HomeDiagramsDatabaseMapsForum About
     

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions


View Poll Results: Do you think an LA-SD megalopolis or mega region is possible?
Yes 9 15.00%
No 30 50.00%
Already happening 21 35.00%
Voters: 60. You may not vote on this poll

Reply

 
Thread Tools Display Modes
     
     
  #21  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 11:17 AM
Qubert Qubert is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 506
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steely Dan View Post
which i believe is german for "a whale's penis".
That wasn't classy.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #22  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 2:34 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
I think the main obstacle for that it's their growth rates collapse.

"San Angeles" was envisioned in a day LA CSA and SD MSA were growing insanely.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #23  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 4:30 PM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I think the main obstacle for that it's their growth rates collapse.

"San Angeles" was envisioned in a day LA CSA and SD MSA were growing insanely.
The only thing preventing it is the marine base.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #24  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 4:43 PM
MolsonExport's Avatar
MolsonExport MolsonExport is offline
The Vomit Bag.
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Otisburgh
Posts: 44,716
Isn't La Jolla NIMBY central?
__________________
"If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you."-President Lyndon B. Johnson Donald Trump is a poor man's idea of a rich man, a weak man's idea of a strong man, and a stupid man's idea of a smart man. Am I an Asseau?
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #25  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 4:50 PM
ocman ocman is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Burlingame
Posts: 2,687
Quote:
Originally Posted by yuriandrade View Post
I think the main obstacle for that it's their growth rates collapse.

"San Angeles" was envisioned in a day LA CSA and SD MSA were growing insanely.
For 17 miles of pristine coastline property? That wouldn't be the obstacle. It would be unheard of if developers couldn't take advantage of that .
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #26  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 5:08 PM
bossabreezes bossabreezes is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Mar 2018
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 958
I already consider them pretty much to already be combined, not sure what's hard to imagine about this. Even if Camp Pendleton stays forever untouched (it should, in my opinion)- the area is already solidly developed.

A similar weird one that people ask about is the DC-Baltimore region. This is already totally intertwined but people still seem to not accept that for whatever reason. A few miles of sparse development between the two places does not mean they are different regions.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #27  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 5:22 PM
Bikemike's Avatar
Bikemike Bikemike is offline
ride or die
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by C. View Post
I'll start by saying I know nothing about California or the terrane, but I assume there must be conservation efforts or local land use restrictions along I-5 and I-15 that has prevented excessive amount of development from happening. Otherwise, why hasn't entrepreneuring developers by up all the vacant land and sprawl?

I know there is a lot of mountains which would make development unfeasible, but there also looks like there is a lot of land that looks like it's been set aside for conservation.
Southern California is still much more politically conservative overall (think “blue collar liberal”) so there generally isn’t the robust drive to protect open spaces that you’ll see in the Bay Area, whose liberalism is about much more than just worker protections and other social welfare issues. You won’t see too much concern about sprawl in SoCal culture

Every time I visit SoCal it’s like a cultural time-warp back to the late 90s in terms of prevailing values.

Whereas the Bay Area continues to build on this https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/urban...undaries-need/

SoCal continues to do this http://ir.tejonranch.com/news-releas...ntennial-tejon with little controversy.

This is hard proof of the tremendous cultural gulf between the two regions, and distills all one needs to know about the source of the state’s progressive thinking. Thank goodness for Camp Pendleton

Last edited by Bikemike; Sep 19, 2020 at 6:26 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #28  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 7:32 PM
SLO's Avatar
SLO SLO is offline
REAL Kiwi!
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: California & Texas
Posts: 17,085
Quote:
Originally Posted by jd3189 View Post
I always gone down to San Diego via the I-15. Parts of the Inland Empire in Riverside county does stretch down but there are many gaps after Murrieta before reaching into SD county and some gaps in SD county before you finally get into the city.

