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.
False. There are mountain ranges to the east and west of San Jose, and the San Francisco Bay to the north. No, there's not as much geographic constraint in San Jose as there is in San Francisco, but there's still more than most cities.
Mountains and water are not geographic constraints and have no notible impact on housing supply. I believe NOLA has made this entirely clear and I'm VERY surprised and disappointed you are attempting to argue otherwise.
The passibility of mountains was first made clear in the 2nd centrury BC when Carthaginian General Hannibal Barca crossed the Alps with an army of elephants (no people, all elephants) on his way to invade Italy. Given this occurred 2200 years ago, I'd think the concept would have sunken in by now.
Also, New York harbor is not water nor part of the Atlantic, The Hudson River and East River pose no hinderence to commuter transit, and Long Island being an island in no way constrains its supply of developable land. Get with the program.
This thread took a BIG side branch off topic ... But on that. Manhattan being a ISLAND Did have constraint ENOUGH to push density limits more then any other US city. The tenements might have been more as Boston an Philly row-homes as Low-rises 3-stories. Tenements of NYC pushed it up more stories to get more people in a tighter geographic LIMITED ISLAND. Of course the other Island and what would become boroughs as one city. Were started as not part of NYC. They were annexed.
Manhattan still OWES its higher density to the CONSTRAINTS AS A ISLAND that was the whole city first. Nothing rocket-scientist about it in realizing .... IT STILL PLAYED A ROLL IN HIGHER DENSITY vs other cities of the time.
When you think about it, there aren't many truly coastal cities in the US actually. San Diego, Miami, Boston, San Francisco, Los Angeles pretty much fills them out, with Miami having the best oceanfront setting of them all.
You're forgetting NYC, and Honolulu unless you're talking about mainland only. But yeah that's an interesting point. That's something I haven't really thought of before. That's probably for the better in the long run due to rising sea levels.
n.y.c., boston, s.f. have fairly low unemployment rates. combined with one of the highest (the highest ?) educated population and high median income salaries, people are willing to spend half-a-mill on a 1-floor condo in a 3-family in an average neighborhood.
or you can do what my boy does and rent a room in dorchester with 4 roomates for 500/mo.
Last edited by stanley-88888888; 07-29-2017 at 06:34 PM..
This thread took a BIG side branch off topic ... But on that. Manhattan being a ISLAND Did have constraint ENOUGH to push density limits more then any other US city. The tenements might have been more as Boston an Philly row-homes as Low-rises 3-stories. Tenements of NYC pushed it up more stories to get more people in a tighter geographic LIMITED ISLAND. Of course the other Island and what would become boroughs as one city. Were started as not part of NYC. They were annexed.
Manhattan still OWES its higher density to the CONSTRAINTS AS A ISLAND that was the whole city first. Nothing rocket-scientist about it in realizing .... IT STILL PLAYED A ROLL IN HIGHER DENSITY vs other cities of the time.
Correct, but Noone has to pay those costs to live on an island but enough people choose to which drives up density and cost.
People seem to be forgetting that where we choose to live for the most part is a choice..... If people are choosing to live in expensive cities, they must have a desirability factor to them,. It could be jobs, culture etc.. Anyone can easily live in Dallas and take advantage of their low cost of living along with abundance of jobs and fortune 500 companies but clearly that's not happening.
For example. Why are people moving to SF? It's super expensive and geographically constrained on 3 sides by water and most of the tech jobs are on the peninsula......? Most of the tech Ceo's or high ups live in or have a home in SF as well. Its cause SF is a desirable location to live.
Correct, but Noone has to pay those costs to live on an island but enough people choose to which drives up density and cost.
People seem to be forgetting that where we choose to live for the most part is a choice..... If people are choosing to live in expensive cities, they must have a desirability factor to them,. It could be jobs, culture etc.. Anyone can easily live in Dallas and take advantage of their low cost of living along with abundance of jobs and fortune 500 companies but clearly that's not happening.
For example. Why are people moving to SF? It's super expensive and geographically constrained on 3 sides by water and most of the tech jobs are on the peninsula......? Most of the tech Ceo's or high ups live in or have a home in SF as well. Its cause SF is a desirable location to live.
Yes... The south has a faster growth rate right now. I'm talking about where we are currently. Dallas should be a mega city if geographical constraints are the only reason why coastal cities are expensive and those coastal cities should not be seeing population increases as well.
Growth rates wax and wane. Too many factors are involved, to ever predict what areas will continue to grow, and what areas will decline. If, in the future, there are severe water shortages, the Great Lakes states may be growth areas. If people are priced out of coastal areas, there will be infill in other areas. I think there is a fair amount of "smug" by some posters, but just when you think things are going well, they can change, slowly, over time, or quickly. People think they can predict, but no one really can.
Growth rates wax and wane. Too many factors are involved, to ever predict what areas will continue to grow, and what areas will decline. If, in the future, there are severe water shortages, the Great Lakes states may be growth areas. If people are priced out of coastal areas, there will be infill in other areas. I think there is a fair amount of "smug" by some posters, but just when you think things are going well, they can change, slowly, over time, or quickly. People think they can predict, but no one really can.
Coastal cities are funniest cities be in
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.
and Honolulu unless you're talking about mainland only. But yeah that's an interesting point. That's something I haven't really thought of before. That's probably for the better in the long run due to rising sea levels. 
