
Why Invest in Cities? There's Always Another Boise - jseliger
https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2018-04-18/growing-midsize-cities-like-boise-could-replace-urban-future?cmpid%3D=socialflow-twitter-view&utm_content=view&utm_source=twitter&utm_campaign=socialflow-organic&utm_medium=social
======
aclimatt
Not the crux of the article, but:

> This doesn't mean that they, or the even higher-cost, more congested coastal
> metros, will adopt Manhattan or Tokyo-style density and transit patterns.
> Instead, Austin and San Antonio might be the new Houston and Dallas.

My goodness, can we /please/ stop this false dichotomy that a city either has
to be a Tokyo megalopolis or a suburban sprawlfest?

I don't think any reasonable person is advocating to turn San Francisco into
Manhattan, even though that seems to be what everyone is scared of. Clearly
the OP has never left the US.

Average density in Paris: ~6 stories. Barcelona: ~4 stories. Most cities in
Germany: 3-5 stories. Moscow: maybe 6-7 stories.

Maybe those aren't perfect by a story or two, but point being, there IS a
sustainable growth model, and it's a lot more than SF and LA's paltry 2 story
average height, and certainly less than the skyscrapers of Midtown Manhattan
that everyone is so scared of. You only have to look across the ocean to see
it, and until the US realizes this, Boise et al. will just become another
congested, sprawling, expensive suburb with an increasingly poor quality of
life. If you want to live in the not-countryside, then density is the only
sustainable model.

EDIT: And to respond to what I think the crux of the article actually is, that
we'll never invest in sustainable urban planning because there will always be
another inexpensive 100k population town that we can ruin instead, well that
sure is a losing attitude. There probably is some truth there, and it makes me
sad. Sure, it'll take a while for the coasts to get their act together, but
let's continue to promote a vision of what a viable and sustainable solution
looks like for America's cities. Any comparisons with Tokyo or the next
Manhattan is just furthering a destructive narrative which, for the record, is
what got San Francisco in this mess in the 1980s in the first place.

~~~
closeparen
Is Manhattan considered a mistake? I ask because, despite being one of the
most desirable residences and tourist destinations in the world, everyone is
deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that someone might want to
replicate it elsewhere. Am I missing an unspoken “never again” moment? Is
everyone who travels to New York doing it to revel in their hatred of the
place?

There’s not nearly enough Manhattan to meet the demand to live in such a
place, and I fail to see why we shouldn’t make more of it. San Francisco’s
economic power and landlocked geometry seem ideal for doing so.

~~~
maxsilver
> Is Manhattan considered a mistake

It's not so much a 'mistake' as it is an instant feeling of "no living thing
could ever afford Manhattan". It's like a physical manifestation of the
saying, "no one ever goes there anymore, it's too crowded".

> (Manhattan is) one of the most desirable residences and tourist destinations
> in the world, everyone is deathly allergic to even the slightest hint that
> someone might want to replicate it elsewhere.

Sure, absolutely. And Lamborghinis are some of the most desirable cars in the
world. But if you told everyone in Milwaukee that all other cars were being
destroyed ('upzoned' into Lambos) and all Milwaukee citizens would be forced
to buy a Lambo or never drive in Milwaukee again -- residents would be
freaking out in a similar way.

Personally, I actually _like_ high-rises. I like the look, I like the use of
space, and I like the lifestyle. But even as a person with a decent tech
income, I could never afford to live in one (in any city, anywhere in the US).
And I would be terrified if my city became even 10% more similar to Manhattan,
because people already struggle to afford living here as it is.

Try telling families that can't afford $200k-$300k houses that their city
should "be like Manhattan" and they hear "you should be paying 1 million to 4
million dollars for a 3 bed apartment, just like Manhattan".

~~~
inferiorhuman
> no living thing could ever afford Manhattan

I stayed for a week at a hotel in Midtown, in February for about $80/night.
Not a great hotel, but there were no bed bugs, rodents, or roaches. That's
well below what most folks consider the median rent to be in San Francisco.
Plus someone cleaned the place every day.

