[olecapt]

Originally Posted by Buzz123

By that logic every state is urban since every state has at least one city. If people congregate in a certain area, that is called an urban area. Outside of that is called rural. Nevada has about 1,000 square miles of urban areas where people congregate, and 109,000 square miles of practically empty, non-urban, e.g. rural, areas. To me Nevada is way beyond 'mostly' rural, and almost every state east of the Rockies is mostly urban since you can't drive five miles without coming to another town, e.g. urban area. If Nevada is 'urban' because of Las Vegas and Reno, then Alaska must be urban because of Fairbanks, Juneau, and Anchorage. I have no idea where that would leave Texas. Anyway it makes sense to me.

People who live in Urban areas have quite different demographic parameters than people who live in rural ones.

The feds define urbaness by the population that lives at various densities...ie how may people per square mile where the people actually live. Only a small part of Nevada's population live in areas with population densities that are not urban. We get something like 90% of the population living in areas with urban population densities. That percentage is higher only in NY and CA.

The result is that Nevada's demographic behavior is that of a city rather than a rural area.

[htmlfamily]

Originally Posted by MS1

But what about Pahrump!! Sorry, I got carried away there....

oR zzyyx...

[Buzz123]

Originally Posted by olecapt

People who live in Urban areas have quite different demographic parameters than people who live in rural ones. NO SH**? I never would have known that if you hadn't of told me.

You're talking down to someone who lived and died by the TV ratings for most of his adult life.

The feds define urbaness by the population that lives at various densities...ie how may people per square mile where the people actually live. Only a small part of Nevada's population live in areas with population densities that are not urban. We get something like 90% of the population living in areas with urban population densities. That percentage is higher only in NY and CA.

The result is that Nevada's demographic behavior is that of a city rather than a rural area.

And that is why northern Nevada hates us, and we barely know they exist. But I like to look at Nevada as a geographical location, and the fact that outside of those roughly 1000 sq. miles where the population is condensed into, there is fewer than 1 person per square mile in the rest of the state. Las Vegas isn't the only thing in Nevada.

If you use the systems set up by the eastern elite that have no clue when it comes to the west, you'll believe that the MSA they set up for Las Vegas includes Kingman, AZ, which is over 100 miles of dry empty desert away, and doesn't watch Las Vegas television. (Which probably has little to do with what we are talking about anyway. Ha, ha.)

[dynimagelv]

[quote=Buzz123;4192112Kingman, AZ, which is over 100 miles of dry empty desert away, and doesn't watch Las Vegas television (Which probably has little to do with what we are talking about anyway. Ha, ha.)[/QUOTE]

Actually they do....my aunt and uncle are GLUED to chanel 8............

[New West 2020]

Nevada has simply grown fast, developed and redeveloped itself, and is now grappling with urban problems like everyone else in the fast-growing west. We first started investing there in the 70s and have done well. The opportunity for business and investing is still wide open for those in the know, and its a great time to deal on property.

One intersting thing that stands out in Vegas is the huge number of service workers, mostly unionized, that live in the city and hail from all over the world. Some perceive this as a huge ghetto underclass, but that is not a fair assessment. Sure there is crime, but its not fair to point fingers at the hardwarking and legal immigrants who keep the visitor industry alive.

Vegas will undoubtedly survive and thrive, if the water doesn't run out.