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.
Some also call Boise and Salt Lake City the next Portland. Austin Texas was its own size and kind of weird for awhile but it is becoming more Portland sized and the weird might be getting more similar too. Spokane might try similar hopeful marketing as well but that seems far less likely to happen even in a hyper stretch comparison than it might have seemed 10-20 years ago.
Minneapolis might be the "other Seattle". More simultaneous growth than follower but quieter.
State level densities can be tricky because the states have different levels of virtually empty space. But there can be big differences in economies / lifestyle between a state density below 25 per square mile, around 50, 100, 250 or way higher. At state level Oregon is at about 40 per square mile, Colorado 50, Washington almost 110, Cali 250. Most western states are low to way low compared to most of Northeast states and much of the Midwest and south. The dividing lines between too small, big enough and too big will vary from person to person.
Is that a simple equation of population to total square miles? Or does it only include inhabited land?
Some also call Boise and Salt Lake City the next Portland. Austin Texas was its own size and kind of weird for awhile but it is becoming more Portland sized. Spokane might try to do so as well but that seems far less likely than it might have seemed 10-20 years ago.
Minneapolis might be the "other Seattle".
Yeah Boise and SLC will definitely get crazy crowded as well in the next few years. Milwaukee's "next Portland" title came from the similarities between the cities. Population, size, open space, nature, industry, vibe, etc. When I come home to visit, I seriously feel like I am in Portland from the early 2000s. It obviously has a lake, and doesn't have mountains, but the city itself is pretty identical. You can still pull off the whole, "Where people in their 20s go to retire", thing. I also like how both cities rely heavily on lift bridges within the metro.
And just like how people from LA "ruined" Portland...the Chicagoans are starting to do the same thing to Milwaukees best neighborhoods.
Physical geography definitely affects how a place feels and who is attracted to it. Density does too in a more subtle way. Density especially downtown density affects ability to recruit high wage jobs and see double scoops of hip restaurants, bars and specialty shops, many national name concerts every weekend, etc.
Putting geography aside for this comparison, one could say Denver went from being the "next Kansas City" (in past, long ago until mid last century) to pretty comparable to modern Kansas City and Minneapolis metros in size now and perhaps in the future to the "next Dallas"? That is a possibility that would be too much for my tastes. But unless they beat or almost beat aging / death I'll be gone, really gone, before Denver truly becomes fully like present day Dallas (i.e. metro of over 6 million people).
I have read several of the posts above with great interest and some with great horror when I imagined Colorado with a population the size some of you have postulated. But Colorado is not Iowa where one of our faithful posters has assured us it rains 16 months at a time. Colorado and the rest of the West is not getting even the amount of precipitation and the cooler temperatures it once enjoyed. Economists and demographers MUST take this in mind when estimating population changes everywhere, not just in Colorado.
People, people, people - what part of "water" don't you understand? H2O - two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Man can create water in the science lab, but otherwise, water is a finite substance. Use it all up and there are not a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms somewhere, leering at one another and getting ready to create little baby water drops.
Right now Lake Powell is only 42% full - the lowest it has ever been. Despite the fact that Colorado and other Western States had good snow pack this winter (for a change), the flow of the Colorado River right now is estimated by some at only 87% of normal. Why should we care about Lake Powell or Lake Mead which exists mainly to bring joy to the hearts of the gamblers in the casinos of Las Vegas, swimming pools to Phoenix and, water for rice farms in California? Because Colorado is one of the 4 "upper basin" - that's Colorado River Basin, BTW. As such, Colorado and the others must ensure that Lake Mead gets a certain amount of water (OUR water) each year. This water from the Upper Basin States is collected by the Glen Canyon Dam, and we must release water from Lake Powell/Glen Canyon if Mead calls for it even if we don't have enough water ourselves.