~~~
subway
Hotel Penn is damn near the only place you'll find a rate like that, and if
that's where you stayed, it sounds like you got one of the nicer rooms.

~~~
inferiorhuman
It was the Watson near Columbus Circle. The room probably hadn't been
redecorated in the better part of thirty years, but I'd happily stay there
again.

------
dmode
The fundamental problem with American cities is that Americans failed to
recognize them the core engine of growth and prosperity as they are. Instead
cities are viewed through a political lens. This NYC's problems are to be
solved by the city/county and San Francisco's are to be solved by their local
city/county politicians. The Federal government, which takes in 30% of income,
chips in a very limited manner. Investing in cities such as these are often
viewed as "helping a blue city" and this Fed infrastructure money is spent on
building Army bases in rural areas that doesn't provide any return for that
investment. Similarly many city dwellers do not recognize the economic
importance of the city they live in and the role of the cities in driving
growth, reducing poverty etc. Thus they hang on to things like "neighborhood
character" and height limits to reduce growth. This is very different in many
other countries, and especially Asian countries. There Central governments
realize the value cities bring to the national economy and thus investments
are prioritized. Look at China and how much investment the Chinese government
puts in their big cities. Same with Japan, Korea, Taiwan, UAE, India etc.
Indian government prioritized building expressway link between it's
megacities. They also funded the Delhi Metro project.

~~~
stonogo
This is not just an oversimplification, it is also incorrect. Military
installations are put in rural areas because nobody wants artillery practice
to happen near their houses. That money comes from the DoD, not generally
classed as 'infrastructure spending.'

Futhermore, all interstate freeways are built with federal investment, and HUD
is heavily involved in funding development of low-income housing nationwide --
this is also subject to staggering amounts of NIMBYism. Mass transit is even
worse -- there are major American cities who want to build, and have lined up
federal funding, only to be blocked by state government intervention on behalf
of more NIMBY. Baltimore's Red Line is the most recent example of this that
springs to mind.

So yes, this _is_ very much a problem for city and state politics to solve --
the federal government can't invest without their cooperation.

As for comparisons to Asian cities, I can only thank God that we don't handle
our development that way here. Our rural residents have enough problems
without repeating the mistakes of India here.

~~~
chrischen
I’m not sure you can bundle India with the likes of Japan. Two totally
different levels of development.

~~~
wemdyjreichert
For what it's worth, Japan is hardly a model. Huge suicide rates and elderly
so lonely they turn to petty crime just so the can go to prison, along with a
rapidly aging and shrinking population. A lesson, yes; a model, no.

~~~
eecsninja
I wish people would stop spreading these half truths about Japan.

Japan's suicide rate is not significantly higher than that of Finland,
Argentina, and the USA. South Korea is the one developed Asian country that
has a notably high suicide rate.[1]

And yes Japan's population is shrinking and aging, but that is mostly a
rural/inaka phenomenon. Tokyo is actually growing in population and manages to
have lower rents than SF, NYC, London, and HK. Not to mention a meticulously
run rail system that puts the NYC MTA to shame.

[1]
[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate)

------
niftich
The article's point is that the churn of spillover-boomtowns will continue:
once the current crop of towns starts getting built out and accumulating
problems like unaffordable housing, nightmarish traffic, lack of easy
greenfield land to develop with cookie-cutter houses on tiny lots and giant
office parks, the developers will find the next wave of towns to exploit,
probably long before most of the human misery materializes in the one they
just left behind.

Boise/Meridian/Nampa may be the flavor of the day now, but by the time you're
commuting from Fruitland because you couldn't afford a home in Boise, the
region will have become just another dusty built-out suburban disaster buoyed
by but a handful of overinfluential employers -- like Tucson -- and you'll be
reading articles about whatever buzzword is being used for the new generation
moving to Hermiston and Hickory and fortunately-placed small towns no one has
never heard of. This is not at all different from the cycle of suburbs that
plays out within every metro [1][2][3].

[1]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880084#11880734](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11880084#11880734)
[2]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13665669#13666473](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13665669#13666473)
[3]
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16744401#16746390)

