For an organization choosing among Denver Colorado, Miami Florida, Redlands California and Tulsa Oklahoma, from a physical security perspective – where would be the best place to locate their data center? Why is this place better and the other places worse?
Reader Interactions
Comments
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
The best location to set a data center among these four is Denver Colorado in my opinion. Denver has a relatively less natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes and flooding (due to its high altitude), which are major concerns for data centers. While there can be snowstorms, proper controls and design can be implemented to mitigate these risks.
In contrast, although other locations also have geographical advantages, they still don’t hide their flaws. Miami has relatively high rate of hurricanes and floods. Redlands faces earthquake and wildfire, which could potentially cause catastrophic damage to the data center. Tulsa located in “Tornado Alleys” where tornados and floods could badly damage physical infrastructures.
The three locations mentioned above all have same problems, which is not cost-effective enough. Applying mitigation controls on these locations is way too risky and costly for a company. On the other hand, Denver is relatively safe and faces less natural disasters. Although it still has some disadvantages (snowstorms), it is still the best decision among them.
Excellent analysis, Justin, I do think Denver is the most reliable choice. You’re right about the other locations requiring more expensive and deeper mitigation controls because of their higher risks. Respectively, the potential hurricane, earthquake, and tornado threats in Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa might well create more frequent disruptions and maintenance. Although Denver sees snowstorms, as you’ve said, these are more predictable and hence make them easier to prepare for compared to the impulsive nature of hurricanes or earthquakes. It’s the predictability that makes Denver safer and in the long term, even cheaper. For that reason, Denver has been proven to be the best to go for.
From a minimum natural disaster threat viewpoint, Denver is quite an ideal location for a data center since it rarely is bothered by earthquakes, tornadoes, or hurricanes. The mild climate with lower humidity contributes to efficient cooling of the equipment and hence decreases the overall operational cost. Denver has, in addition, really good stable power infrastructure with a low crime rate adding to its physical security.
Comparatively, Miami, Florida reflects frequent hurricanes with high humidity that is very threatening to data center operations. Similarly, Redlands, California is highly exposed to earthquakes, and it also possesses several fault lines whereas Tulsa, Oklahoma is frequently hit by a lot of tornadoes, thus making those cities further unreliable w.r.t. maintaining consistency in safe data center operations.
Hi Steven,
I agree with your evaluation of Denver as an ideal location for a data center due to its low exposure to natural disasters and stable climate. Denver’s stable power infrastructure and low crime rate further solidify its position as a strong candidate for a secure data center location. To go deeper on this, I would suggest considering altitude-related factors. While Denver’s high elevation protects it from flooding, there might be other altitude-related concerns, such as adjusted cooling requirements for some specialized equipment. Additionally, Denver’s infrastructure may be evolving as it becomes a growing tech hub. Do you think the potential future expansion of data centers in the region could impact utility availability or network latency?
Denver Colorado has good geographic stability, strong infrastructure, and a favorable climate making it the best place of choice to position a data center. The reason for this decision stems from the fact that Denver is less prone to natural disasters such as hurricanes, tornadoes, earthquakes, and wildfires which do occur in other areas. However, Denver does experience manageable snowstorms. Denver has great elevation and climate that can help sustain the cooling requirement of the data center equipment while its dry climate will help minimize issues about humidity as opposed to the other locations. The existing robust infrastructure within Denver such as central connectivity locations and diverse fiber optic channels makes Denver the best choice for positioning a data center as opposed to the other locations. Denver finally has a good measure of security resources in the form of military and technology companies that create a reasonably safe and conducive environment to set up a data center.
Thank you for your response, Clement. It appears that almost everyone is selecting Denver as the clear favorite for a data center compared to the other choices. I also mentioned similar environmental reasons for selecting Denever as my choice. One reason I did not mention that you suggest is the types of industries already present in Denver. I agree that Denver already has a strong presence of miliary and technology organizations that would also increase the value of a data center. Because of the presence of many military bases and technology companies Denver has developed robust infrastructure perfect for a data center.