If the IE area continues to grow, it could stretch down to SD county but would that be favorable with the standard sprawl that already exists? It would be even more congested than it is now. Plus, it’s nice to see that stretch of mostly rural land in a place that is largely built out. It gives you a peak of what LA looked like before it became a major metropolis.

Agree and the IE is continuing to grow at a fairly fast clip.

As far as the question? Absolutely its already happening. At some point camp Pendleton will be surrounded.
__________________
'Don't underestimate Joe's ability to f*ck things up' - Barack Obama
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #29  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 8:08 PM
Yuri's Avatar
Yuri Yuri is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 4,478
Quote:
Originally Posted by LA21st View Post
The only thing preventing it is the marine base.
I believe it takes more than some ribbons of continuously built up areas to be regarded as a single metropolitan area, otherwise New York and Philadelphia would be one for decades.

If there were like 30 million people there, with upgraded transit and freeways, maybe LA and SD could be functioning as one. But with the current growth rates, this target is far away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post
I already consider them pretty much to already be combined, not sure what's hard to imagine about this. Even if Camp Pendleton stays forever untouched (it should, in my opinion)- the area is already solidly developed.

A similar weird one that people ask about is the DC-Baltimore region. This is already totally intertwined but people still seem to not accept that for whatever reason. A few miles of sparse development between the two places does not mean they are different regions.
New York and Philadelphia are a better analogy. They are closer to each other than Los Angeles and San Diego, and are more populated.
__________________
London - São Paulo - Rio de Janeiro - Londrina - Frankfurt
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #30  
Old Posted Sep 19, 2020, 8:27 PM
JManc's Avatar
JManc JManc is offline
Dryer lint inspector
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Houston/ SF Bay Area
Posts: 37,789
^ megalopolis isn't a bunch of cities functioning as one. New York and Philly are still too far apart to ever really grow into one giant metro area and very few people other than some on the fringes of either metro would actively commute into the other. Same with SD and LA and the latter are more or less already developed along the I-5 and I-15 corridors around Pendelton.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #31  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 6:17 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dariusb View Post
I was chatting with someone concerning this said no because of Camp Pendleton. A couple others said while it couldn't happen along I-5 it could along I-15. What are your thoughts?
Unlikely, and it wouldn't be desirable. In the highly unlikely event Camp P. was decommisioned, the land would probably be preserved as a large state or federal park. More likely it will just remain as a military reservation, since it is important for USMC operations and training. On the inland side along I-15, there is a steep range of hills and mountains between Temecula and Escondido, so most of that land would remain rural. Besides, few people would like to see urbanization of these open lands, especially those on the San Diego side. We like our buffer zone between us and the L.A./OC/Inland Empire megalopolis.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 20, 2020 at 6:34 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #32  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 6:22 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by JManc View Post
^ megalopolis isn't a bunch of cities functioning as one. New York and Philly are still too far apart to ever really grow into one giant metro area and very few people other than some on the fringes of either metro would actively commute into the other. Same with SD and LA and the latter are more or less already developed along the I-5 and I-15 corridors around Pendelton.
The lands are still mostly rural. And they should remain that way. Even Camp P. is mostly open land between San Clemente and Oceanside. Nobody wants suburban sprawl here.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #33  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 8:27 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikemike View Post
Southern California is still much more politically conservative overall (think “blue collar liberal”) so there generally isn’t the robust drive to protect open spaces that you’ll see in the Bay Area, whose liberalism is about much more than just worker protections and other social welfare issues. You won’t see too much concern about sprawl in SoCal culture

Every time I visit SoCal it’s like a cultural time-warp back to the late 90s in terms of prevailing values.

Whereas the Bay Area continues to build on this https://www.greenbelt.org/blog/urban...undaries-need/

SoCal continues to do this http://ir.tejonranch.com/news-releas...ntennial-tejon with little controversy.