In 1996 23 million people were dependent upon the Colorado. By 2020 - a mere 4 years from now - 38 million will depend upon the Colorado. Now what will happen if climate change continues to proceed at its current pace, no matter how many people keep their eyes tightly shut, their fingers in their ears, and sing "la-la-la" as loud as they can? At the very least, a few will have to climb out of the pool since the pool is going to be dry. And just how well will the people and politicians in Denver re-act if Phoenix demands that we drain Glen Canyon as they have the perfect right to do under the Colorado River Compact? If it were me up here in Colorado facing such an arrogant demand by the people of Phoenix, I'd dust off my old Ed Abbey books, find me some like-minded friends, and if we had to, I'd help blow up a structure here and there to ensure that that Colorado's water stays right here where it belongs. And I'm only a mild mannered, retired librarian...
Needless to say, I was just having some fun in the paragraph above, and I do NOT advocate blowing up ANYTHING (except Washington DC, of course). But consider what will happen if the Lower Basin States call in their cards due to drought (gee, what drought?), and according to the Law of the River, many water projects in the state of Colorado will be adversely impacted, to put it mildly. For example, diversions from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project to Front Range cities like Denver and Colorado Springs would drop from 500,000 acre feet to 70,000. Even a far less dramatic drop would still have an adverse impact on Colorado's growth. Colorado's boosters, real estate agents and economists need to get out of the meeting rooms and up into the mountains to start counting stands of trees dead from drought and the explosion of pine beetles nutured as never before by our increasingly warm winters.
If you have half a brain and you love Colorado and want to see it grow, go for some long hikes in the mountains and look, really LOOK around you. And we have not even begun to address the problem. I hope the millenials wake up soon.
POWELL CONTINUES TO EVAPORATE
Last edited by Colorado Rambler; 05-13-2016 at 04:27 PM..
Reason: fact checking
I have read several of the posts above with great interest and some with great horror when I imagined Colorado with a population the size some of you have postulated. But Colorado is not Iowa where one of our faithful posters has assured us it rains 16 months at a time. Colorado and the rest of the West is not getting even the amount of precipitation and the cooler temperatures it once enjoyed. Economists and demographers MUST take this in mind when estimating population changes everywhere, not just in Colorado.
People, people, people - what part of "water" don't you understand? H2O - two molecules of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Man can create water in the science lab, but otherwise, water is a finite substance. Use it all up and there are not a bunch of hydrogen and oxygen atoms somewhere, leering at one another and getting ready to create little baby water drops.
Right now Lake Powell is only 42% full - the lowest it has ever been. Despite the fact that Colorado and other Western States had good snow pack this winter (for a change), the flow of the Colorado River right now is estimated by some at only 87% of normal. Why should we care about Lake Powell or Lake Mead which exists mainly to bring joy to the hearts of the gamblers in the casinos of Las Vegas, swimming pools to Phoenix and, water for rice farms in California? Because Colorado is one of the 4 "upper basin" - that's Colorado River Basin, BTW. As such, Colorado and the others must ensure that Lake Mead gets a certain amount of water (OUR water) each year. This water from the Upper Basin States is collected by the Glen Canyon Dam, and we must release water from Lake Powell/Glen Canyon if Mead calls for it even if we don't have enough water ourselves.
In 1996 23 million people were dependent upon the Colorado. By 2020 - a mere 4 years from now - 38 million will depend upon the Colorado. Now what will happen if climate change continues to proceed at its current pace, no matter how many people keep their eyes tightly shut, their fingers in their ears, and sing "la-la-la" as loud as they can? At the very least, a few will have to climb out of the pool since the pool is going to be dry. And just how well will the people and politicians in Denver re-act if Phoenix demands that we drain Glen Canyon as they have the perfect right to do under the Colorado River Compact? If it were me up here in Colorado facing such an arrogant demand by the people of Phoenix, I'd dust off my old Ed Abbey books, find me some like-minded friends, and if we had to, I'd help blow up a structure here and there to ensure that that Colorado's water stays right here where it belongs. And I'm only a mild mannered, retired librarian...