Charles
When selecting the best location for a data center, Denver, Colorado emerges as the top choice out of four cities. From a physical security standpoint, the risk of natural disasters is a key consideration. Denver stands out because it is not prone to coastal flooding, unlike Miami, Florida, and Redlands, California. While Tulsa, Oklahoma may not have flooding issues like Denver, the overall natural disaster risk makes Denver the optimal choice for the data center. Tulsa records a score of 34.65% while Denver scores 33.14% according to Augurisk environmental and societal risk assessment. Unlike the three other cities, Denver has the lowest percentage risk for storms at 7% with the highest being Miami at 59.33%. Concerning earthquakes, according to the California Earthquake Authority, there is more than a 99% chance that a magnitude 6.7 or greater earthquake will strike some part of California. These are unsettling figures from California despite Denver’s records being 27.55% with the lowest bringing Miami at 2.86%. The crime rate in Denver is the lowest among the four cities to site the data center with the lowest crime risk percentage being 38.28% and the highest being in Redlands California at 58% followed closely by Tulsa Oklahoma at 53.52%. From the above, Denver Colorado seems to be the optimal location to set up the data center for the organization.
When an organization chooses the location of its data center different factors need to be taken into consideration including natural disasters, power, and cost. From a physical security perspective, the best location for a data center will be Denver Colorado. Denver has the lowest natural risk score at 33.14%, compared to Miami Florida at 67.85%, Redlands California at 68%, and Tusla Oklahoma at 34.65%. The Atlantic Ocean is located to the east of Miami with an elevation of 42 feet above sea level making Miami highly vulnerable to hurricanes. Hurricanes can cause significant structural damage and damage to outside equipment. Hurricanes can be catastrophic; as we’ve seen recently with hurricane Helene where communities were leveled, knocking out power and leaving many individuals stranded. The San Andreas fault line located in Redlands California is the longest and fastest moving fault in California which can create devasting Earthquakes. California is also susceptible to wildfires; The Line Fire started in San Bernardino County on September 5, 2024, affected air quality and caused evacuations, burning more than 21,203 acres. Earthquakes and wildfires can have severe impact on buildings, power, and communication causing major disruptions to data centers. Tusla Oklahoma is located in “Tornado Alley” with tornados ranging from EF-0 (85 miles per hour) to EF-5 (200 miles per hour). The high speeds of tornados can do severe damage to data centers where the physical damage can be catastrophic. Denver, Colorado would be the best option because it has a relatively low natural disaster risk. Denver is boarded by several other states which makes it more resilient to physical security threats that can impact states on the coastal line (Miami, Florida) and fault lines (Redlands, California).
– https://www.augurisk.com/risk/state/colorado/denver-county/08031
– https://www.augurisk.com/risk/state/florida/miami-dade-county/12086
– https://www.augurisk.com/city/california/redlands/34.05114170596719/-117.17120681361848
– https://www.augurisk.com/risk/state/oklahoma/tulsa-county/40143
– https://www.fire.ca.gov/incidents/2024/9/5/line-fire/updates/0d28a44e-3f3d-4e73-8a34-936f82ad3b73
Hello Lily
Great work on your analysis regarding the selection of Denver, Colorado as the ideal location for the data center. However, it’s important to note that Denver ranks second in air quality risk at 63%, with Redlands, California being at the top with 64.51%. It’s crucial to address this issue and find a solution to mitigate the air quality risk in Denver to ensure optimal performance and prolong the lifespan of the equipment at the data center.
Hi Lily,
While almost everybody’s answer brings out the same result (Denver), your answer captures the finer details about the geographic conditions including numerics and recent history. That’s why its the best answer in my opinion. Well documented, kudos !!
Hi Lili
I completely agree with your assessment that Denver is an ideal location for a data center due to its lower risk of natural disasters compared to other cities like Miami or Redlands. In addition to natural disaster risk, another factor that makes Denver a good choice is its climate. Denver’s cooler temperatures can reduce the need for extensive cooling systems, which in turn lowers operational costs. This adds another layer of cost-efficiency to Denver’s advantages for data center locations.
Given its reduced danger of natural disasters, Denver, Colorado makes more sense as a data center location than Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa in terms of physical security. Hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes are less common in Denver than in the other areas, although being serious hazards there. Redlands is susceptible to earthquakes and wildfires. Miami is at great risk of hurricanes and flooding, and Tulsa is located in an area where tornadoes are common. Denver is the safest location for data center security because of its steady environment and low chance of natural disasters.
Hi Sara,
I agree that Denver’s geographical advantages significantly enhance its viability as a data center location. The city’s relatively low risk of severe natural disasters, compared to Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa, provides a more stable environment for data operations. Additionally, Denver’s elevation and climate can contribute to more efficient cooling solutions, further enhancing operational stability and energy efficiency. The lower likelihood of natural disasters not only protects physical assets but also minimizes potential downtime and data loss, making Denver an ideal choice for organizations prioritizing data center security.
