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.
Arizona has a population of about 7.1 million. Nevada just topped 3 million recently. The Phoenix metropolitan area contains 4.8 million while the Las Vegas metro area contains only about 2.3 million.
I know Las Vegas is a new city, but Phoenix is relatively new as well, isn't it? Phoenix has beautiful weather and is very affordable but Vegas also has beautiful weather, milder weather in fact. It's median home value is also only about $10,000 more than Phoenix's.
Vegas is also noticeably closer to Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean. Las Vegas has more of a world reputation and attracts tourists and events from around the World. It is my understanding that Arizona has a much more robust job market outside of entertainment.
I know this sounds like more of a Phoenix Vs Vegas thing, but I am curious about the population difference at the state level as well.
Arizona's beautiful with the Grand Canyon and all, and Phoenix is one hell of a big city for what it's worth. I just assume that since people hear much more about Vegas on a regular basis, that most people discover the benefits of Arizona through research into affordable housing, job market, and educational institutions.
Both metropolitan areas growth doesn't seem to be slowing down anytime soon, and I don't mean that like people were saying the same of San Francisco and Seattle 10 years ago and now those cities are going bust. I mean Las Vegas and Phoenix will continue to grow for decades without much slowdown. That's my opinion.
Phoenix is a bit less new in terms of its size compared with Vegas, although of course, both cities have been growing rapidly. Phoenix has also been known as a place for snowbirds to go to for a long while. Vegas? Not so much, as it gets cool in the winter
They're both huge states, with large swaths of territory, that is rugged and isolated. I believe Nevada has more of this type of terrain though. Most of Arizona lies south of Nevada, which translates to a warmer climate even in the higher elevations. Also, Arizona being a southern border state, contributes to a high influx of immigrants from Mexico.
Like you said, both are relatively 'young', but with the advent of the A/C and the Automobile, w/ Arizona's direct eastern proximity to southern California via the interstate system, its just a natural progression of the way people decide on where to go.
The grand majority of Nevada's land area is under the control of the federal government, approximately 84.9% of it. Development for commercial and public use in that area is prohibited.
Literally the only two areas in the state that you can build population centers around are Las Vegas and Reno. Then add in the geographic constraints surrounding Las Vegas and you're taking a very finite amount of land and making it even more limited to development. In about 10-12 years Greater Las Vegas will run out of developable land, if it isn't close to running out already, and after that time you'll see intense infill in the core of the city. Those surface parking lots that riddle the Downtown Las Vegas area and areas just blocks off from the Las Vegas Strip will be subject to intense vertical development and infill.
Both Phoenix and Tucson also had an earlier start to development and population than Las Vegas and Reno and as such are further ahead in that regard. The same is true in the case of Arizona versus Nevada. Arizona also has a more developed network of infrastructure connecting it to the rest of the United States and it got these things earlier than Nevada too; railroads, interstates, roadways, airports, so on; that made populating the state much easier. Nevada developed these things at a later point and by that time these things were already fully embedded into Arizona. Arizona has had more opportunities to develop a diverse economic base, whereas Nevada started its economic diversification at a later point.
Last edited by Trafalgar Law; 09-25-2019 at 08:25 PM..
Why? Because it has two metro areas over 1 million, Phoenix (well over 1 million, try close to 5 million), and Tucson. Las Vegas is at about 2.3 million, but the 2nd city, Reno, is only one half million.
But that is the easy answer.
l
The lack of additional large centers of population in Nevada is a big reason why Arizona has a larger population. As others have posted, Nevada is a very barren and unpopulated State outside of Vegas and Reno. Arizona has Flagstaff and Yuma, both growing areas with metros over 100K, in fact Yuma over 200K.
I've said this in threads before, and I guess I need to say it again. Water may become an issue for these cities of millions in the desert.....and don't say that's not a possibility, because we know better.
I've said this in threads before, and I guess I need to say it again. Water may become an issue for these cities of millions in the desert.....and don't say that's not a possibility, because we know better.
Why do you feel the need to say it again? Don't act like you're the water conservation messenger. I'm 100% positive that the states don't need a lecture from you when it comes to water conservation and are already fully aware of any water issues in the West. Here, why don't you learn something:
The grand majority of Nevada's land area is under the control of the federal government, approximately 84.9% of it. Development for commercial and public use in that area is prohibited.
Literally the only two areas in the state that you can build population centers around are Las Vegas and Reno. Then add in the geographic constraints surrounding Las Vegas and you're taking a very finite amount of land and making it even more limited to development. In about 10-12 years Greater Las Vegas will run out of developable land, if it isn't close to running out already, and after that time you'll see intense infill in the core of the city. Those surface parking lots that riddle the Downtown Las Vegas area and areas just blocks off from the Las Vegas Strip will be subject to intense vertical development and infill.
Both Phoenix and Tucson also had an earlier start to development and population than Las Vegas and Reno and as such are further ahead in that regard. The same is true in the case of Arizona versus Nevada. Arizona also has a more developed network of infrastructure connecting it to the rest of the United States and it got these things earlier than Nevada too; railroads, interstates, roadways, airports, so on; that made populating the state much easier. Nevada developed these things at a later point and by that time these things were already fully embedded into Arizona. Arizona has had more opportunities to develop a diverse economic base, whereas Nevada started its economic diversification at a later point.
The greater Phoenix area does in fact seem to have nearly endless buildable land even down to Tuscan and the Mexican border, interrupted by only small mountain ranges.On the other hand, Vegas is not as strapped for land as some might think. It is obviously much more constrained than Phoenix, in part because Las Vegas is located at the bottom of the state within 40 miles of California and 30 miles of Arizona. Phoenix only has impassible mountains to the north and east and it's near the middle of the state so it doesn't really have those problems.
If you compare the central valleys of Las Vegas and Los Angeles (the Las Vegas Valley and the Los Angeles Basin, respectively) , the Vegas Valley is about 700 square miles of flat land, and the LA Basin is a little bit bigger, about 850 square miles. Both also have several large surrounding valleys which are flat and could be developed. All in all, both cities have somewhere between 1500 to 1800 square miles of flat land within 50 miles of their city centers. Since about 15 million people live within 50 miles of LA, I'm sure one day 10 million could live within 50 miles of Vegas.
Why do you feel the need to say it again? Don't act like you're the water conservation messenger. I'm 100% positive that the states don't need a lecture from you when it comes to water conservation and are already fully aware of any water issues in the West. Here, why don't you learn something:
Phoenix and Las Vegas definitely are conserving more water than they use to, even with more people. I'm optimistic they'll find a solution to the future water problem. There are plenty of places in the country that have more water than they want. They only have to find a way to get it to Lake Mead.
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.