This is hard proof of the tremendous cultural gulf between the two regions, and distills all one needs to know about the source of the state’s progressive thinking. Thank goodness for Camp Pendleton
Talk about sweeping generalizations. Most of Los Angeles city is about as liberal "blue" as San Francisco. Even much of once red O..C. is turning blue, or at least purple. Some of the suburbs are still red, but so are some of SFs outer suburbs. San Diego city is majority Dem. although some of the suburbs are still red. Los Angeles has as much undeveloped land around it as the S F area, including the Santa Monica Mountains NRA, the national forests in the San Gabriel Mountains etc. As far as not caring about sprawl, if Tejon Ranch were put to a vote it would be voted down. It is not a done deal. I am against it as are a lot of people down here. The SF and L A metro areas have more in common than many people admit.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 20, 2020 at 8:40 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #34  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 5:05 PM
Bikemike's Avatar
Bikemike Bikemike is offline
ride or die
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 395
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Talk about sweeping generalizations. Most of Los Angeles city is about as liberal "blue" as San Francisco. Even much of once red O..C. is turning blue, or at least purple. Some of the suburbs are still red, but so are some of SFs outer suburbs. San Diego city is majority Dem. although some of the suburbs are still red.
You’re the one generalizing here.

My statement highlighted the major differences between democratic values of Bay Area vs SoCal Democrats. You haven’t negated my argument with any specifics. I’ll offer a few specifics below.

LA and SD are “blue” because of large numbers of Chicanos. Their liberalism is largely a working-class phenomenon, whose platform is overwhelmingly socio-economic (unions, jobs, healthcare), and not environmental (sprawl, active-transportation, composting, carbon emissions)

In contrast to LA/SD, environmental issues carry at least as much weight as socioeconomic issues on their democratic platform of NorCal liberals. Virtually all of California’s PIVOTAL environmental and transportation initiatives have been and continue to be spearheaded by politicians of Bay Area Affiliation, even if later garnering support from select SoCal reps. This includes Phil Ting, author of many active transportation bills (S.B.1193, and others ). Consider also AB743, authored by Darrell Steinberg to eliminate CEQA from environmental review of proposals, or AB2493 (Levine) which raises penalties on drivers who hit cyclists and pedestrians, or what about SB50 and SB837 to override local zoning restrictions for transit proximal projects, or SB71 which requires all new homes be built with solar capacity (all from Scott Weiner). Then of course the Greenbelt Initiative (see link in my previous post) founded by Dorothy Erskine to set an urban growth boundary (eg sprawl boundary) around basically the entire Bay Area. Where is the equivalent of this in LA/SD? Have you driven to the high-desert corridor? I don’t see a self-imposed growth boundary created specifically to contain sprawl, anywhere around LA, or SD. Where are the Phil Tings, Scott Weiners, Dorothy Erskines, Darrell Steinbergs, and Marc Levine’s of LA/SD, an area with three times the population and an area represented by many more assembly members than The Bay? The only major enviro bill authored by a SoCal rep that I can think of is the plastic bag ban

To answer my own question, None of these laws were spearheaded by SoCal representatives or activists because these ideas don’t sell well to an electorate for which such issues aren’t on their radar (LA/SD), and don’t resonate nearly as pervasively as they do in NorCal. Conversely, resistance to policies that limit sprawl and driving is much stronger in SoCal. SoCal politicians have no problem producing a litany of pro-Union initiatives however. Social equity issues are far and away the primary driving force of a “blue” LA/SD. You’d have trouble arguing that Smart growth, transportation, and other environmental issues is on the forefront of the SoCal electorate, on par with social equity issues and unions.



Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Los Angeles has as much undeveloped land around it as the S F area, including the Santa Monica Mountains NRA, the national forests in the San Gabriel Mountains etc. As far as not caring about sprawl, if Tejon Ranch were put to a vote it would be voted down. It is not a done deal. I am against it as are a lot of people down here. The SF and L A metro areas have more in common than many people admit.
Tejon was approved, quite uncontroversially I may add, by the LA Supes. Did you even read the article?

