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.
Out of this list, Miami and maybe New Orleans seem to be in the most danger of *losing* habitable land.
For the City of NOLA, there isn't anywhere to go, but that is untrue for the metro and the CSA beyond.
Remember the city's northern boundary is hemmed I'm by Pontchartrain, but the northern burbs are on the northern side of the lake. Nothing stopping New Orleans csa from sprawling north to Jackson, east through Mississippi and into Alabama or west to Lafayette.
Sure the areas south of the Mississippi are rather swampy, but it's lack of growth that is stopping New Orleans from sprawling not that it is hemmed in. If New Orleans had gotten DFW type growth New Orleans and Baton Rouge could have been one csa already.
There are too many surface level parking lots in all of these CSA's to be out of land. Some have come closer to realizing that than others. There's a good amount of space for our needs to be met, even in the Bay Area.
To illustrate, if just 25 square miles of commercial or mixed-use land add 40,000/sm, that's a million people. Even the SF area has tons of low-density commercial land. The Seattle area does too, despite focusing growth into these areas for decades.
Next you can liberalize single-family areas for missing-middle housing, as many cities/states have done. New development and any reconstruction on "house" sites can have multiple units each. In a high-growth, limited-sprawl city that could generate a lot of units over time. If even 10% of the existing houses each become three units (over decades) that's a 20% increase in units in the single-family areas even before greenfield development is added.
To illustrate, if just 25 square miles of commercial or mixed-use land add 40,000/sm, that's a million people. Even the SF area has tons of low-density commercial land. The Seattle area does too, despite focusing growth into these areas for decades.
Next you can liberalize single-family areas for missing-middle housing, as many cities/states have done. New development and any reconstruction on "house" sites can have multiple units each. In a high-growth, limited-sprawl city that could generate a lot of units over time. If even 10% of the existing houses each become three units (over decades) that's a 20% increase in units in the single-family areas even before greenfield development is added.
Exactly. Anyone who’s been to a historic middle eastern city like Istanbul which is extremely hilly knows that the development pattern of “no land” having hilly cities in the U.S is very self-imposed. You can build on hills, you can build on mountains, you can build up, you can build new islands albeit that’s riskier with climate change. For example what Kobe Japan did, is an outstanding example of engineering. The truth is the pressure isn’t there.
Exactly. Anyone who’s been to a historic middle eastern city like Istanbul which is extremely hilly knows that the development pattern of “no land” having hilly cities in the U.S is very self-imposed. You can build on hills, you can build on mountains, you can build up, you can build new islands albeit that’s riskier with climate change. For example what Kobe Japan did, is an outstanding example of engineering. The truth is the pressure isn’t there.
In South America, people say that some of the people that build the shacks on the favellas would make great engineers without realizing it.
They can build more sprawls near Livermore and Pleasanton tomorrow if they wanted to, or sprawl way more from Stockton (It's still part of SF CSA) if people really want to live that far. Down south there's also San Benito County (I mean, it is still SF CSA even though it's like 2 hrs away).
I agree with Miami...the only way that CSA can expand is if it takes over Port St. Lucie.
Well,true, but even though it’s CSA, when you’re building past an entire set of mini-mountains to accommodate demand for the “core” urbanized area, it’s a little more stark of a divider indicating either poor land use, a desperation for more development, or both. I would submit that the coast ranges are what put the Bay Area in another class that way, not exactly unlike Miami or NOLA, but a bit more stark.
Which is kind of interesting because some CSAs are less than 50K population whereas the San Diego MSA has over 3 M which is more than over 150 of the current CSAs.
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.