Denver, Colorado, emerges as the preferred location for a data center among the options presented. Its relatively low exposure to natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, and flooding, coupled with a mild climate and stable power infrastructure, provides a more secure and cost-effective environment. While other locations offer geographical advantages, they also face significant risks that could compromise data center operations. Miami’s frequent hurricanes and high humidity, Redlands’ earthquake susceptibility, and Tulsa’s exposure to tornadoes and floods make these cities less desirable choices. Denver’s combination of safety, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness makes it the ideal location for a data center.
The best place for an organization to set up their Primary Data Center would be Denver, Colorado. The reasons for recommending Denver are based on statistical data such as:
1. Low Risk of Natural Disasters:
– Earthquakes: Denver is not located in an active seismic zone, which makes it less prone to earthquake and subsiding disasters, unlike California.
– Hurricanes and Flooding: Due to being far away from the coastline, there is lesser risk of hurricanes and flooding, unlike Redlands and Miami. This can also be judged from the history of such events in Denver.
– Tornadoes: Denver has lesser probability of tornadoes compared to Tulsa.
2. Stable Climate: Denver’s climatic conditions are comfortable, offering moderate seasons without extreme heat, cold, or humidity.
3. Lower Crime Rate: The city of Denver has lower crime rate compared to the other cities.
4. Infrastructural Aspect: Denver maintains solid infrastructure in terms of power supply and connectivity. The city is geographically central in the U.S., which could mean improved latency for a national DC, making it a central location for both security and operational functions.
In comparison to Denver, Colorado, the other options pose higher risks considering history of such places with natural disasters, crime rates and climatic conditions amongst other aspects. This is why Denver comes out as a clear winner in this case.
Loved your reasons about Denver Colorado, As the natural Disasters are significantly less compared to the other options, I feel Companies and Organizations must consider looking into these aspects which helps in safeguarding crucial and sensitive data.
Thank you. The reasons are spot on regarding the safest place per review of the recent geographic history, as we discussed.
After a review of the locations for a potential data center, Denver, Colorado stands out as the top contender from a physical security perspective. The three other options of Miami, Tusla, and Redlands face increased risks from certain natural disaster frequency and environmental factors. Miami faces an increased risk of severe hurricanes and floods compared to Denver. Tusla faces increased risk of severe tornadoes having an impact. And lastly, Redlands faces the higher potential for earthquakes and wildfires. Out of these options, Denver emerges as a stable and low risk location in terms of potential for natural disasters affecting the data center.
Among Denver, Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa, Denver, Colorado would likely be the best option from a physical security perspective. Here’s why, along with a comparison of the risks for each location:
Why Denver is a Good Choice:
Natural Disaster Resilience: Denver has a relatively low risk of natural disasters compared to the other locations. While the region may experience occasional blizzards or hailstorms, it is far less prone to hurricanes, earthquakes, or floods.
Elevation and Stable Climate: Its high elevation minimizes the risk of flooding, which is important for protecting physical infrastructure.
Why the Other Locations Are Worse:
1. Miami, Florida
Hurricane Risk: Miami is in a hurricane-prone region. Hurricanes can cause flooding, power outages, and structural damage to data centers. The best example is Hurricane Helena, which is causing devastating damage to the coast of Florida.
Rising Sea Levels: Miami faces long-term risks due to rising sea levels and coastal flooding, which could threaten a data center’s long-term viability.
2. Redlands, California
Earthquake Risk: Redlands is located in Southern California, which is highly susceptible to earthquakes due to its proximity to major fault lines (e.g., the San Andreas Fault).
Wildfires: Redlands is also in a region vulnerable to wildfires, which could disrupt operations or necessitate costly fire prevention systems.
3. Tulsa, Oklahoma
Tornado Risk: Tulsa is located in Tornado Alley, where severe tornadoes are more frequent.
Severe Weather: Thunderstorms, hailstorms, and ice storms are more frequent in Oklahoma, adding to physical security challenges.
Hi Aaroush,
Your comparison of these four locations highlights the risks of each state as well as the advantages of these locations. Since Denver, Colorado is surrounded by states if a natural disaster were to occur the impact level wouldn’t be as high. Different factors are taken into consideration when organizations build data centers; how might security risks impact an organizations decision.
