Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-21-2007, 05:18 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
753 posts, read 758,984 times
Reputation: 175

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by nickjs View Post
I've not been to Boulder, CO - how does it compare to Seattle? I've read a bit on these posts about Denver and the surrounds being one big sprawl. Does Boulder escape this?
I can't really say as I've not spent much time in Boulder. It is a university town and most of the people I hear from really like it, particularly the outdoor types. But the Denver area does sprawl quite a bit. Even though it's approx. the size of Seattle, Seattle has geographical limitations to its spread.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-21-2007, 07:54 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Denver/Boulder is no more of one big sprawl than Seattle. Seattle has a hellish climate, in my opinion. That is probably the wrong word b/c it is rainy, dreary, drippy and sunless about 10 mo a year. Yeah, you can get to snow from there, but it doesn't snow much in the city at all.

Does Boulder escape sprawl? Well, the Boulderites, especially the city leaders, like to think so. They put on these growth controls back in the late 1970s, just as the Baby Boomers were getting old enough to start buying homes and having families. They restricted the number of homes that could be built, they set up some crazy, now-defunct "point" system that encouraged energy conservation (supposedly), that really encouraged building tiny condo complexes, etc. They considered capping job creation a while back. So what happened? People moved to the outlying areas. Louisville, Lafayette and Longmont grew tremendously; Superior went from a few hundred people to a few thousand in a few years' time. Sadly for Boulder, these cities developed their own shopping resources and reduced Boulder's tax intake, as well. Frankly, I think while they shot themselves in the foot, it's better this way. Otherwise, most of us in Boulder Co. would be living in a sprawled out Boulder. PS: The job-restriction thing never flew. 9/11 got in the way and a recession ensued, and there was no more talk of it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 07:56 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
I can't really say as I've not spent much time in Boulder. It is a university town and most of the people I hear from really like it, particularly the outdoor types. But the Denver area does sprawl quite a bit. Even though it's approx. the size of Seattle, Seattle has geographical limitations to its spread.
So does Denver. To the west are the mountains, where fewer people want to live. Boulder itself sits right at the foot of the mountains.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 09:09 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
753 posts, read 758,984 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
Denver/Boulder is no more of one big sprawl than Seattle. Seattle has a hellish climate, in my opinion. That is probably the wrong word b/c it is rainy, dreary, drippy and sunless about 10 mo a year. Yeah, you can get to snow from there, but it doesn't snow much in the city at all.
.
Hey you know Pitt, chill. I'm sure Denver's a very nice city.

But it's only a fact that Denver sprawls more than Seattle. With nearly the same population, Seattle sits on 88 sq mi of land while Denver sits on 154. And Denver has even more room to spread eastward. Seattle doesn't.

As for the weather, well, it's a matter of choice. The Cascades get some of the heaviest snowfall in America.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 09:23 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Why can't Seattle go eastward?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 09:43 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
753 posts, read 758,984 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
Why can't Seattle go eastward?
Answer: Lake Washington. Beyond that: the Cascades.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Which seem to be a fair distance from the city proper.
Seattle:
City 142.5 sq mi (369.2 km²)
- Land 83.87 sq mi (217.2 km²)
- Water 58.67 sq mi (152.0 km²)
- Metro 8,186 sq mi (21,202 km²)
Elevation 0–520 ft (0–158 m)
Population (July 1, 2006)[1][2]
- City 582,484
- Density 6,901/sq mi (2,665/km²)
- Metro 3,876,211

Denver:
- City & County 154.9 sq mi (401.2 km²)
- Land 153.3 sq mi (397 km²)
- Water 1.6 sq mi (4.1 km²)
- Metro 8,414.4 sq mi (21,793.2 km²)
Elevation [1] 5,280 ft (1,609.3 m)
Population (2006)[2] [3]
- City & County 566,974
- Density 3,642/sq mi (1,406.2/km²)
- Metro 2,408,750
- Metro Density 286/sq mi (110.4/km²)

Stats from Wikipedia

There's a little of apples to oranges here b/c they don't give the pop density for Seattle metro though someone could do the math if they wanted to. Metro areas are similar in size. I guess Seattle just packs in more people on postage stamp sized yards. I do know traffic in Seattle can be bad and people have long commutes. Housing is crazy expensive there, so to get affordable one has to live a ways out.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 10:05 AM
 
5,758 posts, read 11,636,388 times
Reputation: 3870
Seattle's metro area has nearly 4 million people, which is quite a bit larger than Denver.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Haddington, E. Lothian, Scotland
753 posts, read 758,984 times
Reputation: 175
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittnurse70 View Post
Which seem to be a fair distance from the city proper.
Seattle:
City 142.5 sq mi (369.2 km²)
- Land 83.87 sq mi (217.2 km²)
- Water 58.67 sq mi (152.0 km²)
- Metro 8,186 sq mi (21,202 km²)
Elevation 0–520 ft (0–158 m)
Population (July 1, 2006)[1][2]
- City 582,484
- Density 6,901/sq mi (2,665/km²)
- Metro 3,876,211

Denver:
- City & County 154.9 sq mi (401.2 km²)
- Land 153.3 sq mi (397 km²)
- Water 1.6 sq mi (4.1 km²)
- Metro 8,414.4 sq mi (21,793.2 km²)
Elevation [1] 5,280 ft (1,609.3 m)
Population (2006)[2] [3]
- City & County 566,974
- Density 3,642/sq mi (1,406.2/km²)
- Metro 2,408,750
- Metro Density 286/sq mi (110.4/km²)

Stats from Wikipedia

There's a little of apples to oranges here b/c they don't give the pop density for Seattle metro though someone could do the math if they wanted to. Metro areas are similar in size. I guess Seattle just packs in more people on postage stamp sized yards. I do know traffic in Seattle can be bad and people have long commutes. Housing is crazy expensive there, so to get affordable one has to live a ways out.
Honestly Pitt, I'm here to answer our UK-based friend's question. If you want a stat-for-stat pissing match about two very fine cities, I'll gladly leave you to it.

Enjoy yourself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2007, 12:52 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,759,995 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by FistFightingHairdresser View Post
Honestly Pitt, I'm here to answer our UK-based friend's question. If you want a stat-for-stat pissing match about two very fine cities, I'll gladly leave you to it.

Enjoy yourself.
Honestly, FistFightingHairdressr: Maybe you need to calm down. All I did was present some stats that Denver is not the sprawly, ugly city you think it is compared to Seattle. Unlike opinions, both yours and mine, the statistics are not biased. He can see for himself and make his own choices.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 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 > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 09:44 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top