Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-25-2016, 03:08 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,564 posts, read 16,062,110 times
Reputation: 19586

Advertisements

Geeze. The speculation. I served as aircrew in a Navy helicopter unit out of San Diego and engaged in missions with the Marines often in Vietnam. The Marines only have a handful of bases in the whole country. Their primary assignment has historically been associated as a beach assault force. Of course they are much more today, but that remains their specialty. As such they require training venues that correspond. And they require a presence on each coast, Atlantic and Pacific, for such training and force headquarters, and deployment base.

On the Atlantic it's Camp LeJeune / Parris Island. On the Pacific it's San Diego MCRD and Pendleton, plus MCB Kaneohe, Hawaii which is also a Marine Air Station.

Get it folks? Pendleton is the only Pacific mainland base. It isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to become a state park either. It's critically invested without any other better options.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-25-2016, 03:54 PM
 
162 posts, read 211,503 times
Reputation: 189
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt;43485673[B
]Geeze. The speculation. [/b] I served as aircrew in a Navy helicopter unit out of San Diego and engaged in missions with the Marines often in Vietnam. The Marines only have a handful of bases in the whole country. Their primary assignment has historically been associated as a beach assault force. Of course they are much more today, but that remains their specialty. As such they require training venues that correspond. And they require a presence on each coast, Atlantic and Pacific, for such training and force headquarters, and deployment base.

On the Atlantic it's Camp LeJeune / Parris Island. On the Pacific it's San Diego MCRD and Pendleton, plus MCB Kaneohe, Hawaii which is also a Marine Air Station.

Get it folks? Pendleton is the only Pacific mainland base. It isn't going anywhere. It isn't going to become a state park either. It's critically invested without any other better options.
I don't think there is any speculation at all. We were all just responding to the OP who wishes this would happen, we were all commenting on how that would royally suck, nothing more nothing less.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 05:28 PM
 
Location: North County San Diego Area
782 posts, read 752,409 times
Reputation: 731
I hope it stay's as is, I relocated here from SoFla which is being overdeveloped and sprawling mad and what I like about this area is the fact it's not too bad, overdeveloped to the point as every piece of land has some cookie cutter community, strip malls and over abundance of big box retailers. I do not know if we will stay here for the long term if this area get's too vastly overdeveloped, I can imagine traffic will be horrific and I work with a lot of people from the OC who commute south and say how nice it is driving down to here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 05:41 PM
 
32,516 posts, read 36,985,292 times
Reputation: 32571
Quote:
Originally Posted by I Love Buildings View Post
I guess i'm the only who doesn't like looking at rural, undeveloped land :-(
So move to Detroit.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-25-2016, 09:37 PM
 
Location: On the water.
21,564 posts, read 16,062,110 times
Reputation: 19586
Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Chili View Post
I don't think there is any speculation at all. We were all just responding to the OP who wishes this would happen, we were all commenting on how that would royally suck, nothing more nothing less.
Sure. I get / got that. It's just really silly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 12:03 AM
 
5,381 posts, read 8,630,690 times
Reputation: 4550
OP, since you love buildings, why not grab your lunch everyday, scurry over, and watch the construction of the "5 Lagunas," a complete redo of the Laguna Hills mall? That development, at least, would be an improvement over their present dead mall. Anything would be better than what is currently there.
Tired Laguna Hills Mall to add luxury apartments, park, new shops by 2018 - The Orange County Register

“We want to create a real downtown that a lot of newer cities like Laguna Hills don’t have. We were master planned in the 70s and never really had a gathering spot.”

Just an aside, I had no idea that Laguna Hills is a master-planned community. I'm also shocked that it's a "newer" city. Not to offend LH residents (are there any on C-D??), but it seems like the city is finally waking up from a very very deep sleep.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 01:59 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 947,797 times
Reputation: 1498
As nice as a car-free city would be, a new city just isn't needed in the U.S. right now. Our existing cities are full of parking lots and short, single-use buildings. We could easily infill most of our existing cities with towers for the next 50 years and still have plenty of room within their existing urban footprints. There is no reason to pave more land when we're using land quite inefficiently right now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 07:10 AM
 
Location: On the water.
21,564 posts, read 16,062,110 times
Reputation: 19586
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89 View Post
As nice as a car-free city would be, a new city just isn't needed in the U.S. right now..
A new city isn't needed at all, ever.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ketch89 View Post
We could easily infill most of our existing cities with towers for the next 50 years and still have plenty of room within their existing urban footprints. There is no reason to pave more land when we're using land quite inefficiently right now.
There's no reason whatsoever to continue growing population that would require more infill either. We're easily double any sane level of population already and more is not merrier no matter how you stack us.

You can't continue to expand infinitely in a finite paradigm. And there is zero advantage to even testing the limit. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 09:27 AM
 
162 posts, read 211,503 times
Reputation: 189
I love the open space there. I find it peaceful driving the 5 and having that big gap of land. I also used to live on the base so I am partial to the Del Mar beach there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-26-2016, 10:50 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
702 posts, read 947,797 times
Reputation: 1498
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tulemutt View Post
A new city isn't needed at all, ever.

There's no reason whatsoever to continue growing population that would require more infill either. We're easily double any sane level of population already and more is not merrier no matter how you stack us.

You can't continue to expand infinitely in a finite paradigm. And there is zero advantage to even testing the limit. "Growth for the sake of growth is the ideology of a cancer cell."
1) Buildings don't actually produce babies, humans do.

2) The U.S. population is only increasing because of immigration, not birth rates. Our birthrate is below replacement level, just like Japan, Germany, and other advanced countries.

3) If our goal is to stabilize (and eventually reduce) global population, we need to encourage factors that reduce global birthrates.

4) The main factor that is proven to reduce birthrates is the education of women (increasing population density also reduces birth rates).

5) The most realistic way to provide women in developing countries with education is to pull said countries out of poverty. Life is pretty great for you and me, but believe me, most of the world NEEDS the global economy to continue to churn and grow, so that they can provide a higher quality of life to their families. As a side-effect, comfortable households have fewer children than households in poverty.

6) Unless you're a wide-eyed Trump supporter (I don't think you are), there's no way to legislate a lower birthrate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top