Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [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)
View Poll Results: Choose the region that will become densely populated like the northeast:
Southeast 23 17.97%
South Central (Texas) 19 14.84%
Southwest 4 3.13%
West Coast (California) 52 40.63%
Pacific Northwest 12 9.38%
Mountain West 3 2.34%
Upper Midwest 22 17.19%
Lower Midwest 7 5.47%
No other region could 23 17.97%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 128. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:31 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
Ding ding ding!

Of course, this will fly over almost everyone's head.

This is why California, on a state or regional level by definition, can't EVER be as densely populated as the Northeast. Unless we can magically create more flat land, but that would alter the climate so much that California may not be as desirable anymore. You can't have low density sprawl on really jagged mountains. Let's not kid ourselves.

It could be as densely populated if all the flat land that IS available for development has a density of 10000 ppsm and above.

What I don't get is on one hand, some of the posters who WANT this to happen are very much anti-sprawl, but at the same time, want to achieve a relative connected density level which can only happen THROUGH sprawl. So a sign of a mature region is for everything to sprawl into each other. Ok, glad we got that out of the way.
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with some of these posters.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,684 posts, read 7,349,385 times
Reputation: 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
There is a lot of cognitive dissonance going on with some of these posters.
I'll sum it up into an easy to read primer:

1) Hah, you don't have urban areas like ours. All you guys do is sprawl out everywhere
2) Hah, you don't sprawl out like we do, at least enough to feel connected. All you guys have is a lot of land, that's why you have a high population.

Yeah, I feel like that's what Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, etc. was missing. Some suburban housewife in her SUV cutting me off while driving to her McMansion and her druggie kids thinking its funny to shoot at me with a paintball gun while I'm hiking. I always felt like that was missing.

Even right now, I feel like areas like Monterey and Santa Barbara, two of my most FAVORITE small towns in all of the United States, are becoming overdeveloped. Why should we lose that?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:47 AM
 
Location: The City
22,379 posts, read 38,665,395 times
Reputation: 7974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
I'll sum it up into an easy to read primer:

1) Hah, you don't have urban areas like ours. All you guys do is sprawl out everywhere
2) Hah, you don't sprawl out like we do, at least enough to feel connected. All you guys have is a lot of land, that's why you have a high population.

Yeah, I feel like that's what Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, etc. was missing. Some suburban housewife in her SUV cutting me off while driving to her McMansion and her druggie kids thinking its funny to shoot at me with a paintball gun while I'm hiking. I always felt like that was missing.

Even right now, I feel like areas like Monterey and Santa Barbara, two of my most FAVORITE small towns in all of the United States, are becoming overdeveloped. Why should we lose that?

And to me this isnt all that much different than many other areas. Take an area like central Bucks county. Very pretty country and great towns. They dont have the geographic barrier but have had the actual people of the area collectively purchase the area to prevent more sprawl and preserve the space etc.

Development patterns, timing, and geography play a role. Look at a place like Houston for example. it grows pretty consistently ala LA but lower density as the land value is lessor and more sapace to grow etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:54 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
I'll sum it up into an easy to read primer:

1) Hah, you don't have urban areas like ours. All you guys do is sprawl out everywhere
2) Hah, you don't sprawl out like we do, at least enough to feel connected. All you guys have is a lot of land, that's why you have a high population.

Yeah, I feel like that's what Yosemite, Kings Canyon, Lake Tahoe, Big Sur, etc. was missing. Some suburban housewife in her SUV cutting me off while driving to her McMansion and her druggie kids thinking its funny to shoot at me with a paintball gun while I'm hiking. I always felt like that was missing.

Even right now, I feel like areas like Monterey and Santa Barbara, two of my most FAVORITE small towns in all of the United States, are becoming overdeveloped. Why should we lose that?
Luckily Santa Barbara is nearly out of land that can be developed, I guess there is a little room to the west outside of city limits between it and Goleta.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:57 AM
 
9,961 posts, read 17,429,426 times
Reputation: 9193
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup View Post
Take everything I said about southern California (obvious mountain ranges, dense minor cities) and it applies to Northern California 100%. The biggest gap between the two is from Paso Robles to Soledad / Salinas. Other than that the areas are kind of growing together, just lacking that ultra low-density sprawl that connects the Northeast and (especially) the Midwest. From San Diego up to Ojai is completely connected, then a small gap between Santa Barbara and Ventura (ultra narrow area between coastline and mountains: santa barbara, ca - Google Maps) And then it is practically connected from Santa Barbara all the way up to Paso Robles, with a couple of small gaps in between Santa Maria, Lompoc and Santa Barbara (again, mountains). One look at the terrain map and you'll see why those gaps exist: santa barbara, ca - Google Maps

I'm actually pretty surprised at the density levels between San Jose and Santa Cruz. I was in Saratoga last weekend and those mountains look incredibly steep, surprised they are able to maintain the second lowest density level (500 ppsm).
The Santa Cruz mountains have a higher density right on the edges of the area--so right around Los Gatos and Saratoga you'll find densities ranging from 500-2,000 ppm and then to the the north of Santa Cruz around Scotts Valley and up the San Lorenzo Valley where there's a lot of housing in the hills--and densities range from around 350-400 ppm in the mountains to 2,000 ppm in towns like Scotts Valley and Ben Lomand. However in between those areas off of Highway 9 or Highway 17 or Summit Road density is still pretty low--under 100 ppm. I grew up in the area and there's scattered housing along forested roads in that area(and there used to be a lot of pot growers as well). It's interesting though that to the west along the coast ot the north of Santa Cruz is even lower density--the large census tracts to the north of Santa Cruz where development has been restricted for years have densities in the range of 20-40 ppm.

