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.
It's also obvious that some people are delusional and would rather ignore the fact that the population is growing and the city can no longer expand outwards. We're beyond the point of wanting to urbanize, places like San Diego NEED to urbanize. There is no more room for sprawl and I'll be damned if they start building in national forests, military bases and state parks.
These types of comments/posters like to spout "no density", but have yet to offer an alternative to accommodating a growing population.
Push more people into the Rust Belt and repopulate cities that have had a precipitous population drop in the latter half of the 20th century. Detroit and Chicago can each do with a million more people each.
Or mandatory abortions for all peoples everywhere. That oughtta do it.
It's also obvious that some people are delusional and would rather ignore the fact that the population is growing and the city can no longer expand outwards. We're beyond the point of wanting to urbanize, places like San Diego NEED to urbanize. There is no more room for sprawl and I'll be damned if they start building in national forests, military bases and state parks.
These types of comments/posters like to spout "no density", but have yet to offer an alternative to accommodating a growing population.
I was looking for the Boston vs San Diego thread that had you as one of the very exact dudes I was talking about, but it was deleted for some reason. But basically it said something like this this:
"At least San Diego can improve on what it lacks in urbanity, Boston can never have San Diego's weather."
Posts such as that are exactly what emphasizes my previous post, that being more urban is really about dick measuring contests than any actual concern for human well being for certain people here. It's also very much an incorrect notion that places in this country as a whole need to urbanize (to any kind of significant extent anyways) to sustain population growth. We are ranked 182 in population density, which isn't even in the middle. Maybe our ranking will improve somewhat on say a weighted density level where geographic restrictions are taken into account, but we are hardly the only ones with that problem or even have that problem to the greatest extent. Which is the reason a place like Russia isn't exactly destroying us in population, or why a place like Australia isn't more close to our level.
So yeah I would consider childish reasons to make a place urban more of a threat to our society than any imaginary problem with overpopulation. This isn't India. Speaking of which, NYC, which is so far above every other place in this country for urbanity, can even come off as tame compared to some 3rd world cities out there. NYC itself can urbanize a lot as well. Even within the city limits itself, a place like Staten Island is an obvious contender. And there are more places than not that can be urbanized in it's outskirts. So in reality, no, San Diego certainly isn't one of the cities that will be facing any of those problems. No real city in California except San Francisco (which is very small) is actually dense. Only things that are even "dense" in most places California are it's suburbs. in comparison to suburbs in the rest of the country that is. The reason for that is it's desert location limits it from having as many suburbs as other places, so what's in place needs to be made use of. It doesn't even make sense for San Diego to have such problems, apart from being an overpriced (yeah, my opinion) "weather mecca" to some, especially those looking to retire, it's really not much of an attraction for movers. It's hardly an economic hub of sorts to any extent that matters. It's biggest sector is the damn military, which in itself says everything.
So to finish up on the point, if anything we could still be taking in many more people from struggling countries than now and still not worry about population problems for many years. Too many places including the Northeast still has lots of room for improvement in this nation.
Last edited by MalvoLLorne; 02-22-2016 at 06:59 PM..
Anyways, that's the end of my rant and probably involvement in the thread, as I really don't want to get sucked into all the immaturity that goes on around here. Especially when so many of the bickering that goes on here are about things that are subjective. It's just the notion that certain people care about being urban here due to the well being of society rather than just pissing contests with the Northeast is what bothered me.
To give a clear answer on the specific topic, no, I honestly doubt they can be urban like the Northeast in a realistic scenario. At best they will be like an LA/Miami where instead of being anything that's considered "urban" in the traditional sense, they just add lots of density. And no there is even less of a chance that cities in the sunbelt will "catch up" to the Northeast. Those places have too big of a lead for that. As a guy that actually travels abroad, them along with Chicago, and San Francisco are the only places I would really consider urban, and they can all still make improvements themselves. What cities like in the sunbelt might be doing in their city limits to urbanize, will more than likely be done to the suburbs in the Northeast. We also can't forget that some cities in the sunbelt like San Diego are limited by their desert location. Decades from now, when places more than likely start to annex more and more territories in their city/urban area or whatever will be the correct measure then, cities without deserted areas will obviously have more options.
So yeah, all that is why I just don't see this supposed "catch up" happening. Granted, every place will have to maintain their growth. Probably no reason think what happened in the rust belt can't happen to any other region in the future. It's hardly unrealistic to expect certain places in the South and West to at least slow down in growth at some point.
Last edited by MalvoLLorne; 02-22-2016 at 06:18 PM..
I was looking for the Boston vs San Diego thread that had you as one of the very exact dudes I was talking about, but it was deleted for some reason. But basically it said something like this this:
"At least San Diego can improve on what it lacks in urbanity, Boston can never have San Diego's weather."
Posts such as that are exactly what emphasizes my previous post, that being more urban is really about dick measuring contests than any actual concern for human well being for certain people here. It's also very much an incorrect notion that places in this country as a whole need to urbanize. We are ranked 182 in population density, which isn't even in the middle. Maybe our ranking will improve somewhat on say a weighted density level where geographic restrictions are taken into account, but we are hardly the only ones with that problem or even have that problem to the greatest extent. Which is the reason a place like Russia isn't exactly destroying us in population, or why a place like Australia isn't more close to our level.
So yeah I would consider childish reasons to make a place urban more of a threat to our society than any imaginary problem with overpopulation. This isn't India. Speaking of which, NYC, which is so far above every other place in this country for urbanity, can even come off as tame compared to some 3rd world cities out there. NYC itself can urbanize a lot as well. Even within the city limits itself, a place like Staten Island is an obvious contender. And there are more places than not that can be urbanized in it's outskirts. So in reality, no, San Diego certainly isn't one of the cities that will be facing any of those problems. No real city in California except San Francisco (which is very small) is actually dense. Only things that are even "dense" in most places California are it's suburbs. in comparison to suburbs in the rest of the country that is. The reason for that is it's desert location limits it from having as many suburbs as other places, so what's in place needs to be made use of. It doesn't even make sense for San Diego to have such problems, apart from being an overpriced (yeah, my opinion) "weather mecca" to some, especially those looking to retire, it's really not much of an attraction for movers. It's hardly an economic hub of sorts to any extent that matters. It's biggest sector is the damn military, which in itself says everything.
So to finish up on the point, if anything we could still be taking in many more people from struggling countries than now and still not worry about population problems for many years. Too many places including the Northeast still has lots of room for improvement in this nation.
That's definitely true. Some people seem to have this false idea that the NE has peaked in urbanity.
There is no such thing, always will be more areas they can improve on.
To give a clear answer on the specific topic, no, I honestly doubt they can be urban like the Northeast in a realistic scenario. At best they will be like an LA/Miami where instead of being anything that's considered "urban" in the traditional sense, they just add lots of density. And no there is even less of a chance that cities in the sunbelt will "catch up" to the Northeast.
.
I recall a City Data thread which discussed the idea of living at a mall. That's right, a mall.
It was commented that some people like to live near city amenities, but are not interested in urbanity.
BTW, on yet another thread there was discussion of Honolulu, a place that could be put in a loose category with LA and Miami.
China and Asia and India does it all the time, huge Chinese cities can be created in an amazingly short amount of time. Singapore was a third world region anything until Lee Kuan Yew transformed into a an amazing trading city and island and a first world nation and city. You just need leaders who believe in density and city building
No disrespect to Philly. But that's a good thing. Houston and SD can form their own unique dense urban environment. Would make the dynamic of this country even better.
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.
Alternatives?
That's right, a mall. 
