a BIG step back, and look at the whole picture. How would an alien from outer space who has never seen Denver or Boulder before look at the picture? Personal built up emotions about the place coming from past residences and real estate sales doesn't affect the physical built reality on the ground.
I Know what you are saying Vegas, and I would actually now agree with you that Boulder is becoming a suburb of Denver in a way for government to idendtify it only...
I personally do not think of Denver and Boulder as the same...I grew up in both the south suburbs of Denver and Boulder (baseline area) everything from fashion trends,politics, and culture is noticably different between the two...Every time I am back up in Boulder I can actually feel the difference without having a conversation...
If you have never lived in Boulder, you might not get it...not trying to sound snobby--
the fact is Boulder while technically becoming a suburb has much less in common than every thing around it...Boulder really is socially 35 square miles surrounded by reality--
the Danish plan in full effect..Boulder is not the most expensive housing area in Denver though that is a myth---zip code wise and county wise yes but..Here is why? Many of the wealthy areas in Denver/metro share the same zip codes with less affluent or even lower income neighborhoods...80206---Cherry Creek North's section of 80206 is much more expensive than Boulder, actually at 1.3 million it's more than twice the price..but
because it shares it's zip code with Congress Park,and a sliver of Capital Hill it lowers
it's average to 450k...Same goes for Hilltop,Country Club,Cherry Hills Village . Highest incomes by zip are all in Denver--by County it is Douglas County--one of the highest in nation, but I digress,, Boulder also has it's own regional transportation hub in which seperate Boulder city busses connect locally ,,,even some of the busses their run on alternative fuels,,,Boulder has more things in common with Denver than differences, but it has less in common with the rest of the metro than any other town..Of course some of the differences are education levels are highest in Boulder--highest in nation,entrepenuership (think I mispelled that) is also highest--outside capital --by proportion is the highest in Boulder-- more than other burbs --the University and it's entities, mainly jobs create more of a local economy for Boulder region..No other suburb has the university infrasrtucture to match CU...Last but not least Boulder is just plain wierd..Just kidding,
I love Boulder..it is and will always be one of my favorite places---As far as racist, cliquish,snobby... and all that... I feel that is an entirely incacurate portrayal of the city..That may describe a few communities in the OC. that I have lived in though..
Last edited by Scott5280; 01-02-2009 at 12:31 PM..
I should have read your post more closely---yes Vegas Boulder is a satelite city--
and the two are not interchangeable---thanks for pointing that out...
All of you have great points, but I'm going to throw my two cents in, as somebody who is still fairly new to CO.
IMO, Boulder is somewhat of a standalone city. I agree with vegaspilgrim, in that it could be considered a satellite city.
Here are some of my reasons:
-It could probably survive on it's own without being connected to Denver, either by highway, or nearly constant development. Boulder didn't grow or prosper because of its proximity to Denver. CU and other industry (namely tech) in Boulder allow it to help stand on its own. If Boulder were 30 miles further away from Denver, I wouldn't see it being any less prosperous a town. (Fort Collins-Loveland, Greeley and Colorado Springs all stand alone, and don't need Denver to survive, those crazies that commute from those places are the exception, not the rule)
-Denver metro cities like Aurora, Lakewood, Thornton, Arvada, HR, et al, all grew because of their proximity to Denver and its economic base. I don't think Boulder is either close enough, or has enough in common with those "other suburbs" to be considered one itself.
-85% (census 2000) of Boulder residents work in Boulder County.
Here are some lesser reasons IMO:
-Entering Boulder on US 36 while descending the hill into town, you feel like you are entering a different world.
-KBCO says Denver-Boulder when giving it's callsign. KOA gives the temperature for each during weather updates.
Where the others stand:
-I would say Broomfield and Westminster could be considered suburbs of both Denver and Boulder.
-Lafayette, Louisville, etc. IMO could be considered suburbs of Boulder.
Other examples of satellite cities:
-Newark, NJ/Bridgeport, CT for NYC
-Anaheim, Riverside, San Bernardino for LA (I grew up in Riverside and NEVER thought of it as a suburb of Los Angeles)
-Gary for Chicago
-Tacoma for Seattle
Disclaimer for satellite cities: They have to be small enough to not be twinned (or tripled). St. Paul, Fort Worth, Oakland, San Jose, etc are good examples of twinned cities (IMO). (I hope Aurora meets that criteria, someday ) Satellite cities have to be considerably/noticeably smaller than the main city in the metro and need to at least somewhat stand on their own.
