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)
View Poll Results: Are the Western states in their entirety that are developing too fast?
Yes there's many states developing too fast and there's not enough undisturbed places 28 36.84%
Most portions of the West developing at about the right, sensible pace 23 30.26%
There's many portions of the West that could be developing faster 25 32.89%
Voters: 76. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-24-2019, 11:14 PM
 
Location: Katy-zuela
4,966 posts, read 9,155,764 times
Reputation: 2482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94 View Post
To us westerners Chicago is an eastern city.
It's east of the Mississippi River, so it's definitely an eastern city.

Anything between the Mississippi and the Rockies is questionable. Houston and the other major Texas cities are an eastern cities now, but many regarded it as western cities in the past. Oddly, the entire state of Texas (largest land area of any U.S. state) lies in this zone.

Houston being in the Central time zone and on the Gulf of Mexico cemented it's eastern reputation.

The Western U.S. is not overcrowded since the bulk of the population is stuffed in California and the other Western states cannot match California in population. There is a lot of empty land and miles between towns in the West!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-26-2019, 07:08 PM
509
 
3,297 posts, read 4,248,463 times
Reputation: 4010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
Wow, yeah that is a pretty drastic change over a generation or 2. So the areas that are quiet now must have been simply devoid of almost all people a couple decades ago.
Pretty much...but it didn’t feel “devoid” of people. It felt good to be miles and miles from towns and cities.

Some of the darkest night skies I remember were on the lower Colorado River. When I went there after I retired there were searchlights all over the sky from the casino’s.

It is sad what we lost in the west.

PS....the west starts west of the Continental Divide down south....and west of the Missouri River up in Montana and Dakota’s.

Unfortunately, as this thread shows....each generation establishes it OWN baseline, never realizing what was lost.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2019, 12:33 PM
 
Location: Denver
3,338 posts, read 2,765,926 times
Reputation: 2438
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
Pretty much...but it didn’t feel “devoid” of people. It felt good to be miles and miles from towns and cities.

Some of the darkest night skies I remember were on the lower Colorado River. When I went there after I retired there were searchlights all over the sky from the casino’s.

It is sad what we lost in the west.

PS....the west starts west of the Continental Divide down south....and west of the Missouri River up in Montana and Dakota’s.

Unfortunately, as this thread shows....each generation establishes it OWN baseline, never realizing what was lost.
My reasoning here though is that if I want dark skies, there's still plenty of areas out west where I can get that. It may be 1 hr further away than it used to, but I can still get that. I can still go to areas 2 hrs away from Denver and be the only person there for square miles. On the flip side, I can now fly to places like Eugene OR, or Vernal UT direct, I can get a VRBO practically anywhere there's houses, and I have practically every trail available on my phone.

To me, the things that were lost by development are still available 2 ridge lines away, but there's plenty of benefits that came with the development. Even if by 2200 Colorado filled up so every valley was inhabited, there would still be empty areas in western UT and central NV. I just don't see the entire west ever being all filled up.

Boundaries of what cultural region is what are always shifting as culture is not static.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-27-2019, 06:07 PM
509
 
3,297 posts, read 4,248,463 times
Reputation: 4010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
My reasoning here though is that if I want dark skies, there's still plenty of areas out west where I can get that. It may be 1 hr further away than it used to, but I can still get that. I can still go to areas 2 hrs away from Denver and be the only person there for square miles. On the flip side, I can now fly to places like Eugene OR, or Vernal UT direct, I can get a VRBO practically anywhere there's houses, and I have practically every trail available on my phone.

To me, the things that were lost by development are still available 2 ridge lines away, but there's plenty of benefits that came with the development. Even if by 2200 Colorado filled up so every valley was inhabited, there would still be empty areas in western UT and central NV. I just don't see the entire west ever being all filled up.

Boundaries of what cultural region is what are always shifting as culture is not static.
Yep, your absolutely correct from a human centric perspective.

But from an ecologically point of view....we have lost a LOT in the west since 1970 due to human population growth.

Lots of urban people can exist without a natural environment. That doesn't mean we should destroy the remaing wildlands in the world.

Just my perspective as a Forester.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-28-2019, 07:12 PM
 
Location: Denver
3,338 posts, read 2,765,926 times
Reputation: 2438
Quote:
Originally Posted by 509 View Post
Yep, your absolutely correct from a human centric perspective.

But from an ecologically point of view....we have lost a LOT in the west since 1970 due to human population growth.

Lots of urban people can exist without a natural environment. That doesn't mean we should destroy the remaing wildlands in the world.

Just my perspective as a Forester.
Definitely valid.

However I think the general US growth rate will slow down here over the next 40 years so there shouldn't be as many people to move around as there has been in the past 40. Also, I'm impressed at how much wildlife there is in even suburban / rural areas of the country. I've mentioned this before, but I've been amazed that there's a couple elk, a moose, and herds of deer wandering through Black Forest CO, which is almost entirely developed of 5 acre residental parcels. It seems that animals and people can coexist some as long as there's not too much barb wire and big dogs chasing things away.

Since you're a Forester, I'll ask, what are your top 2 national forests / mountain areas you'd recommend to visit that are east of the Cascades and not in CO or AZ (I've seen those ones) with interesting plants and cool geology?
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

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.
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top