~~~
Rapzid
It's interesting how much blame you attribute to the developers. I would lay
this squarely at the feet of city planners and voters; they hold all the keys.

~~~
niftich
It's both. City planners are constrained to their own jurisdiction, so they're
trying to come out ahead by ensuring that the next wave of growth doesn't
leave them behind. They're trying to solve a local optimization problem, where
their competition is often the neighboring localities with whom they will
share the wider trend of whatever the future may bring, but the resulting
wealth will be allocated depending on exact settlement and zoning patterns.
It's a prisoner's dilemma.

Meanwhile, developers -- as a loose cohort -- are absolutely the executors for
the nationwide phenomenon. Their loyalty is to not to the land or their
products, but to the cycle of plan, build, and profit. Wherever they are,
they're deeply entangled in local politics, and lobby the local officials to
let them build homes on farmland to be upzoned. They leave behind subdivisions
that don't actually generate enough revenue to the town to make up for their
hookups to utilities and services, but the population growth looks good for
the town in reports that businesses look at to expand or relocate.

Just like a B-roll of the cities now scrambling to attract Amazon, these
suburbs are hoping they'd be picked instead of the town one over when some
company with national pockets wants to build a 200-job call center, data
center, or distribution warehouse. In mainstream America, these tiny battles
between neighboring towns are fought and lost thirty, fifty jobs at a time.

~~~
closeparen
The availability of housing probably does encourage household formation and
childbirth, so you're right, developers share in the blame. But if you take
population growth as a given, some kind of housing development is necessary,
and there's an ironclad bipartisan consensus that it had better not be the
urban kind ( _especially_ not near existing urban centers). I hate cookie-
cutter greenfield subdivisions as much as anyone, but we get them because they
are what we allow at scale.

------
baron816
The sad thing is that trying to increase density in places like SV isn’t just
about taming housing inflation, denser places are also better places to live.
I think there are lot of people out there who would like living in a place
like Brooklyn Heights, where you have 3-5 story row houses (small enough for a
single family) that are connected together along a tree lined block, with
shops, restaurants, and bars within walking distance. Governments won’t even
allow you to build a neighborhood like that anymore.

~~~
mcguire
Yes and no.

I can recognize the advantages of such a neighborhood, but about 25 years ago,
I decided I can't handle listening to my neighbor's stereo at 2:30 in the
morning.

~~~
AlphaSite
Then live in a modern building with real sound proofing, not something built
60 years ago, when it was t even on people’s minds.

~~~
gambiting
Maybe it's reversed in US, but I find the exact opposite here in UK - a house
from 1930s will offer much better sound insulation that any new build with its
cardboard-thin walls separating properties.

~~~
cgy1
Definitely my experience in the U.S. also. Buildings are built to meet minimum
code, including the amount of sound allowed to pass through walls between
units. Minimum code is nowhere near good enough to block any amplified
music/sound, much less if you're unfortunate enough to share a
wall/floor/ceiling with a neighbor with a powerful subwoofer.

------
hn_throwaway_99
I wonder if this trend will result in further stratification of American
society. I mean, we've always had enclaves where rich people lived and poorer
people lived, but they generally used to be at least nearby each other in
large metros.

Now, though, this city stratification feels like a multi-layer sieve. E.g. San
Francisco is still a super-desirable city to live, if you can afford it, so
the people who can't get pushed to mid-tier cities, and then in those mid-tier
cities poorer people get pushed out as the city gets less affordable. The
whole SF Bay Area -> Austin -> (now still less expensive cities like
Chattanooga, Pittsburgh, etc.) fits this pattern.

~~~
bilbo0s
By the time the "GENT-rification" reaches Chattanooga and Pittsburgh though,
it's become something more akin to "SQUIRE-ification". The people moving in
are not nearly as wealthy, so people are not really being pushed out in the
numbers that they are pushed out in places like Manhattan or San Fran.

It's the difference between a few thousand hundred-thousandaires moving in, as
opposed to a few thousand millionaires and billionaires moving in. There
really is a material and nontrivial difference in the housing market ripples
resultant from these two hypothetical immigrant waves. Far fewer people, if
any, wind up displaced in the third and fourth tier cities that the hundred-
thousandaires move into. Developers operating in these cities simply can't
afford to remake the markets the way you can in the larger cities. The numbers
typically don't allow for it. Whereas in the first tier cities, the market in
entire swaths of these cities can be remade and become astronomically
unaffordable in a matter or 5 or 10 years. And the numbers in that large
market make it very profitable for a developer to do so.

~~~
closeparen
>"The people moving in are not nearly as wealthy, so people are not really
being pushed out in the numbers that they are pushed out in places like
Manhattan or San Fran."

Backwards! Third-tier cities have contracted from their 20th-century peaks, so
easily commutable lots and even homes are simply vacant. They're affordable to
mere hundred-thousandaires because they're drowning in supply (though it might
need some work). Displacement doesn't happen as much because abundance means
you can get your own spot without taking someone else's.

