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.
Yeah, but what is the population density from Provo to Logan? Granitestater stated "any flat location in the Salt Lake City region has been developed, or will quickly be built out using current density parameters", it seems they were focusing on that part of the state and not the rest where very little people want to live.
That is what I was referring to. The corridor from Ogden to Provo (and even north and south of that core area is quite crowded and will become excessively crowded in just another few decades given population age demographic projections and trends over time, (even with out-migration) of some people leaving the area. I did a work project when I lived in a different state and we had UDOT as a client for a transportation related engineering matter. The amount of development and investment of NEW infrastructure in populated areas of the state is quite massive, and people not familiar with Utah or those that haven't visited in a few decades would find the overall level of development to be shocking at best. I don't think it can be sustained there in its present format for much longer, there will be changes in zoning, land use, and development- all will incorporate more Geographic Information Systems, (GIS models), for future plans.
As of 2015 data:
Weber County, UT- 422.9 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Davis County, UT- 1,124 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Salt Lake County, UT- 1,491 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Utah County, UT- 287.1 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
So, you might not think those density numbers are that high, but population growth rates are about the highest in the US, so Utah is a state of contrasts- with some remote areas with few people, 60-65% federal government owned lands, and very urban yet sprawled out Wasatch Front where nearly 90% of the total state population lives.
Last edited by GraniteStater; 03-03-2017 at 05:32 PM..
Lower cost of living and no income tax. That's really all it is. Not to mention the fact that the growth is centered around it's big cities like Houston, Austin and Dallas and not the rural areas.
Right. In other words, what people say is most important to them when anwering a poll is not what's really most important to them when times comes to make life decisions involving their personal finances.
That is what I was referring to. The corridor from Ogden to Provo (and even north and south of that core area is quite crowded and will become excessively crowded in just another few decades given population age demographic projections and trends over time, (even with out-migration) of some people leaving the area. I did a work project when I lived in a different state and we had UDOT as a client for a transportation related engineering matter. The amount of development and investment of NEW infrastructure in populated areas of the state is quite massive, and people not familiar with Utah or those that haven't visited in a few decades would find the overall level of development to be shocking at best. I don't think it can be sustained there in its present format for much longer, there will be changes in zoning, land use, and development- all will incorporate more Geographic Information Systems, (GIS models), for future plans.
As of 2015 data:
Weber County, UT- 422.9 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Davis County, UT- 1,124 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Salt Lake County, UT- 1,491 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
Utah County, UT- 287.1 people per square mile, FACTORING IN mountainous areas, national forests, marshes, and lakes within the county.
So, you might not think those density numbers are that high, but population growth rates are about the highest in the US, so Utah is a state of contrasts- with some remote areas with few people, 60-65% federal government owned lands, and very urban yet sprawled out Wasatch Front where nearly 90% of the total state population lives.
I live in Davis county and there are still tons of vacant lands toward salt lake and antelope island still to be developed. Almost all of salt lake valley is completely developed with the exception of the very south (herriman) and very west by kennicot copper mine, in another 5 years it will be completely developed.
There are many good jobs here and col is still manageable. The climate is rather good and the accessibility to the mountains is far better than Colorado. Violent crime is low and restricted to a few area. The mormons leave us alone and don't impact our lives what so ever. Only negatives are inversions and mass homeless population.
Right. In other words, what people say is most important to them when anwering a poll is not what's really most important to them when times comes to make life decisions involving their personal finances.
I look at it as more people have to sacrifice certain amenities they want for other amenities they want pretty much deciding what is more practical for their situation. If everyone could live in an affordable area with good schools and good health care than they would move there in a heartbeat but such places are rare if they exists at all. And it would ultimately defeat the purpose as COL would eventually rise due to the influx of people.
I live in Davis county and there are still tons of vacant lands toward salt lake and antelope island still to be developed. Almost all of salt lake valley is completely developed with the exception of the very south (herriman) and very west by kennicot copper mine, in another 5 years it will be completely developed.
There are many good jobs here and col is still manageable. The climate is rather good and the accessibility to the mountains is far better than Colorado. Violent crime is low and restricted to a few area. The mormons leave us alone and don't impact our lives what so ever. Only negatives are inversions and mass homeless population.
Well, different people like different things. Fast growing areas that are already too crowded is not a recipe of high quality of life in my opinion. For reference, I live in a county with 250 people per square mile, and I find it too crowded much of the time.
I'm pretty leery of these kinds of lists, because the criteria are weighted to reflect the personal bias of the persons doing the survey. Let's look at Texas in this ranking:
I mean where do you weight the criteria? In cost of health insurance relative to local cost of living? In terms of access to A hospitals? In percentage of local hospital within 10 miles of a hospital? In terms of prenatal care? I mean, a great deal about a state's ranking is subjective.
I look at it as more people have to sacrifice certain amenities they want for other amenities they want pretty much deciding what is more practical for their situation. If everyone could live in an affordable area with good schools and good health care than they would move there in a heartbeat but such places are rare if they exists at all. And it would ultimately defeat the purpose as COL would eventually rise due to the influx of people.
And the point is that what amenities people say is most important to them in surveys matters less than what amenities they actually choose to seek or sacrifice in reality.
I'm pretty leery of these kinds of lists, because the criteria are weighted to reflect the personal bias of the persons doing the survey. Let's look at Texas in this ranking:
I mean where do you weight the criteria? In cost of health insurance relative to local cost of living? In terms of access to A hospitals? In percentage of local hospital within 10 miles of a hospital? In terms of prenatal care? I mean, a great deal about a state's ranking is subjective.
Texas has a significantly broader and more diverse job base than Alabama. It's not even close. If you're a professional in a major metro area of Texas, you will have a high quality of life. What drags the state down are illegals and poor communities. If you aren't in either one of those communities, the score goes up by default.
Texas has a significantly broader and more diverse job base than Alabama. It's not even close. If you're a professional in a major metro area of Texas, you will have a high quality of life. What drags the state down are illegals and poor communities. If you aren't in either one of those communities, the score goes up by default.
What you are saying is to not look at the state of Texas, but cities within Texas.
What you are saying is to not look at the state of Texas, but cities within Texas.
Redefining terms.
Exactly. People are going to great lengths and to small ones as well -- such as simply not reading the methodology -- simply in attempts to reject and invalidate what the rankings report. Kill the messenger.
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.
