Coastal development.... (San Diego, San Francisco, Long Beach: condos, homes, college)

[the city]

Why is it that CA has dense, urban areas between San Diego and San Fran, when there are practically no urban cores along the coast north of San Fran? I mean, Eureka might be the closest, but it's still pretty rural.

Even in Sonoma County, the urban core developed in Santa Rosa.

Does alot of this have to do with freeways since the 101 doesn't run through the coastal towns in Marin and Sonoma County?

The big list would be:

San Diego-Carlsbad-Oceanside-Encinitas (1mill + pop.)
Huntington Beach-Newport Beach-San Clemente-Laguna Beach (roughly 600,000 pop.)
Long Beach-Torrance-El Segundo (roughly 600,000 populaton)
West LA-Manhattan Beach-Redondo Beach-Venice Beach-Santa Monica-Malibu (roughly 300,000 pop.)
Oxnard-Ventura-Port Hueneme (roughly 300,000 population)
Santa Barbara-Goleta-Carpinteria (roughly 140,000 population)
Pismo Beach-Arroyo Grande-Oceano-Grover Beach (roughly 45,000 population)
Monterey Pennisula (roughly 96,000 population)
Santa Cruz-Capitola-Watsonville (110,000 population)
South San Fran Bay (part of Santa Clara County and San Mateo County)
San Fran (800,000 population)

I also noticed that suburban developments like big box centers are non-existent in coastal communities and probably for the better since they don't pay workers enough to live in those coastal communities anyways and they take up space. OC cities, San Diego, and Oxnard being exceptions because they go inland more than actually touch the ocean.

I've also noticed taller and taller buildings going in coastal cities. My guess so everyone gets their ocean view and also trying to cram as much people into one space?

I've also heard the CA Coastal Commission is ruthless and hard to get development approved these days.

Thoughts and anything anyone else noticed that is different about CA coastal development from other area's coastal development?

[GatsbyGatz]

Sounds like you're not familiar with West Coast geography. Take a look at a geographic map and that should pretty much explain everything as to why West Coast cities are where they are.

In short, north of San Francisco, the coast is entirely made up of mountains. South of San Francisco, again, is made up of coastal mountains. It doesn't make any sense to build there.

Eureka is a tiny sliver of land that is surrounded by water to the west and mountains to the east. Obviously, this is not an ideal location for a large population. The same can be said for Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Salinas, and Santa Maria. None of these locations have enough room for growth that would sustain a major metro region, and frankly there is no desire from either current residents or developers to change that.

The only expanse of flat land along the West Coast is the LA Basin, and lo and behold, the LA Basin is where California's biggest metropolitan region exists.

Humans don't just plop down urban developments willy-nilly. We are limited by our geography. When the West Coast was first being developed, the early settlers chose locations with ample flat land and access to freshwater. Today, there is zero demand to transform undeveloped areas into brand new urban regions, so there will be no more big cities randomly popping up out of the wilderness (on the contrary, modern day zoning has pretty much prohibited any radical growth in our undeveloped lands as a way to curb sprawl).

[the city]

Originally Posted by GatsbyGatz

Sounds like you're not familiar with West Coast geography. Take a look at a geographic map and that should pretty much explain everything as to why West Coast cities are where they are.

In short, north of San Francisco, the coast is entirely made up of mountains. South of San Francisco, again, is made up of coastal mountains. It doesn't make any sense to build there.

Eureka is a tiny sliver of land that is surrounded by water to the west and mountains to the east. Obviously, this is not an ideal location for a large population. The same can be said for Santa Cruz, Watsonville, Salinas, and Santa Maria. None of these locations have enough room for growth that would sustain a major metro region, and frankly there is no desire from either current residents or developers to change that.

The only expanse of flat land along the West Coast is the LA Basin, and lo and behold, the LA Basin is where California's biggest metropolitan region exists.

Humans don't just plop down urban developments willy-nilly. We are limited by our geography. When the West Coast was first being developed, the early settlers chose locations with ample flat land and access to freshwater. Today, there is zero demand to transform undeveloped areas into brand new urban regions, so there will be no more big cities randomly popping up out of the wilderness (on the contrary, modern day zoning has pretty much prohibited any radical growth in our undeveloped lands as a way to curb sprawl).

The only way Santa Maria could become a coastal city is if development continued all the way to Guadalupe and I'm not a geography person, so I don't know if that'd be possible and unless CA introduced more desalination plants, I don't think there'd be enough water to support it all.

However, I know back in the day, Guadalupe was looked at as a location for a cruise port. It would have totally changed the area.

What I don't get is, you have areas like Oxnard, that were small towns. Through the years, rural farming land was built over for development. Guadalupe and other coastal farming communities could do that, but I don't know why.

[nightlysparrow]

Prop 20 passed in 1972 pretty much stopped all rampant coastal development:

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Pr...mmission_(1972)

[the city]

Originally Posted by nightlysparrow

Prop 20 passed in 1972 pretty much stopped all rampant coastal development:

http://ballotpedia.org/California_Pr...mmission_(1972)

According to this,

California Proposition 20, Creation of the California Coastal Commission (1972) - Ballotpedia

Prop 20 was aimed at stopping a bunch of nuclear power plants and a massive expansion of highway 1.

What was intended to stop several developments, ended up ending all massive developments and many subdivisions.

I can understand stopping the nuclear power plants and expansion of highway 1, but I can't understand stopping a bunch of housing developments.

I do know the stretch of highway 1 along Monterey, Santa Barbara, Ventura, and San Luis Obispo county is mostly undeveloped. I could see a bunch of homes in SLO that could have been developed from Cuesta College and out because the highway 1 can handle it, but with prop 20 I think those plans came to an end.

[NorthCoast707]

North of San Francisco the Pacific coast becomes very hilly/mountainous, cool, windy, rainy, and foggy. Part of the coast called the 'lost coast', rightfully so, is so rugged there is not direct highway access. Not to mention on the North Bay Area coast there are numerous building regulations and most of the coast is on the Point Reyes National Seashore in Marin.

[nightlysparrow]

Originally Posted by the city

What was intended to stop several developments, ended up ending all massive developments and many subdivisions. I can understand stopping the nuclear power plants and expansion of highway 1, but I can't understand stopping a bunch of housing developments.

Try going to the beach at Malibu along the Colony. It's not public, and you will be cited by the police.

The push was on in the 1970's to include private beaches along with coastal development. Thankfully the Coastal Commission saw the writing on the wall.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by the city

I've also heard the CA Coastal Commission is ruthless and hard to get development approved these days.

Yes they are, and CA is all the better for it. Our coastline would resemble a foul smattering of private resorts, mansions (inhabited or not), nuclear plants, and once pristine ecosystems and beaches ruined by oil platform blowouts if it weren't for the resistance by CCC to ruthless development interests.

[AustinTraveler]

city, you need to travel more to get an appreciation for how lucky we are to have California's unspoiled coastline. Go to Florida and there are many places you can't even see the beach because it's wall to wall condos.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by AustinTraveler

city, you need to travel more to get an appreciation for how lucky we are to have California's unspoiled coastline. Go to Florida and there are many places you can't even see the beach because it's wall to wall condos.

Precisely!

+1