Brian Keegan is a regular opinion columnist for Boulder Reporting Lab. His “Charting Boulder” column uses public data to make sense of how the city is changing — from housing and politics to income and population — with clear explanations and a focus on equity.
Boulder has earned a reputation for its bustling tech scene, sun-splashed outdoors and college town vibes that attract new young people every year. But if it seems like you are seeing more gray hair around town, you’re not wrong: The county’s senior population is expanding faster than any other age group. This is not just a statistical curiosity, it will affect city budgets, local politics and everyday life for everyone in Boulder.
This shift toward a grayer population is unfolding across the country, and Colorado has one of the fastest-growing over-65 populations. The State Demography Office tracks county-level populations by single year of age, from 0 to 99, forecasted through 2050. I grouped those estimates into Pew Research Center’s generational definitions. The picture that emerges is striking.
In 2018, the over‑65 cohort was larger than every other bracket except the 0‑24 group. Fast forward to the middle of this century, and projections show the county’s senior population nearly doubling, ending up side‑by‑side with this youngest cohort.
While Boulder’s overall growth may be slowing, its senior segment is booming, ranking second only to Douglas County in projected senior growth across Colorado counties. What aging-in-place looks like in Boulder or Longmont is very different than in Castle Rock or Highlands Ranch.
Boomers began entering the over-65 group in 2010 and are expected to peak around 2029. Gen X joins in 2030 and peaks in the mid‑2040s; millennials, like me, start crossing the over-65 line soon after. By 2045, the remaining boomers alone (none younger than 80) will outnumber the entire over-65 population that existed until 2010.
The point is not to praise or blame a generation. Think of it as a relay, not a rivalry. But it does mean confronting the consequences of a city designed for a different time, with different social structure and values.
First, there is a fiscal dimension. The City of Boulder, like many municipalities, leans heavily on sales tax revenue. That is tough when our two largest groups are also the two lowest‑spending groups. Federal Reserve data shows that nationwide since 1984, households over 65 spend roughly a third less than those in their late 50s and early 60s. If we want to keep services steady without ratcheting up fees or taxes on people with fixed incomes, we should broaden the tax base by welcoming more taxpayers of all ages into homes near jobs, transit and services.
Second, there is a political dimension. Turnout rises with age in both odd‑ and even‑year elections. Seniors have stronger turnout in low-turnout odd-year elections than voters 18-34 do in high-turnout even-year elections. Older voters’ interests will keep shaping land-use rules, fiscal decisions and climate policy that can have consequences for decades to come. Unless we see a seismic shift in participation from younger generations, the forecasted demographic shifts mean seniors will only become a more powerful voting bloc.
Finally, senior residents are not evenly spread across the county. Voter data from the Boulder County Clerk shows higher concentrations of seniors in the rural areas outside of Boulder, Longmont, Louisville and Superior. These patterns matter for planning current and future service delivery like healthcare facilities, accessible housing and public transit routes, as well as for community outreach efforts.
Planning for an older population does not mean turning Boulder into a retirement enclave; it means making the city work better for everyone. We need duplexes on arterials and 12‑plexes near grocery stores, allowing families, seniors and workers to live close to jobs and amenities. Streetscapes with wider sidewalks, safer crossings and well‑maintained pathways can welcome walkers, cyclists and wheelchair users alike. More “third places” like cafes, libraries, parks and beer gardens could allow neighbors of all ages to strike up conversations.
These steps dovetail with Boulder’s climate ambitions, safety standards, and inclusion commitments. They are not radical; they are pragmatic responses supported by the AARP for a demographic reality we cannot change but can accommodate.
A grayer Boulder can be a stronger Boulder: Safer streets, steadier budgets and more vibrant neighborhoods require acknowledging the changing demographic tide early and taking thoughtful, inclusive steps now to preserve our community for future generations.
The code and data for replicating these analyses can be found on GitHub.
Brian, if you wantnt to better understand Boulder County seniors, I suggest you visit the pickleball courts, rec centers, open space trails, and ski areas midweek. Boulder seniors are much more active and fit than the national average. If you do, prepare to get schooled.
No one would ever mistake me for being athletic!
Thanks Brian. I appreciate the framing to consider how to support aging populations in this piece. I reflect back on my now deceased mother who in her old age, didn’t have options to safely age in place. She died due to traffic violence and a collision with a semi, after having prior conversations about her diminishing ability and thus safety driving herself.
Unfortunately, she didn’t have access to nor lived in a part of our city that was walkable friendly. No cafe or third place or similar existed in her exclusionary zoned single family home neighborhood and everything she wanted to do was more than a 2 mile drive. Thus, no wonder she chose to keep her independence and not give up her car keys. Luckily, here in Boulder many stay fit enough to continue biking at least as an alternative or even main means of commuting when driving becomes both a threat to themselves or others. However, knowing that an 88 year old biker recently died after a driver hit them in a crosswalk on Valmont due to poor street safety infrastructure design standards, we still have a long ways to go in order to support a vibrant and safe life for all generations in Boulder.