Needless to say, I was just having some fun in the paragraph above, and I do NOT advocate blowing up ANYTHING (except Washington DC, of course). But consider what will happen if the Lower Basin States call in their cards due to drought (gee, what drought?), and according to the Law of the River, many water projects in the state of Colorado will be adversely impacted, to put it mildly. For example, diversions from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project to Front Range cities like Denver and Colorado Springs would drop from 500,000 acre feet to 70,000. Even a far less dramatic drop would still have an adverse impact on Colorado's growth. Colorado's boosters, real estate agents and economists need to get out of the meeting rooms and up into the mountains to start counting stands of trees dead from drought and the explosion of pine beetles nutured as never before by our increasingly warm winters.
If you have half a brain and you love Colorado and want to see it grow, go for some long hikes in the mountains and look, really LOOK around you. And we have not even begun to address the problem. I hope the millenials wake up soon.
POWELL CONTINUES TO EVAPORATE
I do think the biggest threat to the world isn't global warming, terrorism, its something that nobody will admit. Overpopulation. The Earth might be getting warmer, it might be humans fault. There are also 7x as many people today as there were 200 yrs ago. The vast majority are living in poverty and they still have basic needs. Cheap sources of fuel are wood and coal. A Tesla does them no good. Cut down a forest for fuel and agriculture/grazing. Fewer trees to take in the CO2.
That being said you are correct. The Western snowpack has been pretty average the past few year....its just that more people are drawing on it now. The vast majority are farmers. Not sure if you have been to the San Jaquan Valley or not, but Im not sure Oranges, Peaches, Avocados, Almonds....should be growing in the desert.
I do think the biggest threat to the world isn't global warming, terrorism, its something that nobody will admit. Overpopulation. The Earth might be getting warmer, it might be humans fault. There are also 7x as many people today as there were 200 yrs ago. The vast majority are living in poverty and they still have basic needs. Cheap sources of fuel are wood and coal. A Tesla does them no good. Cut down a forest for fuel and agriculture/grazing. Fewer trees to take in the CO2.
That being said you are correct. The Western snowpack has been pretty average the past few year....its just that more people are drawing on it now. The vast majority are farmers. Not sure if you have been to the San Jaquan Valley or not, but Im not sure Oranges, Peaches, Avocados, Almonds....should be growing in the desert.
Well, there you go, Sammy! Miracles do happen. For once I am in (almost) complete agreeement with you. Too many people all trying to get the same too few resources are going to cause the human race more and more trouble. Pretty soon there will be shootings over highly desirable condos in Denver. Maybe I'll just keep hiding out here in Cortez after all.
Diversions of water previously available or used in agriculture are what has been done for about 150 years on the front range. I have the impression that that the municipal water takers feel pretty confident they will be able to meet the urban demands for water in most places thru 2040 or 2050. Maybe it gets a lot tougher later but I doubt front range growth in general falls short of projections due to inadequate water before 2040 or 2050. There is so much water currently used by ag that can and probably will eventually get bought up. Conservation gains are also still quite possible and likely. But further climate change might make things tougher or a lot tougher. Even then I'd still bet that a large share of the growth still happens, just forcing some further buys and conservation measures. Front lawns may go before the houses and the people in them stop being added.
Last edited by NW Crow; 05-14-2016 at 10:20 AM..
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.
But consider what will happen if the Lower Basin States call in their cards due to drought (gee, what drought?), and according to the Law of the River, many water projects in the state of Colorado will be adversely impacted, to put it mildly. For example, diversions from the Colorado-Big Thompson Project to Front Range cities like Denver and Colorado Springs would drop from 500,000 acre feet to 70,000. Even a far less dramatic drop would still have an adverse impact on Colorado's growth. Colorado's boosters, real estate agents and economists need to get out of the meeting rooms and up into the mountains to start counting stands of trees dead from drought and the explosion of pine beetles nutured as never before by our increasingly warm winters.
Well, there you go, Sammy! Miracles do happen. For once I am in (almost) complete agreeement with you. 
Too many people all trying to get the same too few resources are going to cause the human race more and more trouble. Pretty soon there will be shootings over highly desirable condos in Denver. Maybe I'll just keep hiding out here in Cortez after all.
