U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 05-21-2014, 04:38 PM
 
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
163 posts, read 196,823 times
Reputation: 386

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Nor is it any more natural to sit there typing away on a computer, and yet there you sit. There's absolutely nothing natural about a computer. It's a highly unnatural process of converting raw resources into something entirely different that is far more complicated than moving water. As a species, we've been moving water for many centuries. Computers are a much, much more recent innovation than the rather basic idea of moving water to where people live.

Environmental concerns I can agree with is at least a consideration. This notion of "natural," however, is completely bogus.
Perhaps "natural" wasn't the correct word to use in this context. I wanted to imply that most cities evolve naturally over time, whereas Phoenix really only grew from the 1960s onwards when air-conditioning became widely available. Don't underestimate how quickly the population of Phoenix exploded - in 1940 the census recorded a pop. of 65,414; in 1960 it was 439,170. That's a staggering increase of almost 374,000 in only 20 years. The local environment cannot sustain continual increases like this. Water shortages are already a problem as is pollution. We cannot farm the land as easily as in the more fertile regions of the US. Phoenix cannot keep expanding forever.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-21-2014, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,079 posts, read 16,109,257 times
Reputation: 12647
Los Angeles added approximately one million between 1940 and 1960. It's not that staggering. Most of the West Coast grew rapidly during that time. Between 1890 and 1910, New York City grew by more than 3.5 million. Nothing new. Nor is being dependent on food imports. London has been for longer than we've been a country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2014, 08:22 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,677,803 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Malloric View Post
Los Angeles added approximately one million between 1940 and 1960. It's not that staggering. Most of the West Coast grew rapidly during that time. Between 1890 and 1910, New York City grew by more than 3.5 million. Nothing new. Nor is being dependent on food imports. London has been for longer than we've been a country.
But there are a couple key differences. When LA and NY grew, their growth tended to be more dense than Phoenix's growth-though LA's growth was suburban as well back then, their growth consisted of smaller first wave suburban homes that were more dense and compact. They were also relatively close to water sources (Hudson River for NYC, mountain streams and rivers for LA). Phoenix's growth is right in the middle of the desert and involves big, 21st century suburban homes in big subdivisions. It's comparable to LA's growth but under more extreme circumstances. It seems a little dangerous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-21-2014, 11:17 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 26 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
87,021 posts, read 102,689,903 times
Reputation: 33083
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
But there are a couple key differences. When LA and NY grew, their growth tended to be more dense than Phoenix's growth-though LA's growth was suburban as well back then, their growth consisted of smaller first wave suburban homes that were more dense and compact. They were also relatively close to water sources (Hudson River for NYC, mountain streams and rivers for LA). Phoenix's growth is right in the middle of the desert and involves big, 21st century suburban homes in big subdivisions. It's comparable to LA's growth but under more extreme circumstances. It seems a little dangerous.
Have you been to Phoenix? Almost all new developments of SF homes are on small, xeriscaped lots. As for LA, I would suggest reading this: California Water Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 01:45 AM
 
34,434 posts, read 41,537,489 times
Reputation: 29893
I'd imagine urban sprawl will continue till its no longer cost effective,obviously the drive is not a problem as people dont seem to mind driving 2 hours to get to work then do the same at the end of the day just so they can have that bungalow,double the price of gas and that bungalow and many will forego that suburban lifestyle for something much closer to the city even if its renting or a much smaller house.personally i like to live close to downtown//
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 12:00 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,677,803 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Have you been to Phoenix? Almost all new developments of SF homes are on small, xeriscaped lots. As for LA, I would suggest reading this: California Water Wars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Then I stand corrected. Either way though, though you've shown that Phoenix and LA have had the same development patterns, I will argue that both are in relatively unsustainable locations. If a climate crisis happens, LA and Phoenix will suffer greatly.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 12:19 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,992 posts, read 42,037,172 times
Reputation: 14811
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
Then I stand corrected. Either way though, though you've shown that Phoenix and LA have had the same development patterns, I will argue that both are in relatively unsustainable locations. If a climate crisis happens, LA and Phoenix will suffer greatly.
For California 14% of water is used by residences:

Drought by the Numbers: Where Does California Water Go? | Where We Are | SoCal Focus | KCET

Los Angeles [South Coast region] residential water use is just about the state averag. Watering lawns is estimated about almost half that (numbers for Santa Cruz and Crescent City with climates where watering much is unnecesary has about 60% of the water usage). Phoenix is a more extreme situation, but it necessary the locals could abandon lawns and use all xeriscaping (sounds like they already do somewhat).

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=phoen...4.48,,0,-13.34

some green lawns, others dry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 04:43 PM
 
1,709 posts, read 1,677,803 times
Reputation: 1842
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
How do they use the other 86% then? Just curious.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 05:44 PM
 
Location: Vallejo
14,079 posts, read 16,109,257 times
Reputation: 12647
Quote:
Originally Posted by OuttaTheLouBurbs View Post
How do they use the other 86% then? Just curious.
But not curious enough to read the article where it tells you 80% is used for agriculture and 6% by industry.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 06:28 PM
 
9,520 posts, read 14,857,889 times
Reputation: 9769
Right, complaining about water used by people living in the desert when other people are GROWING RICE in the desert is kinda silly.
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - 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 - Top