Am I naive for thinking that Fresno and Bakersfield will change? (Los Angeles: movers, crime)

[Trafalgar Law]

I personally think states like California are excellent places because of the number of cities and/or metropolitan areas they have to offer with over 1 million people. Fresno has already crossed that threshold and Bakersfield should soon enough. Both cities represent the 5th and 6th largest areas over or approaching a minimum of 1 million people in all of California. The other four ahead of them being Greater Los Angeles CSA, San Francisco Bay Area CSA, San Diego MSA, and the Sacramento CSA.

I think that as coastal Californians continue moving into the inland Central Valley cities that eventually when they reach a certain size, they'll begin reforming and upgrading the infrastructure to better reflect areas of their sizes. Currently Fresno and Bakersfield both present challenges, especially in the arena of urbanism and leveling off blight and crime.

Going into the future as the influx in residents will continue, do you think Fresno and Bakersfield will catch on to more positive trends and begin changing for the better? Add more infrastructure that they need. Reduce some of the blight and crime and instill sustainable urban fabric and lure employers.

Am I naive for thinking these places can change and do a turnaround?

[Bunjee]

I think they will change. Whatever we think of HSR through the Central Valley, it will provide more statewide connectivity, possibly moving it away from agri-business. I think it can then achieve some balance in its future, away from resource-intense export agriculture (with the soil assets to retain a more locally focused food system) and able to diversify its economic base.

[Majin]

Yes, you are naive for thinking that.

[Count David]

I like the Central Valley the way it is, and I don't care if it ever changes or not.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by Red John

I personally think states like California are excellent places because of the number of cities and/or metropolitan areas they have to offer with over 1 million people. Fresno has already crossed that threshold and Bakersfield should soon enough. Both cities represent the 5th and 6th largest areas over or approaching a minimum of 1 million people in all of California. The other four ahead of them being Greater Los Angeles CSA, San Francisco Bay Area CSA, San Diego MSA, and the Sacramento CSA.

I think that as coastal Californians continue moving into the inland Central Valley cities that eventually when they reach a certain size, they'll begin reforming and upgrading the infrastructure to better reflect areas of their sizes. Currently Fresno and Bakersfield both present challenges, especially in the arena of urbanism and leveling off blight and crime.

Going into the future as the influx in residents will continue, do you think Fresno and Bakersfield will catch on to more positive trends and begin changing for the better? Add more infrastructure that they need. Reduce some of the blight and crime and instill sustainable urban fabric and lure employers.

Am I naive for thinking these places can change and do a turnaround?

The number one issue is jobs. LA has a diverse base, SF has tech, Sacramento hs government and San Diego has military and Medical/Biotech. What jobs can sustain a meaningful improvement in Fresno and Bakersfield? HSR, could turn Fresno into a commuter city to Bay Area and Bakersfield to LA, I guess, but beyond that, I don't know enough about it to know if the jobs can be created there.

[I Love Buildings]

OP, i too wish that the central valley begins to urbanize too and catch up in the Skyline game. Lets go play find the corn field and pave it into a building!

[Trafalgar Law]

Originally Posted by HappyinCali

The number one issue is jobs. LA has a diverse base, SF has tech, Sacramento hs government and San Diego has military and Medical/Biotech. What jobs can sustain a meaningful improvement in Fresno and Bakersfield? HSR, could turn Fresno into a commuter city to Bay Area and Bakersfield to LA, I guess, but beyond that, I don't know enough about it to know if the jobs can be created there.

Logistics would work better for the Central Valley.

Investment in large airports and the focus of making both Fresno and Bakersfield into hub cities, relieving the traffic and congestion due to the layovers or stopovers at LAX and SFO. It would allow each of those airports to diminish a bit of their hub activity to free up space and gates for foreign flag carriers and more domestic carrier brands, thus decentralizing the monopoly in airline ticket prices in Coastal California. While creating an industry that logistically fits into Inland California. More investment in railroads, warehouses, and industrial capacity in addition to infrastructure would be beneficial as well.