The crappiest apartments in the San Francisco neighborhoods that time forgot
are still insanely expensive next to national norms. No development is
necessary for sufficiently high migration (against sufficiently low housing
stock) to create a capacity crunch, and you're just as evicted when you're
outbid by $500 vs. $5000.

------
pm90
This article misses an option I've seen used by the city which I live in:
Austin, TX.

Instead of building a serious mass transit system, the city encouraged the
greenfield development of high density urban clusters outside the downtown
region. So the companies moving in now have option to be located in the
Downtown or the "New Downtown" (called the Domain).

I think this has been a very successful strategy. But it depends on whether
you can convince enough people/companies to move to the alternate high density
development.

~~~
nikofeyn
i think you’re being generous calling austin’s city development and urban
design even a “strategy”. austin for a long time didn’t want to grow at all,
so they did everything to basically discourage it. then growth was forced on
the city, and they’ve had to scramble to try, unsuccessfully, to catch up.
that’s why there’s a double decker highway that doesn’t really help the
traffic, an expensive highway that goes around the city that no one uses, a
highway with practically no exits that goes through people’s backyards, an
expensive train that no one uses and is almost pointless, no way to get across
the city quickly, hardly any bike lanes in a city where bicyclists are
plentiful, and more and more. austin is a poster child for how to not design
and develop city infrastructure.

~~~
StudentStuff
The train is expensive cause no one bothered to land bank for it, ditto for
the freeways running through people's backyards. The lack of planning I saw
when I visited Austin was astounding, but it is cultural at this point.

Just look at transit in Austin, its nearly a mile to get to a damn bus stop
from the Apple campus, and even at peak service is spotty and extremely slow.
Busses need to have priority, and be set up to feed your rail system (which is
extremely small and needs serious expansion). The current system in Austin
will never approach 70% ridership like Seattle or anywhere near it without
major changes.

------
Splendor
As a result of the recent growth Boise now has the 7th largest income gap in
the nation[0]. And the median home price recently shot up $11k in one
month[1].

[0]:
[https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/migration...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-19/migration-
from-pacific-coast-drives-boise-wealth-gains)

[1]:
[http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article208855154...](http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article208855154.html)

------
tptacek
What I don't get about this is: why Boise? Are people just moving there for
the scenery? There are major US metros with affordable housing and much better
job markets.

There's a sort of implied dichotomy in this article: major metros are too
expensive, so people will move into a succession of mid-sized towns. But, no:
a couple major metros are too expensive. Others, like Miami, Chicago,
Cleveland, Atlanta, DFW, and Houston are comparably affordable --- several of
them are cheaper than Boise!

~~~
lotsofpulp
Weather is a big factor. Personally, if I'm going to live somewhere cold,
there better be some nice skiing options, and there are none in the eastern or
middle states. Also looking to minimize humidity.

Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities are
also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago.

I also think being outdoors-y is in vogue with tech and other high earners,
which is also better on the west coast. It all comes down to quality of life
and the type of people you want to be around, which I guess the other cities
you mentioned can't compete in.

~~~
moorhosj
==Government finances are also a concern, many of the east and middle cities
are also loaded up with tons of debt from years ago.==

Can you explain this line of thinking? Is the assumption that taxes will have
to increase to pay these liabilities? If so, I would argue that faster growing
suburbs and cities out west and in the sun belt are also going to need more
tax dollars to build infrastructure (roads, schools, utilities, etc.).

~~~
lotsofpulp
Taxes will have to increase, and already have been quite a bit, to pay for
underfunded pensions. If you have the ability to move, then it would behoove
you to go somewhere your tax dollars are improving your quality of life rather
than paying for promises from the past.

Even though California is deep in the red, it can get away with more than
IL/NJ/CT/KY/PA/etc since it's weather and geography make it a highly desirable
place to live.

~~~
moorhosj
Illinois, New Jersey, Pennsylvania and Connecticut all have pretty good
schools. They are all in the top 15 for Pre-K through 12th grade. I'm not sure
I would argue that your property tax dollars are going farther in Texas
(ranked #33 in public schools) versus New Jersey (ranked #3).[1]

Oddly, almost all of the bottom 10 ranked states for public schools are "low
tax" havens. It's almost like the two things are connected. Funny enough, the
outlier is California, which has the 44th ranked Pre-K through 12th grade
public education, but has nice weather.

