5 ms·

The sad part is that California, being the largest state in the US, should be the last one to have this sort of housing problems...

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago
It has been attempted, and the only thing to show for it is perhaps America's most over-hyped ghost town[0]. Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. (For that reason, I have always found San Francisco's skyline to be underwhelming). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California
- icebraining 9y ago
  Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. So is Tokyo, yet there's plenty of high buildings.
- lostboys67 9y ago
  Skyscrapers withstand earth quakes better than lo rise in most cases
- taysic 9y ago
  >Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in
  - estebank 9y ago
    More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.
    - princekolt 9y ago
      Not if you have high speed transport. If you can commute at 200mph, living as far as 100 miles from work you could commute faster than people who live closer and go by car.
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
umanwizard 9y ago
This comment is wrong on many levels... 1/ State borders within the US aren't any sort of obstacle to commuting for work, so how big your state is is completely irrelevant (it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC). 2/ Even if it did matter, California is definitely not the largest state in the US.
- galdosdi 9y ago
  > it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC) By land, yes. If measured by population, your "exaggeration" is probably even an understatement.
- pascalxus 9y ago
  But still, 95% of CA is undeveloped. Even in the bay area, you can see vast amounts of land that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. I see prime real-estate near bart being squandered with these tiny little 2-4 story buildings - it's pathetic. From 580 you can see nothing but land in every direction - none of it being developed on at all. Meanwhile, people are driving farther and farther to work to find cheaper housing, x10 the amount of traffic. All due to politics - zoning and NIMBY.

rm_-rf_slash 9y ago

It has been attempted, and the only thing to show for it is perhaps America's most over-hyped ghost town[0]. Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. (For that reason, I have always found San Francisco's skyline to be underwhelming). [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_City,_California

icebraining 9y ago
Also, the coastline is seismically active, and does not pose as a great location for Manhattan-style skyscrapers. So is Tokyo, yet there's plenty of high buildings.
lostboys67 9y ago
Skyscrapers withstand earth quakes better than lo rise in most cases
taysic 9y ago
>Few Californians or transplants to California want to live anywhere but near the coastline. California's climate is not as pleasant once you go further inland. That's so untrue. If some of the large open areas in the South Bay or east bay were turned into suburbs people would happily move in
- estebank 9y ago
  More suburbs is probably a bad solution to lengthy commutes.
  - princekolt 9y ago
    Not if you have high speed transport. If you can commute at 200mph, living as far as 100 miles from work you could commute faster than people who live closer and go by car.
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]

umanwizard 9y ago

This comment is wrong on many levels... 1/ State borders within the US aren't any sort of obstacle to commuting for work, so how big your state is is completely irrelevant (it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC). 2/ Even if it did matter, California is definitely not the largest state in the US.

galdosdi 9y ago
> it's only a slight exaggeration to say that half of New Jersey is fully integrated suburbs of NYC) By land, yes. If measured by population, your "exaggeration" is probably even an understatement.
pascalxus 9y ago
But still, 95% of CA is undeveloped. Even in the bay area, you can see vast amounts of land that are undeveloped or underdeveloped. I see prime real-estate near bart being squandered with these tiny little 2-4 story buildings - it's pathetic. From 580 you can see nothing but land in every direction - none of it being developed on at all. Meanwhile, people are driving farther and farther to work to find cheaper housing, x10 the amount of traffic. All due to politics - zoning and NIMBY.