I agree with a lot of what you said, David, but I don't think Boulder could survive on its own, at least not in its present form. A lot of its residents work in Denver or the burbs. It's very interdependent on Denver. Satellite city is a good description.
I'm going to add to my satellite city requirements:
-Needs to be less than 1/3 the population of the main city in the metro.
-Needs its own non-free daily newspaper, in Boulder's case, that would be The Daily Camera.
Last edited by Count David; 01-02-2009 at 06:10 PM..
Reason: changed word
I did not accuse you of calling me names. You did however, imply that I am some sort of fool for not seeing the differences that you see.
Unfortunately, Katiana, you did exactly that. You put words in my mouth (and meaning I did not make) by stating that you'd put into words what you believed I meant.
My original point which you've apparently had great difficulty understanding, was, having lived extensively in all of the areas under discussion, how anyone could see them all as the same in light of the OP's thread here. The economics, the restaurants, the arts, the schools, the businesses, the public spaces, the zoning control of people's lives (and businesses), the "attitude" of the locals ... most of the factors that directly influence the perception of livability in an area ... are so totally different between a Littleton and Boulder as to defy comparability.
We can, as vegaspilgrim has, brought in all kinds of analysis and demographics which totally miss the point of the thread. (I don't need to "shoot" vegaspilgrim as the messenger ... the FED study message he's introduced to the thread bears no relationship to the thread question) What makes Boulder different in a certain way?
One thing that makes Boulder substantially different is the large population of "trustafarians". There's a big difference in how folks live their lives when they receive a 6-figure income without fail (and without work) compared to folks who actually need to EARN a living. This certainly won't be reflected in pure income per household statistics, but it's a huge demographic distinction in how people conduct their lives and spending patterns ... and, IMO, a large factor in Boulder's "attitude" by many folks.
Not all of Boulder is a wealthy enclave. Some of it is tacky student apartments like my daughter rented last year. Some of it is old 1950s homes that have become mostly rentals. You are talking about a small part of Boulder that is a "wealthy enclave". There are, as vegaspilgrim stated,wealthy areas like that in Denver as well. Every suburb in the metro has its own government that sets its policies. Everyone has zoning policies to keep their town as they wish to see it. I have lived in many cities across the country, and Boulder is the "same but different" than all these places in that regard.
Now this is a very interesting concept. Take a look at what the property values are for those 1950's homes that (you assert) are mostly rentals, or a bunch of the student targeted apartment housing. I think you'll find that comparable housing can be had in many areas OUTSIDE of Boulder city limits for significantly much less money.
When I, as an investor, see apartments selling per unit at prices that are breathtaking compared to other units of comparable quality/condition/sq footage in college rental markets (ie, South Vine by DU area, several in Ft Collins), I know that the Boulder market is very strong in this regard. The days of a student being able to make a modest down payment on a multi-family unit and rent out the rest to make cash flow (or, at least the payment) on the place are long long long gone.
In real terms, this works out as a "wealthy enclave" throughout Boulder. Real working folks with normal incomes cannot afford to buy in Boulder. The problem isn't much different from mountain resort towns in Colorado, where the working class lives elsewhere from the town center from where they derive their incomes.
If Boulder was so "affordable", I'll bet you wouldn't have located 3.5 miles out of town ....
We're talking about Boulder, not Greeley, or Golden. I happen to think Golden is a suburb of Denver. But that's a topic for a different thread.
Really? I'll bet most folks in Golden don't think so.
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.
And yeah, I think of Fort Collins as the northernmost satelite city of Denver. Larimer county is not yet officially part of the Denver CSA, but it might be included some day. Colorado Springs is not part of it, because Colorado Springs is large enough of its own with its own critical mass that it forms its own stand-alone metropolitan area. Other than Denver, there is no one city in the Denver metro area or the northern Front Range corridor that is big enough to take an identity for the whole region. Boulder, Fort Collins, Longmont, and Greeley are all about the same size, and thus each get swallowed up by the greater Denver CSA.
) Satellite cities have to be considerably/noticeably smaller than the main city in the metro and need to at least somewhat stand on their own.