Last edited by Bikemike; Sep 20, 2020 at 5:17 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #35  
Old Posted Sep 20, 2020, 5:42 PM
sopas ej's Avatar
sopas ej sopas ej is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: South Pasadena, California
Posts: 6,847
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bikemike View Post
You’re the one generalizing here.

My statement highlighted the major differences between democratic values of Bay Area vs SoCal Democrats. You haven’t negated my argument with any specifics. I’ll offer a few specifics below.

LA and SD are “blue” because of large numbers of Chicanos. Their liberalism is largely a working-class phenomenon, whose platform is overwhelmingly socio-economic (unions, jobs, healthcare), and not environmental (sprawl, active-transportation, composting, carbon emissions)

In contrast to LA/SD, environmental issues carry at least as much weight as socioeconomic issues on their democratic platform of NorCal liberals. Virtually all of California’s PIVOTAL environmental and transportation initiatives have been and continue to be spearheaded by politicians of Bay Area Affiliation, even if later garnering support from select SoCal reps. This includes Phil Ting, author of many active transportation bills (S.B.1193, and others ). Consider also AB743, authored by Darrell Steinberg to eliminate CEQA from environmental review of proposals, or AB2493 (Levine) which raises penalties on drivers who hit cyclists and pedestrians, or what about SB50 and SB837 to override local zoning restrictions for transit proximal projects, or SB71 which requires all new homes be built with solar capacity (all from Scott Weiner). Then of course the Greenbelt Initiative (see link in my previous post) founded by Dorothy Erskine to set an urban growth boundary (eg sprawl boundary) around basically the entire Bay Area. Where is the equivalent of this in LA/SD? Have you driven to the high-desert corridor? I don’t see a self-imposed growth boundary created specifically to contain sprawl, anywhere around LA, or SD. Where are the Phil Tings, Scott Weiners, Dorothy Erskines, Darrell Steinbergs, and Marc Levine’s of LA/SD, an area with three times the population and an area represented by many more assembly members than The Bay? The only major enviro bill authored by a SoCal rep that I can think of is the plastic bag ban

To answer my own question, None of these laws were spearheaded by SoCal representatives or activists because these ideas don’t sell well to an electorate for which such issues aren’t on their radar (LA/SD), and don’t resonate nearly as pervasively as they do in NorCal. Conversely, resistance to policies that limit sprawl and driving is much stronger in SoCal. SoCal politicians have no problem producing a litany of pro-Union initiatives however. Social equity issues are far and away the primary driving force of a “blue” LA/SD. You’d have trouble arguing that Smart growth, transportation, and other environmental issues is on the forefront of the SoCal electorate, on par with social equity issues and unions.





Tejon was approved, quite uncontroversially I may add, by the LA Supes. Did you even read the article?
More generalizing.

You don't live in SoCal, so you don't know the dynamics that go on here. To say the "blue" in SoCal is due strictly to "Chicanos" (is that term even used anymore?) is pretty ignorant; the Latino community is pretty diverse, and there are even Republicans among them. And to say that the "blue" in SoCal is a "working-class" thing is also pretty classist. There are plenty of Leftists, true ones at that, in SoCal, of all socio-economic levels and ethnicities/races.

And please, we are pretty environmentally-conscious in SoCal. We've had/have wetlands preservation movements, we're into coastal preservation, riverbed restoration... and definitely air quality. The whole California Smog Check thing was started in SoCal, SB 33, initiated specifically from a southern California State Senator (Robert Presley-D) from the 36th State Senate District.
__________________
"I guess the only time people think about injustice is when it happens to them."

~ Charles Bukowski

Last edited by sopas ej; Sep 20, 2020 at 8:02 PM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #36  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2020, 4:15 AM
ThePhun1 ThePhun1 is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Houston/Galveston
Posts: 1,870
Unrelated but I wonder if San Diegans feel animosity toward LA hosting the Chargers after almost 60 years in San Diego.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #37  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2020, 5:01 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej View Post
More generalizing.