From the perspective of physical security, Denver is the choice location for the creation of a data center over Miami, Florida; Redlands, California; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. Denver houses fewer severe natural disaster prone events and has low occurrences of natural disasters, namely hurricanes, earthquakes and tornadoes. As a result, this is makes an environment of low risk for day-to-day physical security within an area. The warm climate and good infrastructure also lend to the security and reliability of data center facilities. Miami, Florida is very dangerous with respect to storms, flooding and high humidity. These concerns regarding naturally resulting power outages, structural destroyal and equipment degredation result in a high price for the potential and very risky use of a data center. Redlands, California is largely undesireable for the creation of data centers with respect to severe natural disaster influenced earthquakes and wildfires. Not to be deterred however, dense infrastructure supports this, however it is only a matter of time before the natural disasters return. Tulsa, Oklahoma is in an area in the region known as Tornado Alley with occasional severe weather extremely high in the form of tornadoes, hail and thunderstorms. While the area is much improved in tornado damage, the issue of being less disaster prone vs Tulsa in terms of data center placement is likely extremely low in comparison.
Hi Yash,
Your analysis of Denver being the most suitable location for a data center is well-grounded, especially when compared to the high risks posed by the other cities. In addition to Denver’s low occurrence of natural disasters, its stable infrastructure and low humidity are essential for preventing equipment damage and maintaining operational continuity. Miami, Redlands, and Tulsa each pose significant risks with their vulnerability to hurricanes, wildfires, and tornadoes respectively, which could lead to costly disruptions in data center operations. In fact, a location like Denver not only offers better physical security but also reduces the need for expensive disaster recovery plans. Would you also consider factors like energy availability or future climate impacts in your decision-making?
The least risky location is Denver Colorado. This is the location with the least weather related physical risks. Florida is a high risk of floods, hurricanes, high temps, and humidity, California is at high risk of high temps, humidity, wildfires, and earthquakes. Oklahoma is at high risk of tornados. Also (not necessarily a risk) per sq ft costs Denver is moderate in comparison to Florida and Miami, and this is important to consider when thinking of a data center location.
Hi Sarah,
You’ve done an excellent job highlighting the comparative risks of different locations for data centers! Your focus on both environmental factors and cost is very insightful. Given these considerations, what other criteria do you think should play a significant role in selecting an ideal data center location?
The best place to locate their data center would be Denver, Colorado. According to this study, California ranks at #1 for most disaster-prone states with 282 disaster declarations (246 wildfires). While major cities are probably safe from wildfires, California is also known for their earthquakes, making it probably the least safe state to host a data center. Tulsa, Oklahoma sits right in the middle of Tornado Alley, and ranks #3 in most disaster prone states with 163 disaster declarations. I would not host a data center in Tornado Alley. Finally, Miami, Florida ranks #8 on most disaster prone states with 72 disaster declarations, mostly relating to hurricanes. Colorado comes in at #13, making it the clear choice between the 4 possible locations.
From a physical security viewpoint, Denver, Colorado, is the best location to host a data center as compared to Miami, Florida; Redlands, California; and Tulsa, Oklahoma. The stable climate and geography of Denver present a lesser natural disaster vulnerability advantage concerning hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes compared to other locations. For instance, hurricanes are common in Miami, earthquakes may happen in Redlands, while tornadoes are common in Tulsa. Therefore, Denver is comparatively free of those natural disasters and all the more safe and reliable as a destination for housing critical infrastructure.
I think you make a great point about Denver being safer from hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. Given this, I’m wondering how Denver compares to these other cities in terms of energy stability and access to skilled labor for maintaining data center operations. Could those factors also influence the decision to choose Denver as the best location?
From my perspective, I believe Denver, Colorado is undoubtedly the best location for a data center. This is primarily due to its lower vulnerability to natural disasters.
Firstly, Denver is not prone to severe natural disasters like hurricanes, earthquakes, and tornadoes. While it may experience occasional snowstorms, these can be managed with appropriate infrastructure.
In comparison to other locations:
1）Miami, Florida: Miami faces a high risk of hurricanes and flooding due to its coastal position. Additionally, the humidity can negatively impact data center equipment.
2）Redlands, California: This area is near major fault lines, making it susceptible to earthquakes. Wildfires are also a significant threat in this region.
3）Tulsa, Oklahoma: Situated in Tornado Alley, Tulsa experiences frequent tornadoes, making it less ideal for long-term physical security.
Moreover, Denver offers a stable climate, lower humidity, and strong infrastructure, which contributes to a more cost-effective and secure environment for critical data center operations.
Hi Lili,
I also believe Denver is the safest place out of all the options to host a data center. I also appreciate you listing all of the natural disasters that occur in the alternative locations. I find it interesting that you referenced not only humidity but the infrastructure of the cities themselves. I did not consider this while making my post, but the size and development level of the city also plays a large effect on the security of the data center.