How long before California is one continuous suburb? (San Francisco, Orange: for sale, apartments)

[Quatermass]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Hopefully enough people will leave in the next 50 years 'cause of the economy (and what's more important right? ) and it won't be an issue.
The people will stay will have a true love of the nature and spirit of the place and California will be wonderful and underpopulated.

And impoverished.

[JerZ]

Originally Posted by Quatermass

According to Demolition Man we'll all be living in the city of San Angeles by 2032.

Yeah, and we'll all be making out by putting helmets on and touching only each other's hands. That would be strange for L.A. (the just-hands part; not the helmets).

[BlackShoe]

Originally Posted by Drover

Threads like this make me wonder how easy it is for coast dwellers to forget just how vast and empty the open spaces are in California.

Correct.The answer to the question is never.With something like 95% of the population compressed into perhaps 1% of the land,that leaves a lot of open territory.There are deserts,moutains,forests,valleys,and even coastal stretches that are either empty or only lightly populated.

[Charles]

Originally Posted by BlackShoe

Correct.The answer to the question is never.With something like 95% of the population compressed into perhaps 1% of the land,that leaves a lot of open territory.There are deserts,moutains,forests,valleys,and even coastal stretches that are either empty or only lightly populated.

This becomes very obvious when we fly.

Here's another perspective. You could fit every single person in the world in a box 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile by 1/2 mile or, 1/8 cubic miles. This box could easily be placed into the Grand Canyon.

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by Quatermass

And impoverished.

Hardly.
Just the opposite.
Well, define "impoverished".

[majoun]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

Hardly.
Just the opposite.
Well, define "impoverished".

CA with a much smaller population would obviously never reach the affluence of CA's past.

However, with fewer people, it is unlikely that CA would be an impoverished state. Most likely it would be somewhere in the middle.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Never. World population, let alone, US population, let alone California (aka Rust Belt II) population will peak, and begin a decline, long before that happens.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by drshang

Won't happen. An earthquake will drive the state into the ocean first.

Unless you are being facetious, your knowledge of plate tectonics is nil.

In fact, earthquakes, collectively, raise us up and make dry land out of the ocean, in this peculiar tectonic setting we happen to inhabit.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

Unless you are being facetious, your knowledge of plate tectonics is nil.

In fact, earthquakes, collectively, raise us up and make dry land out of the ocean, in this peculiar tectonic setting we happen to inhabit.

Shhhh! You'll discourage all those people who bought land in Arizona counting on it becoming ocean front when the big one hit CA.

But I must admit, the thought of San Francisco falling into the Pacific is encouraging!

[NYMTman]

Compared to the Northeast (DC-NYC-BOS corridor specifically) California is wide open. CA will never be as crowded as the NE corridor due to geography as others have said.