There's still a lot of lower density pockets of farmland and hills between Salinas and Watsonville and the southern part of the Santa Clara Valley(Morgan Hill and Gilroy) as well. It's sort of the reason that the whole Monterrey Bay region still feels a slightly secluded from the Bay Area--even as development and the economy of Silcon Valley has brought the two closer together. There's a lot of restrictions to preserve the farmland and coastal scenery around much of the area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:58 AM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,684 posts, read 7,349,385 times
Reputation: 2409
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
And to me this isnt all that much different than many other areas. Take an area like central Bucks county. Very pretty country and great towns. They dont have the geographic barrier but have had the actual people of the area collectively purchase the area to prevent more sprawl and preserve the space etc.

Development patterns, timing, and geography play a role. Look at a place like Houston for example. it grows pretty consistently ala LA but lower density as the land value is lessor and more sapace to grow etc.
Yeah, I can think of areas on Long Island, NJ, and CT that have green spaces to prevent the kind of monstrosity a lot of people in this thread are advocating for. Hell, even where I lived on Staten Island, there is a HUGE greenspace in the middle of the island that was not terribly far from where I was staying. It sort of reminds you that even in a place that is technically NYC, you can find peace and quiet from all the hubbub and annoying Snooki clones who come off more as townies than 'sophisticated' NYers.

Only reason I use CA as an example is because I know the whole state from Crescent City to El Centro like the back of my hand. I'd sound pretty stupid talking about places I don't know nearly as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 11:59 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
And to me this isnt all that much different than many other areas. Take an area like central Bucks county. Very pretty country and great towns. They dont have the geographic barrier but have had the actual people of the area collectively purchase the area to prevent more sprawl and preserve the space etc.

Development patterns, timing, and geography play a role. Look at a place like Houston for example. it grows pretty consistently ala LA but lower density as the land value is lessor and more sapace to grow etc.
Well at this point for LA (actual city) it is all infill from here on out, there's nowhere else to grow outward. Any population increase is a de facto density increase as well.

Inland Empire is another story, though they too are rapidly running out of land. Honestly Houston could sprawl forever it seems, there are a few barriers to the south / southwest but in the other directions I see no barriers or desire to stop sprawling.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:05 PM
 
3,692 posts, read 5,934,858 times
Reputation: 2965
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
Yeah pretty much.

The lay of the land all but guarantees higher density in whatever flat areas there may be and any gaps are usually do to undevelopable land barriers.
Exactly. And add in urban growth boundaries and regulatory restrictions to that as well--check out Salinas on google earth and you'll see what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:09 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
Ohhh really?

To the east are swamps and wetlands where alligators live, hence there's light development in that direction as well as the Galveston Bay destroying any chances of sprawling out of control there. South you reach the gulf and that's the end of the road there. North it could sprawl till whenever but is it? Not really. It's contained in the communities that already exist there & west could sprawl limitlessly but then again who do you know of traveling 100 miles each way to "job centers".

I know of no one like that.
No I don't know Houston that well - no need to be offended. I meant to say Southeast though - I'm aware of the general geography.

Houston is polycentric like LA. Just because you live at the edge of the metro does not mean you are traveling 100 miles into the center. Additionally, you may not know people that are willing to do that (I don't either) but statistically super-commuters do exist.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2012, 12:42 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,084 posts, read 15,758,726 times
Reputation: 4049
Quote:
Originally Posted by valentro View Post
I wasn't offended. I think it's more practical to say things as they really are rather than giving an example that's geographically inaccurate.

Commuters from surrounding counties that aren't in the metropolitan come no where close to meeting any definition of adjoining the metropolitan or joining it in future tense. Just absolutely no where close. So whatever few hundred people that do choose to live their lives in this manner, they can be discounted for an area with 6 million people where the overwhelming majority don't do this.

Super commuting does exist but it doesn't really affect continuous development nor does it affect how large a metropolitan is. There are people in Dallas that "super commute" to Houston, doesn't make them Houstonians or apart of the same metropolitan.

Essentially on a 4 point system it can seem a place like Denver or Dallas are limitless in their sprawl but there are geographic constraints and more to an extent it's unheard of. I cant think of one metropolitan where such a dynamic even exists where there is 100 mile casual commuting from any of the 4 directions, how far can anyone expect sprawl to take you?

What kidphilly said was spot on, Houston is essentially a lower density but continuously built along area.
Not sure I catch what you are saying for some of these sentences.. But my main point is that Houston has the ability to develop for a very long ways in two directions - West and North. I made a typo when I said there are constraints to the southwest - I mean the southeast and east.

And yes Houston is developed like a very-low-density Los Angeles. When I said there was no desire to stop spreading, I didn't mean that was the exclusive mode of growth for the region. I've seen many many posts on here highlighting the infill in the inner loop.
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:


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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

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