There are few issues more divisive than growth in Boulder. Growth means more housing, more traffic, more people on the trails at Chautauqua — more everything.

But, divisive or not, Boulder has been steadily growing for decades. Between 2010 and 2020, Boulder County’s population shot from 294,567 to 330,758, while the City of Boulder added 10,000 new faces.

Now, though, our growth has hit something of a wall. It started, of course, with the pandemic, but it hasn’t let up. In 2021, Colorado added just 26,489 new people through migration and birth. In 2022 that figure was 27,717. Compare that to the 70,000 new people the state averaged during the previous decade, and a dramatic picture emerges.

Finally, when this slowed growth is put against the number of deaths, it shows that last year Colorado had its narrowest natural population increase since the 1970s.

There are lots of potential factors that are worth exploring concerning why Colorado has seen such a dip — the cost of housing, the rise of remote work, a general decline in birth rates across the country — but it is also worth noting that this trend is not expected to continue. The Colorado State Demography Office predicts that growth will rebound to 55,000 in 2023, and our total state population will hit 6.4 million people by 2030.

For some, though, the slowed growth of the past few years might be seen as good news. Political priority no. 1 for many longtime Boulder residents is preserving this beautiful town — maintaining our views of the Flatirons, adding to our beloved open space and making sure to keep traffic to our favorite weekend hiking spot to a minimum.

And who can blame them? Boulder is beautiful. Boulder is unique. Boulder is Boulder. This, in a way, means we all have an obligation to protect it.

But our obligation to protect it means that, in order to see it flourish, we can’t trap it in a glass case and hope that nothing ever changes. If we do that, our irreplaceable city will simply wilt away before our eyes.

So news of Colorado’s stagnating growth — even if it is expected to rebound — is a useful time to reexamine Boulder’s relationship with growth and how, whether we like it or not, reasonable growth is necessary to keep our city thriving.

The fundamental question before us is this: Do we want to see Boulder grow, or do we want to see Boulder grow old?

A report by the Boulder County Area Agency on Aging found that in the next 30 years, the county’s overall population is projected to increase by 33%, but the older adult population is projected to increase by 58%, and the 80-plus population is projected to increase by an astounding 244%.

These numbers are untenable.

For Richard Wobbekind, associate dean of business and government relations and senior economist at CU Boulder, it’s the age distribution that is worth paying attention to.

“If population doesn’t grow, it’s not a really big deal. But what we see is, as this is happening, the composition of the population is changing,” he said. “The composition changing has all sorts of implications. As you have more and more older people, they are requiring more and more services, and you need a younger workforce to supply some of those services.”

On top of that, as the population ages and more people begin to retire, the city’s tax base will start to shrink; People on fixed incomes are less likely to shop and eat out, especially in our current economy. And, as people continue to age in place — as most hope to do in Boulder — it creates less available housing stock for young workers who do have the disposable income to shop and eat out.

Before the pandemic, our local economy was buoyed in part by the tens of thousands of workers who commuted into the city to work for local employers and spend their hard-earned money. But with COVID-19 came the rise of remote work. According to John Tayer, the president and CEO of the Boulder Chamber, more people working from home and fewer people coming to Boulder on a daily basis is something local businesses have felt palpably.

“Our economy had been conditioned on 60,000 people commuting into Boulder on a daily basis,” he said in a recent phone interview. “That pattern of work has changed dramatically, which has reduced the use of offices, and had a significant impact on small retailers and restaurants that served that element of our economy.”

Finally, Wobbekind pointed out how all of this could eventually affect our public schools. If Boulder continues aging without adding younger residents who can afford to start a family here, enrollment in BVSD schools will continue to plummet. We only have to look down U.S. 36 to Denver at the painful consequences of a steep decline in enrollment, where fewer students has meant less money and a bigger challenge to provide for students.

For Tayer, all of this points to our need to continue addressing our local housing shortage.

“Communities go through cycles, and we are going through a cycle where a lot of the folks who have traditionally been members of the workforce are retiring,” Tayer said. “Ultimately, it creates the imperative that we work to create a more diverse housing stock to accommodate the workforce that we need to have here.”

Wobbekind echoed this sentiment. “People want affordable housing and the quality of life amenities that Boulder has,” he said. “And a winning college football team.”

No one wants growth for growth’s sake. No one wants two ADUs in every backyard. No one wants Boulder’s open spaces paved for housing blocks. But, the hard truth is, we must accept the reality that reasonable, controlled growth is necessary for Boulder to continue thriving.

The alternative is that, as the current population ages in place and prevents a new generation from moving in thanks to prohibitive costs and a general lack of housing stock, Boulder will wilt. We will still have our views of the Flatirons, we will still have our open space, we will still have our favorite hiking spot, but it will get harder and harder for people to make a living here. Businesses and restaurants will suffer from the lack of workers to patronize them, the city will struggle for money as a higher percentage of people stop working and paying sales taxes, and our schools will suffer the financial consequences of plummeting enrollment. Boulder will remain Boulder, but without the people to enjoy it.

So, as Boulder and Colorado look for ways to entice workers and employers here, and as we explore new opportunities to add to our housing stock, let’s remember that if we want to be good stewards of our home and ensure that it will be thriving for the next generation, we must accept the necessity of growth so that we can control how it happens.

Gary Garrison for the Editorial Board