[1][https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/rankings/education](https://www.usnews.com/news/best-
states/rankings/education)

------
_virtu
As someone who's currently looking to purchase a first home in Boise after
living here for the last 9 years, all I can say is "meep". There's nothing
like the crazy stupid money that Californians are brining in to the housing
market to make we wish articles like this would stop shining the spotlight on
Boise. The housing market has been nuts this season and I can't help but think
that it's all the Californians coming in and buying houses off of the market
in cash.

I don't mind more people coming in to our city. I don't care where you're
from. Boise is a lovely place and I would love to have more culture and
different perspectives help contribute to the current lifestyle of Boiseans. I
just wish it wasn't to the detriment of the current lifestyle of the people
who already live here.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
Your response sounds like an _exact_ echo of Austin's gripes from 5-10 years
ago, and thus I think highlight the point of the article.

Sorry, but it's a losing battle. While some of us still like to say we are
trying to "Keep Austin Weird", the fact is it's not really possible to keep it
that weird when bare lot values for anything remotely central in Austin now go
for over $500k.

~~~
gonzo
> Austin's gripes from 5-10 years ago

Started in the mid-90s here, but yeah.

------
blhack
Just to highlight the cost difference: I was just in a small city (Boise,
actually!) for a work event. We rented a very nice house from airbnb for the
stay.

It was >4000 square feet. The master bedroom was probably 4-500 square feet
itself. It bad high ceilings, a private, gated, massive yard, mature trees
etc.

Recently _listed_ for $600k and couldn't find a buyer at that price. Just
absolutely insane compared even to Phoenix, where I live, and which was the
last "Californians flee hiding prices" city.

~~~
hueving
>Just absolutely insane compared even to Phoenix, where I live, and which was
the last "Californians flee hiding prices" city

I'm not sure what you are suggesting. Here is a house for less money in
Phoenix at that square footage range:
[https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1908-E-Vista-
Dr-85022/home...](https://www.redfin.com/AZ/Phoenix/1908-E-Vista-
Dr-85022/home/27893023)

~~~
blhack
A homes value is a lot more than the square footage. The house in Boise was
modern, had a very large yard, was a private, gated lot etc.

Very different than the house you linked.

------
jellicle
Idaho's entire population fits comfortably in a small segment of any of the
nation's larger cities.

When three people walk into the state, it leads in percentage growth. It's
extremely silly to draw some conclusion from the fact that a tiny state
managed 2.2% population growth while dozens of larger states managed 2.1%.

------
bytematic
Where does Chicago fit into this? Interesting it was left out.

------
diminoten
From a logistical standpoint, does Boise have a glut of available jobs for
these migrants, or are they taking their jobs with them?

That's the first thing I think about when considering a move; can I work
there?

~~~
_virtu
If you're in tech, yes. There are a lot of tech related jobs that Boise has a
huge deficit for. You won't be compensated at the same rates that you would be
in California, but the cost of living would make up for it.

~~~
mysterypie
> _You won 't be compensated at the same rates that you would be in
> California, but the cost of living would make up for it._

No, it generally doesn't. It depends on the specific numbers of course (how
much of a salary cut, how much cheaper is the housing costs), but a lot of
people make that blanket statement because of a mathematical fallacy: The
fallacy is if I make half as much, but my expenses are half as much, then I'm
just as well off. That statement is mathematically false.

Here's a made up example: San Francisco salary is $140K (or $84K after 40%
taxes deducted) and rent or mortgage is $3000/month ($36K/year). Boise salary
is half as much at $70K (or $42K after 40% taxes deducted) and rent or
mortgage are also half as much at $1500/month ($18K/year). Now calculate
disposable income after taxes and housing costs: In San Francisco it's $48K
(i.e., $84K - $36K) and in Boise it would be $24K (i.e., $42K - $18K).
Clearly, in this example, you'd still be $24K better off in San Francisco.

I know that I made many assumptions above. I'm just illustrating the fallacy
that people often make. Halving your income and halving your expenses is not
neutral -- it is worse.

