We’re Getting Older, But Is There A Better Alternative?

Originally published by BizWest, January 30, 2026. 

Though the sentiment takes many forms, it is said that French actor Maurice Chevalier popularized the expression, “Old age isn’t so bad when you consider the alternative.”

Well, according to trends, the population of Boulder County is getting older, but what’s a better alternative?

First, let me be clear, I’m not talking about having “a duty to die,” as then-Gov. Richard Lamm said back in 1984 when considering the high cost of life-extending health care technology for the terminally ill. And I also note that I know I’m part of the problem. Yes, I’m getting older and it beats the alternative. But I notice myself getting a little discomforted these days when talking about infrastructure project timelines that extend beyond my personal gerontological horizon.

But let’s face the reality. In her presentation at the Boulder Chamber Economic Council’s annual Economic Forecast event, State Demographer Kate Watkins made it clear that Boulder is experiencing a surge in the population of residents at the traditional retirement age of 65 and older. Between today and 2060, the trend line indicates we will see a 10% increase in that proportion of our population. At the same time, those demographic forecasts predict a flatline in our working age population between age 20 and 65.

This trend line shouldn’t surprise any of us. Boulder’s population began to increase dramatically in the 1970s, just as the baby-boom generation discovered our mountains and could find a job or create a business to sustain their new western lifestyle. That net migration boom carried us through the early 2000s, with innumerable positive benefits for our economy and community. With the influx of our youthful populations came a new wave of entrepreneurial zeal, more corporate investment seeking to grab fresh talent, and spending habits that propped up a string of many local shops and restaurants that we continue to cherish.

Along with the high net migration in a more youthful population, though, came predictable challenges. First and foremost, it became more difficult to house the diversity of individuals that contribute to the economic resilience and character of our community. I can personally attest to paying $189 dollars in rent for my first two years on the ground in Boulder and having it nearly double the next year.

And today, we reap the consequences of our failure to effectively address this housing challenge. As Boulder became less affordable, it became more difficult for Boulder’s youthful workforce to find a home here. As these individuals and families began to look elsewhere for housing, it first took them to neighboring communities. And now, seemingly every city and town across Boulder County has become relatively inaccessible to anyone but the most well-established and well-paid members of our workforce.

We see the shadows of this evolution in both lower net migration numbers into Boulder County, as well as lower birth rates, as families seek attainable housing options elsewhere. And there are economic implications, with businesses finding it more difficult to attract youthful workforce talent. Our bars and restaurants notice these trends, too, in the earlier hours their patrons are keeping, leading to more frequent 11:00 p.m. last calls replacing barroom gathering into the wee hours, along with additional drink purchases and late-night munchie runs. And we start to see it as a factor in our reduced sales tax revenue that fuels Boulder’s services. It’s just a fact that the older we get, the tighter we become in our spending habits.

That might be the direction demographics are taking us. And as I’ve heard it said that a community that plans only for its past will slowly lose its future. But is there an alternative scenario?

At a working session on middle-income housing that Better Boulder hosted last week at the Boulder Chamber, we dove into a range of measures our community can implement that will create the type of housing which promises to bend the curve in predicted population trends. Ideas ranged from making it easier to combine residential lots and reducing setback requirements for greater density configurations, to fee waivers and land trusts that reduce housing development costs. One friend has even suggested subsidizing the moving expenses for older adults who want to downsize, making their current homes available to new families.

In general, there also was universal recognition at the Better Boulder working session that we need to change our perception of the characteristics we consider to be a suitable “home.” The market tells us that many in our workforce will gladly trade-off a garage and large yard for the opportunity to purchase housing in Boulder. The key message: Let’s get more of that lower-cost housing product out on the market and give more of our youthful talent the opportunity to find a place to live, earn equity and build a connection to our community.

Again, as I see myself inching toward the trend line that some have previously titled the “silver tsunami,” I want to make sure our aging adults enjoy the amenities, services and quality of life they expect our town to deliver in their golden years. We can only meet those standards, though, if we continue to focus on our economic vitality. That means making room for the next generation of individuals and families that want to find a home in Boulder. That would really beat the alternative.