For myself, I hope someday I’ll still have the option to live intergenerationally in a multiplex with both young and old. I think back to supporting senior neighbors by running grocery errands for an elderly, stroke victim neighbor in a previous apartment complex I lived in. Today, I’m glad my current cottage court style condo complex affords us robust relationships with my neighbors, young and old, when we meet each morning, our front doors facing each other without a high traffic street or parking lot being in the way. We regularly enjoy shared potlucks and parties in our shared space as well as nearby park.
I wish more folks had access to that vibrant lifestyle here and our neighborhoods were designed for that. But unfortunately, many of Boulder’s labyrinthian zoning rules makes communal housing designs illegal, and thus finding options to age in place difficult. Therefore, I hope Boulder’s future includes more duplexes through 12 plexes, with attached coffee shops or gathering spots in mixed use zones, to enable higher quality of life for Boulder’s aging population and the younger generations who will follow and live alongside us.
Boulder is well along a path to actually chase out its senior population.
We’ve lived in Boulder for 25 years, and I’m two years away from retirement. This year Boulder put my property taxes up by 35%! Keeping up with that on a fixed income will not work.
With Boulder home values being what they are, the ‘senior tax break’ relief is a joke. Exempting 50% of the first $200k doesn’t move the needle in Boulder, but I’m sure it makes some politicians feel like they are doing something good for seniors…and they don’t give the specifics of the program because then people like us would laugh at them for their gaslighting.
Cost of living has skyrocketed, and all the ‘affordability’ talk has lead to nothing.
There is $380 M deficit in city budget for unfunded liabilities. Attend “Who Owns Boulder” on on KGNU on Wed’s (which ones I don’t know) but you can bring up these issues to the apologists. The program was on senior housing today, and I posted Daniel’s comment in the e-mails as a call-in. I’m going in today to proceed on my appeals to the BAA on-going from past years, and to my current “protest” to the BOE and after the ruling, the BAA. You can keep appealing up to the federal Supreme Court.
But Brian’s over-population-as-the-solution advocacy makes it more and more expensive, not less, as he alleges. Ask Al Bartlett!
Brian, I’m having a hard time with your charts. 1.) “Boulder County voter turnout by age and election year” has no election years. There are as many columns as the notation claims years covered but those columns are noted by age groups. 2.) “Boulder County population, by year and generation” shows the Boomer population declining since ~1997. While “Boulder County population, by age and year” shows the Boomer population increasing with no years shown. 3.) “ Average Consumer Expenditures by Age, 1984–2023” I’m confused by the double “over” designation, are the over 75’s included in the over 65 designation? Are the expenditures per capita or bulk by age grouping. This is significant because CU student population, under 25 group, has more than doubled as a percentage of Boulder’s population between the 1950 census and the 2020 census. 4.) Unfortunately the Boulder County precinct map is incomplete, I’m fairly certain Boulder County’s southern border is not Iris.
1. I averaged the voter turnouts among current voters for 2010-2024 grouped by age groups.
2. The year labels got clipped, I’ll work on fixing that. The “Boulder County population, by age and year” isn’t just Boomers!
3. All over-75s are included in the over-65s.
4. This image also got clipped, I’ll work on fixing that.
I’d like to see the Boulder Progressive Leaders like Brian stop saying higher density is going to lead to more families. It’s the complete opposite.
The housing plan of replacing single family homes – like all the ones in Martin Acres – is a plan to push families to other towns.
MB, Well said.
Right? I am not that far from 65, and not only would NEVER consider living in any of those apartment complexes going up, but could NEVER justify the rent for them! I checked on the new ones at 28th and Iris, and studios start around $2500 a month, plus additional for cars and even bikes. And why they think families would want to live in those, when they can go to Longmont, and pay that for a house with a yard. And now, Boulder is selling off the Iris baseball fields? Pretty soon there will be nothing left for any kids to do here. THAT is also chasing off families!
Jen: The proposal that is being discussed is that the county would transfer the Iris baseball fields to the city, so that the fields can be preserved forever in the city’s Parks & Rec department. The county and city just need to work out the details around the transfer.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a single family home in Longmont for $2,500 a month with the current prices and mortgage rates. It will get you an high density condo though. Everyone here in Longmont who wants a big family home and yard is moving to Firestone. The problem is, they’re not exactly making more land. What we need is density paired with shared communal green space, playgrounds, dog parks, pools, and storage or rental options for outdoor equipment (a real issue in Boulder County!), and other amenities that make not having a yard not do bad. I see these new dense housing options go up here in Longmont and there’s barely a patch of grass for a dog to pee on, never mind a kid to play. If we could be less dependent on cars that would be great too, but it’s a harder thing to change.