You don't live in SoCal, so you don't know the dynamics that go on here. To say the "blue" in SoCal is due strictly to "Chicanos" (is that term even used anymore?) is pretty ignorant; the Latino community is pretty diverse, and there are even Republicans among them. And to say that the "blue" in SoCal is a "working-class" thing is also pretty classist. There are plenty of Leftists, true ones at that, in SoCal, of all socio-economic levels and ethnicities/races.

And please, we are pretty environmentally-conscious in SoCal. We've had/have wetlands preservation movements, we're into coastal preservation, riverbed restoration... and definitely air quality. The whole California Smog Check thing was started in SoCal, SB 33, initiated specifically from a southern California State Senator (Robert Presley-D) from the 36th State Senate District.
Well said sopas ej. I guess he never spent time in the populous and vast liberal districts of affluent west L.A., Silver Lake etc. Almost as blue as San Francisco. I was there in the 1970s/early 80s when the environmental activists on the westside stopped the freeway expansion (at one time a freeway through Laurel Canyon was planned-we stopped that), saved the Santa Monica Mountains from tract housing with the state parks and National Rec. Area, got the subway rolling, etc. I was side by side with Councilman Braude and Mayor Bradley. Unfortunately, in many cases, the supervisors don't always mirror these attitudes. If Tejon Ranch were put to a vote of the people, it would probably be defeated 60/40. 5 supervisors are not enough for such a populous county. Bikemike is right about that. We can do better.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 21, 2020 at 6:11 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #38  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2020, 5:05 AM
CaliNative CaliNative is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Sep 2016
Posts: 3,133
Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePhun1 View Post
Unrelated but I wonder if San Diegans feel animosity toward LA hosting the Chargers after almost 60 years in San Diego.
Not me. I have roots in L.A. but now live in S D County. The Chargers can play wherever they want. Eventually I expect a move to San Antonio/Austin if they continue to struggle in LA and play second fiddle to the Rams. Money speaks louder than loyalty these days. If the Raiders hadn't beaten them to Vegas they would probably be there. There is a longshot scenario where they return to SD, if the SDSU stadium being planned on the old stadium site is enlarged to accommodate NFL football.

Last edited by CaliNative; Sep 21, 2020 at 5:35 AM.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #39  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2020, 5:25 AM
Steely Dan's Avatar
Steely Dan Steely Dan is offline
devout Pizzatarian
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Lincoln Square, Chicago
Posts: 29,635
Quote:
Originally Posted by bossabreezes View Post

A similar weird one that people ask about is the DC-Baltimore region.
DC/Baltimore is fundamentally different than LA/SD.



city hall to city hall, as the crow flies:

DC -> Balt: 35 miles

LA -> SD: 111 miles




the better analogy for DC/Baltimore in california would be SF/SJ.
__________________
"Missing middle" housing can be a great middle ground for many middle class families.
Reply With Quote
     
     
  #40  
Old Posted Sep 21, 2020, 5:53 AM
LA21st LA21st is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Posts: 6,992
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaliNative View Post
Not me. I have roots in L.A. but now live in S D County. The Chargers can play wherever they want. Eventually I expect a move to San Antonio/Austin if they continue to struggle in LA and play second fiddle to the Rams. Money speaks louder than loyalty these days. If the Raiders hadn't beaten them to Vegas they would probably be there. There is a longshot scenario where they return to SD, if the SDSU stadium being planned on the old stadium site is enlarged to accommodate NFL football.
Why would they leave that new stadium? I dont see that at all. And you need to develop a fan base here. it' going to take years. it's foolish to think it would happen over night.

Its like people talking about the Clippers leaving. it will never happen.
Reply With Quote
     
     
This discussion thread continues

Use the page links to the lower-right to go to the next page for additional posts
 
 
Reply

Go Back   SkyscraperPage Forum > Discussion Forums > City Discussions
Forum Jump


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 9:51 AM.

     
SkyscraperPage.com - Archive - Privacy Statement - Top

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.