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.
California hasn’t managed population growth very well, and I think that’s part of the problem. LA and SF could be much better cities if they had focused on growing their urban cores earlier on. That would allow a bit more breathing room for the rest of the state. It’s nobody’s fault, it just exploded in population at time cars and burbs were also becoming commonplace. And then the NIMBYs became a thing. And now everywhere feels overcrowded and congested. Maybe objectively it’s not in a global context, but it definitely feels like it is compared to the rest of the US. I will say I’ve always thought the Bay Area has done a better job vs LA but SF of course is a much older city.
NYC feels crowded but it also feels like it’s supposed to be crowded. New York is a more densely populated state than California but it does not really feel overcrowded anywhere but NYC and parts of its metro. Of course - it’s a bit illusory as California has more parkland and topography that prevents development. And California also has a lot of inherent desirability in large swaths of the state so maybe it was just inevitable anyway. But you could compare it to somewhere like Canada that actively promotes urban development vs sprawl so that even the really desirable places like Vancouver don’t feel so traffic-choked and over saturated with people.
California hasn’t managed population growth very well, and I think that’s part of the problem. LA and SF could be much better cities if they had focused on growing their urban cores earlier on. That would allow a bit more breathing room for the rest of the state. It’s nobody’s fault, it just exploded in population at time cars and burbs were also becoming commonplace. And then the NIMBYs became a thing. And now everywhere feels overcrowded and congested. Maybe objectively it’s not in a global context, but it definitely feels like it is compared to the rest of the US. I will say I’ve always thought the Bay Area has done a better job vs LA but SF of course is a much older city.
NYC feels crowded but it also feels like it’s supposed to be crowded. New York is a more densely populated state than California but it does not really feel overcrowded anywhere but NYC and parts of its metro. Of course - it’s a bit illusory as California has more parkland and topography that prevents development. And California also has a lot of inherent desirability in large swaths of the state so maybe it was just inevitable anyway. But you could compare it to somewhere like Canada that actively promotes urban development vs sprawl so that even the really desirable places like Vancouver don’t feel so traffic-choked and over saturated with people.
Unpopular opinion maybe but I don't really get the whole "overcrowded" thing --- I don't really find large amounts of traffic, crowded public transit, or throngs of people everywhere to be aesthetically unpleasant. I find monotonous architecture, dominance of chains over local businesses, and excessive manicured grass to be ugly, but those are pretty uncorrelated with city/metro area size or density. (Of course, I'm speaking from privilege as a WFHer --- the general effects of long commute times and traffic on humans' mental health are pretty hard to dispute)
I actually kind of dig the "flashy, neon everywhere, seedy motels, cool cars from 40 years ago" type of sprawly look that LA has going on. And having moved to the (South) Bay Area a few days ago, I like all the visible ethnic diversity and the surprisingly high density in most places, it really reminds me of the suburban Cook County of my childhood, and even fringe parts of the city of Chicago.
Yeah, though, it is impressive how relatively compact, dense, and transit-friendly even the newer Canadian metros are. I wonder if it's just separate evolution of architectural/urban planning schools, or collectivist vs. individualist values, or postwar white flight being less of a thing there, or if greenbelts became the norm in Canada at some point. Looking at Portland, the case study for greenbelts in the US --- the suburbs may feel pretty "American interstate suburbia", but they don't actually go out that far, and you don't get a lot of the random empty fields, farms, warehouses, factories, and forests between developed areas like the Seattle metro has. Even just crossing into the WA suburbs, you see much more of a spread-out, sparsely developed, exurban landscape.
I feel Virginia could stand to add 2 - 3 million people. We were doing well compared to North Carolina in the population growth and economic development game up until the early 90s, but NC has absolutely smoked us in the past few decades in terms of growing its cities, downtown areas, infrastructure, and economy. The movement of people out of Virginia and into places like North Carolina has worked to the disadvantage of Virginia and led to brain drain in a lot of 2nd-tier cities in the state. Most cities in Virginia are still quite small with none over 500,000 and downtowns for the most part tend to still feel empty (there are a few exceptions like Alexandria and Charlottesville). Southside Virginia is downright depressing and at one point had 50% more people living in that part of the state than today and continues to bleed people and tax revenue. The state really wants to improve its intercity rail and expand high speed rail from DC to Richmond and the impetus to make that possible will only come with growth in its urbanized areas and downtown densities.
I think Florida would be interesting at around 35 million residents. At that point Orlando and Tampa would have merged bringing with it some good opportunities. I’m a little afraid to think of what SW Florida would look like though, maybe just one giant suburban mess.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,747 posts, read 23,809,943 times
Reputation: 14660
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
Yeah, though, it is impressive how relatively compact, dense, and transit-friendly even the newer Canadian metros are. I wonder if it's just separate evolution of architectural/urban planning schools, or collectivist vs. individualist values, or postwar white flight being less of a thing there, or if greenbelts became the norm in Canada at some point.
Canadian metros all have greenbelts, even older cities like Montreal. From the Quebec/Vermont border until just a few miles shy of the Champlain Bridge its solid farmland. Similar to the approach into Vancouver coming through the farms in Delta, BC on BC Hwy 99. This is due to Canada having such minimal arable land as a whole, so the suburbs are denser and farmland is valued and protected since they don't have an abundant supply of land that can be farmed.
For Iowa it would be about 4,000,000 mostly in the urban areas (Des Moines/Ames; Cedar Rapids/Iowa City). Return the state to a moderate political climate.
I think Florida would be interesting at around 35 million residents. At that point Orlando and Tampa would have merged bringing with it some good opportunities. I’m a little afraid to think of what SW Florida would look like though, maybe just one giant suburban mess.
The interesting thing about Florida is the extreme population concentrations along the coastline. Beyond the I-4 corridor the interior is not heavily populated.
New Mexico has 2 million people and I suspect most people here would not want it to increase by much. Most of the population is in the Rio Grande Valley or in scattered towns.
From California. I think it's better right now with the larger population. But once again, I am a fan of megacities and I think LA can do large easier than anywhere else in the world because of the massive amount of space. Personally I think we should have more people. The real issue is that we screwed up water rights contracts back in the 1800s and we need to renege on them. SD doesn't have enough people for the great spot that it is. OC doesn't have enough people for the great spot that it is. I would love it if we could move the 90% of the Lancaster/Victorville population and 90% of the inland empire over to Oxnard/Camarillo/Ventura area.
I think we could add a good 10 million people to CA. Maybe 50 million sounds about right.
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.
