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.
Miami by far. There's nowhere to grow but north and the farthest suburbs are already 90 minutes from Downtown Miami, without any traffic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by grega94
That's also kind of my point about SF, the geography doesn't allow for one main core city, you need multiple, what other metro is made up of multiple large cities? Also I never advocated Miami to build out onto the Everglades.
The Twin Cities, Metroplex, and South Florida just to name a few.
Bah, I voted for Washington DC. I thought the thread was for geographically constrained just for the city itself (and DC would be the correct answer because she can never again realistically expand into Maryland or Virginia). But I see the OP is talking about the entire metro area of the city.
So, if I had to vote for the entire metro area, I would go with San Francisco. After that, Los Angeles, New York and Miami. After that I am not sure, maybe Seattle.
Where exactly do you think a lot of the people that live there work?
-Nearly 71,000 workers travel into Greater Los Angeles from the Antelope Valley each day.
-Approximately 63,000 workers from Palmdale/Lancaster sub-region spend at least an hour each day on the road; of those, 38,000 spend two or more hours commuting.
-In all, 42% of Lancaster and 53% of Palmdale working residents commuted to the Greater Los Angeles area.
True, but that isn't a commute most will make. While I acknowledge this is about entire regions and their potential for growth, in terms of demand and infrastructure, the Antelope Valley is harder to fill in than valleys north, southeast, northeast, and east of San Francisco, farmland south of Miami, and valleys east of Honolulu, which are the only cities that could possibly make a claim to be constricted to a degree near Los Angeles.
That's less constraining than how the actual mountains (which are mostly owned by the federal government) are for Los Angeles.
If you can't build on it, then you can't build on it, simple as that. Besides, Los Angeles metro extends past those mountains into the Lancaster area, which has tons of land to build on. Los Angeles metro is far from being geographically constrained.
If you can't build on it, then you can't build on it, simple as that. Besides, Los Angeles metro extends past those mountains into the Lancaster area, which has tons of land to build on. Los Angeles metro is far from being geographically constrained.
You can't change mountains but you can change building restrictions on farmland.
Easy to see why SF wins by topography as surrounded on 3-sides by water and suburbs on the other. Also Miami as restricted by law from growing west into the everglades.
But other cities are constrained if already built out totally to their suburbs too. Some sunbelt fast growing cities? Still have much land inside city propers to expand. But a Chicago and Cleveland with a Great bordering on one side Also, is built to its suburbs. Sit still constrained to its current borders but to annex suburbs that is unlikly.
Also, look at how little land has been added since 1975 in the UDB in Miami. Its minuscule, and you cant even go much further until you reach the Everglades anyway.
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.
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.
