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 05-22-2014, 06:35 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,952,939 times
Reputation: 1953

Advertisements

It's probably also important to note that LA gets twice as much rain as Phoenix.

If LA wasn't piping in water it would still be a large city (probably more like the size of Phoenix).

If Phoenix wasn't piping in water it would probably look more like Flagstaff.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-22-2014, 06:41 PM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,952,939 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The borders of the Bay Area are Big Ag farm land. So there isn't enough money in the universe for those guys to sell out for housing and development. The Bay Area has well reached "critical mass" in terms of commute time from the edges of the region to any one of the major or minor job centers.
I was just reading an article yesterday (i'll see if I can find it) that was explaining how Dallas and the Bay Area posted similar job growth last year but that the DFW area issued 4x as many building permits. I wonder how much longer that kind of pressure will continue in the Bay Area before it starts to have a negative impact on the workforce (people leaving).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 07:43 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
I was just reading an article yesterday (i'll see if I can find it) that was explaining how Dallas and the Bay Area posted similar job growth last year but that the DFW area issued 4x as many building permits. I wonder how much longer that kind of pressure will continue in the Bay Area before it starts to have a negative impact on the workforce (people leaving).
It probably has, for those not in higher paying jobs, or especially not in the fields where the Bay Area stands out (such as tech jobs).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-22-2014, 07:48 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
The borders of the Bay Area are Big Ag farm land. So there isn't enough money in the universe for those guys to sell out for housing and development. The Bay Area has well reached "critical mass" in terms of commute time from the edges of the region to any one of the major or minor job centers.
The borders of the Bay Area is preserved land, mostly government owned or regulated. Housing land is worth much more per acre than it is to "big ag".

http://baynature.org/wp-content/uplo.../07/11-294.jpg

Green is conservation land.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-23-2014, 03:54 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
27,164 posts, read 29,645,043 times
Reputation: 26646
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The borders of the Bay Area is preserved land, mostly government owned or regulated. Housing land is worth much more per acre than it is to "big ag".

http://baynature.org/wp-content/uplo.../07/11-294.jpg

Green is conservation land.
I was thinking more of the exburban places. The counties immediately adjacent to the core Bay Area are most agricultural, and Big Ag. Even though the central valley has a huge housing boom (and crash), most of the developable land has been built up, and the rest belongs to industry. The immediate Bay Area is "full" and only infill remains. And the adjacent counties, besides being horrible commutes are also nearing max capacity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 07:34 PM
 
2,253 posts, read 2,749,478 times
Reputation: 926
How significant is there a shift towards more "dense" suburban development in North American cities?

Here in Toronto, the postwar development of (relatively) small house and (relatively) large lot seems to have given way to more suburban townhouse developments as well as more exurban McMansions (as well as the development of "new urbanist" suburban downtown centers). However there are restrictions on suburban sprawl (the Greenbelt) so the Toronto metro area doesn't cover nearly as large a land area as say, Chicago. In addition, the area that served as the "boroughs" within Metropolitan Toronto is kind of an urban suburbia that is pretty dense, our version of Queens/Staten Island and the San Fernando Valley. The city core has seen much gentrification both with condo growth downtown and in close-in old rowhouse neighborhoods.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-25-2014, 09:56 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
45,983 posts, read 41,921,149 times
Reputation: 14804
I've seen more small lot / townhouse development in the Northeast suburbs in the last decade. But the shift seems relatively small compared to Canada. The average lot size of recent decades is still much larger than the 50s or 60s. Though I read New Jersey has switched to building a lot of multifamily recently.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-26-2014, 04:37 AM
 
Location: Seattle some of the time now.
727 posts, read 523,903 times
Reputation: 1238
The San Fernando Valley. When I was a kid the Valley was horse property. It was one of the few places you could buy a house which sat on a decent amount of property, enough for horses (& it was zoned for horses) & still be in close proximity to Los Angreles. You could have horses in some of what is now called the Inland Empire, say in Norco, Covina, La Verne, Corona, Azusa, etc.but it didn't seem as sprawling nor as ranch-like as the Valley.

Then the Valley became this totally suburban, family neighborhood, complete with imitation wood grained paneling on every Country Squire station wagon.

I remember when Woodland Hills had the newest & furthest out track of homes. They were large, luxurious sfr for that time (early 70's). Everyone wondered if they would sell & if people would drive that far to go to work in L.A. Lol!

I can't believe what it has become now.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-22-2014, 04:39 PM
 
Location: NH
820 posts, read 800,990 times
Reputation: 1023
This sprawl thing is all subjective to so many different factors. It is not a good or bad thing . It depends how it is done and why. People who say it is only a bad thing may have a problem with critical thinking.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-24-2014, 02:00 PM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,003,488 times
Reputation: 1348
Quote:
Originally Posted by jade408 View Post
I was thinking more of the exburban places. The counties immediately adjacent to the core Bay Area are most agricultural, and Big Ag. Even though the central valley has a huge housing boom (and crash), most of the developable land has been built up, and the rest belongs to industry. The immediate Bay Area is "full" and only infill remains. And the adjacent counties, besides being horrible commutes are also nearing max capacity.
It's good ag land, many want to retain their small-town feel, and, yes, the commute is bad.

The commute, though, could be dealt with by a faster Caltrain, but it's limited by capacity, funding, and the politics of the cities on the peninsula. Hollister to SF is only ~90 miles, and that's less than an hour, station-to-station from a standing start, above 100 MPH. But, that would require electrification and trenches, and cities like Palo Alto want none of that silliness.
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