The region is already an agricultural powerhouse at the global level, it needs to become a more efficient center to move it and ship it across the United States, across North America, and to Coastal California where it can be shipped overseas as well. It'll need more industrial capacity, in particular storage capacity, and warehouses as well as hired movers. The region can and also will flourish with the aerospace industry, both due to its geography and also due to the cost structuring to put aerospace in Inland California.

Then there's stuff like high speed rail, attracting investment in residential properties, and stuff like that.

These are all examples of economical investments. Easier said than done and it will be a challenge for Fresno and Bakersfield to get this sort of cycle started. They have to generate the demand for it and the rest will follow suit but it will require careful supervision and planning. I think Fresno and Bakersfield can change but it remains to be seen if they will or not.

[Perma Bear]

If global warming happens quicker and Fresno/Bakersfield become coastal I can see them becoming more desirable

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Red John

I personally think states like California are excellent places because of the number of cities and/or metropolitan areas they have to offer with over 1 million people. Fresno has already crossed that threshold and Bakersfield should soon enough. Both cities represent the 5th and 6th largest areas over or approaching a minimum of 1 million people in all of California. The other four ahead of them being Greater Los Angeles CSA, San Francisco Bay Area CSA, San Diego MSA, and the Sacramento CSA.

I think that as coastal Californians continue moving into the inland Central Valley cities that eventually when they reach a certain size, they'll begin reforming and upgrading the infrastructure to better reflect areas of their sizes. Currently Fresno and Bakersfield both present challenges, especially in the arena of urbanism and leveling off blight and crime.

Going into the future as the influx in residents will continue, do you think Fresno and Bakersfield will catch on to more positive trends and begin changing for the better? Add more infrastructure that they need. Reduce some of the blight and crime and instill sustainable urban fabric and lure employers.

Am I naive for thinking these places can change and do a turnaround?

They will change as the only constant is change. The question is will they change for better or worse?

[Des-Lab]

Anything is possible.

Is it likely?

I'm pretty ambivalent about that. Fresno just can't seem to even attract any first rate airline service. And someone thinks it's going to be a hub? I'll believe THAT when I see it. Not even Southwest Airlines or Spirit or Frontier Airlines are interested in Fresno.

Granted, Some parts of the Valley such as Clovis and to a lesser extent, parts of Visalia are trying to modernize and clean up their images and make themselves attractive to more, mainstream business and commerce. As opposed to just more thrift shops, taco stands, dollar stores, and fast food-which is currently the norm in many other places such as Tulare, Porterville, Lemoore, and wide chunks of Fresno.

Secondary main and branch rail lines once crisscrossed much of the Valley-particularly in Tulare County. Most have been pulled up over the last twenty or so years with only a handful of marginal ones left-with even more abandonments expected to come with subsequent rail removal in the next few years.

Most of the Central Valley (Fresno-Visalia-Bakersfield-Porterville-Hanford) still has a predominantly "Good Ol' Boy" culture of business that reigns dominant. This means that suburban sprawl-exactly what many other cities in CA and other states are trying to wean themselves off of-will be the continued pattern for the foreseeable future. Consequently city and business planners in pretty much every one of those cities are absolutely terrified of concepts like "smart growth", "infill", "transit oriented development", "pedestrian friendly", and so on.

I'm not aware of a single such type of development in progress or in planning anywhere in the Valley. If such a place does exist, it's very low key. Indeed several of these dying or former rail lines could (and perhaps should) be rehabilitated or rebuilt for use as Light Rail, DMU, or even conventional heavy commuter rail with perhaps freight thrown in the mix. Alas, I'm not aware of even the slightest bit of interest in any city doing so.

So to answer the OP's question. I fully expect that most of the Central Valley will continue to remain stuck in the 20th Century and be the laughingstock for most of the rest of the State basically indefinitely.