~~~
twblalock
Plus, cost of living doesn't account for everything. Most consumer products,
e.g. cars, computers, shoes, and clothing, cost about the same everywhere.
Living in San Francisco with a higher salary and paying a high rent, your
spending on such products will be a smaller percentage of your income than if
you lived somewhere with cheaper housing and made less money.

~~~
justherefortart
Lmfao, nothing cost about the same living in San Francisco.

Not to mention taxes are significantly higher as you earn more (progressive)
and there are tons of things that nickel and dime you every day.

For example, a bottle of 200 ibuprofen in SF runs about $12-14. I buy it for
$3-4. It was so surprising I started filling a bag full of non perishable
items every time I'd visit family in the midwest. You add this across hundreds
of things you use and it adds up quickly.

And that's nothing compared to the rent.

------
Spooky23
Why is this a bad thing?

I live in a midsize city. High quality housing is $110/sqft. I can walk to my
kids school, shopping, library and dining. My kid can take a bus to malls and
parks, and my commute is approximately 7-10m, and few commutes around here
would exceed 20-30. I can be in NYC or Boston in <3 hours. NYC by train is an
option.

Why would you want to move from such a place to NYC or SFO?

~~~
lmm
World-class theatre/opera, bands make a stop here on their tours, wide variety
of restaurants, communities for some of my more specialised hobbies and
interests. There are certainly costs, but big cities can offer a depth and
variety of experiences that smaller ones can't.

~~~
Spooky23
In the Bay Area?

I don’t live there but have visited. It’s pretty vanilla suburbia. You’ll
definitely miss communities of interest, but it’s not too different.

------
ajcodez
It’s easy to say “just move somewhere cheaper” but how do you put together a
list of places? How many people who can’t afford rent can afford flying around
the country trying out new cities? How do you find a new job if you don’t know
anybody?

What companies are working on economic relocation? It sounds like something
difficult and valuable.

------
noobermin
I mean, may be eventually? Just because Boise is the fastest growing city
doesn't mean San Fran and LA have negative growth.

The answer of whether Boise will stifle city planners' dreams will come down
to the actual numbers over time which in general is hard to predict. People
saying "SF is over" or "Seattle is over" seem to only look at the second
derivative and ignore the fact that these cities are still growing today.

------
ausjke
The sad part is that, after so many California exodus arrived, they will turn
Boise to yet another CA city that they just left, as seen in other cities, by
then they will move elsewhere I guess.

------
jeffdavis
What is happening in Boise? The article doesn't really say.

~~~
lotharbot
Boise is absorbing a lot of people who either can't afford to live in
California any more, or don't like California's political environment. Boise
is currently the fastest growing metro area in the US.

This is happening in a lot of mid-sized cities in the western US. California's
economic / housing policies result in very high cost of living, which causes a
significant migration of poor people out of the state and into places like
Boise, Denver, Las Vegas, Beaverton, Fort Worth, and so on.

You can frequently find articles like
[http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20180203/packing-up-and-
mov...](http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20180203/packing-up-and-moving-out-
people-are-leaving-california-in-droves-including-some-high-desert-residents)
from those places.

------
iambateman
Cali is 30x bigger than Idaho... if 100,000 people move to Idaho, 3,000,000
people need to move to Cali to keep pace in terms of percent growth.

Obviously it’s not sustainable for California to be a top growing state
forever.

As someone who lives in a city with about the same pop as Boise, cities that
size can be quite nice.

~~~
Buge
The difference is whether you're talking about numeric growth or percentage
growth. Idaho is #1 in percentage growth but not in the top 10 in numeric
growth. California is #3 in numeric growth, but not in the top 10 in
percentage growth.

[https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2017/estimate...](https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-
releases/2017/estimates-idaho.html)

------
farmerni
live rural and be happy. small farm,commute to work if you can't work
remote,go to local town once a week for supplies. sorted.

------
farmerni
live on a farm and content yourselves

------
cylinder
My general view after travelling to Denver is that one of America's biggest
issues is underpopulation. There is so much land in these areas and actually
lots of infrastructure relative to population.

It all stood out to me how white these areas remain. I saw a handful of non
whites and no Asians the entire time. Shocking how the whitest areas are the
most anti immigrant. What are they so angry about?!

Bringing in migrants and capital to these areas could really set the US
economy on fire. But since the country turned away from openness in the 1920s
economically it's been declining on the growth side (carried by the
productivity economy which is tech).

~~~
WillPostForFood
Denver is 30% Latino, 11% Black, 5% Asian. Not sure how you only saw a handful
of non-whites.

~~~
lotharbot
Overall Denver is less white than the US as a whole, but has some
neighborhoods that are almost entirely white (take a look on
[https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html](https://demographics.virginia.edu/DotMap/index.html)
). You can hang out in, say, Cherry Creek or Wash Park and see almost entirely
white people. Go to Park Hill or south Feds and you see very few white people.

