Seriously, how did we land De'Anthony Thomas?

[wheaton4prez]

That is no different than Oregon. 100 miles from Eugene is no different than 100 miles from Los Angeles in terms of boondockness.

Pretty sure that Oregon has a similar percentage of government owned land, if not more.

Most people flock to urban areas since that's where the good jobs are. Only real reasons to live far out in the sticks are for privacy and farming. I like living in the country for the privacy and small-town feel, but like living close enough to Eugene so that I can easily get things I want or need.

That's true. There are practical factors that keep people grouped together. Though, there are also zoning factors that can influence where neighborhoods are built, what public land is sold, where businesses can set up shop, etc. There are varying beliefs (and motivations) about how those decisions should be made.

It's just not true that California chose to allow more growth and ruined their states beauty while Oregon chose to not allow growth and stayed pretty.

[Handsome Dan]

California was a more popular relocation destination and had more lenient land use laws. It's hard to deny that the usable land is quite heavily urbanized; the entirety of the Bay Area, the 50 miles of uninterrupted development that comprises Southern California, and multiple large cities dotting the San Joaquin Valley are more than enough proof. Yes, the state has many pristine areas (unlike states on the East Coast) and is larger than Oregon, but it still doesn't change the fact that California has the higest population density of any western state by a healthy margin (they are 12; Oregon is 39th). Both my parents are from Southern California, and my mom currently works for a city government, so I'm versed enough in this subject to know what I am talking about.

[wheaton4prez]

Under 5% of the land in California is urbanized. San Francisco has some of the most strict land use laws in the country. (One of the reasons they also have a homelessness problem)

I lived in CA for 10 years and have been throughout most areas of the state. You are mistaken if you think that the beauty of California has been affected by land use laws substantially more than Oregon has. The claim that Southern California is "50 miles of uninterrupted development" just shows that you haven't spent a significant amount of time there. There are large wilderness areas right in the middle of the Los Angeles area itself (Griffith Park, Topanga, etc), let alone the areas just outside of the metro area. Pull it up on google maps and zoom around a little to see for yourself.

PS: The East Coast also has massive amounts of pristine areas. I've seen a lot of it. Remember, less than 5% of the entire country is urbanized.

[greenyellow]

Under 5% of the land in California is urbanized. San Francisco has some of the most strict land use laws in the country. (One of the reasons they also have a homelessness problem)

I lived in CA for 10 years and have been throughout most areas of the state. You are mistaken if you think that the beauty of California has been affected by land use laws substantially more than Oregon has. The claim that Southern California is "50 miles of uninterrupted development" just shows that you haven't spent a significant amount of time there. There are large wilderness areas right in the middle of the Los Angeles area itself (Griffith Park, Topanga, etc), let alone the areas just outside of the metro area. Pull it up on google maps and zoom around a little to see for yourself.

PS: The East Coast also has massive amounts of pristine areas. I've seen a lot of it. Remember, less than 5% of the entire country is urbanized.

People do overestimate how urbanized certain areas are but don't remember all the open space between them. I just don't like the idea of being packed into a living area like sardines. I like having space to roam around and get some peace and quiet. It's amazing how few city-dwelling people have never experienced the great outdoors.

[wheaton4prez]

I agree. It's why I would prefer a spread out city like LA over a hamster maze like NYC.

It is the belief that we are running out of room in the country that leads environmentalists, etc. to lobby for more strict zoning and development. The result is more expensive, on top of each other, housing. It's one of those ways that good intentions end up hurting people.

In 400 years, we've only used up 5% of the land we have to work with. We have room that we could be using.

[Handsome Dan]

I'll respond more in depth later, when I don't a problem set I should be doing, but all I'll say is that I grew up in Central Oregon, so perhaps I have a different standard for urbanized than you do. I don't consider Griffith Park anything remotely close to a wilderness area; it's hemmed in by development on all sides, suffers the same smog problems plaguing Los Angeles, and never feels like you left the massive artificial environment that comprises the LA metropolitan area.

Regarding the five percent figure, that means that five percent of all of California's land is covered by its cities. It ignores the massive amounts of land appropriated for other uses, such as farming. Far more than 5% of California's land has been used for human purposes.

[wheaton4prez]

I'll respond more in depth later, when I don't a problem set I should be doing, but all I'll say is that I grew up in Central Oregon, so perhaps I have a different standard for urbanized than you do.

I'm just going by the US Department of Agriculture's standard so that there is an apples to apples comparison.

I don't consider Griffith Park anything remotely close to a wilderness area; it's hemmed in by development on all sides, suffers the same smog problems plaguing Los Angeles, and never feels like you left the massive artificial environment that comprises the LA metropolitan area.

Griffith Park is just part of a larger wilderness area that would take a person days to travel across and is home to all kinds of wild-life. I think it's fair to say that it qualifies as an interruption to the development around it.

And that's just the LA part of what is considered Southern California. To the East and South between LA and San Diego, there are vast expanses of undeveloped land.

Regarding the five percent figure, that means that five percent of all of California's land is covered by its cities. It ignores the massive amounts of land appropriated for other uses, such as farming. Far more than 5% of California's land has been used for human purposes.

Oregon's figure is marginally different and it also has massive amounts of land appropriated for farms, wineries, etc.

[Handsome Dan]

What is the official USDA standard? I wasn't going off of anything formal, just how I perceive development. For example, even though Connecticut probably is not considered an urbanized mess along the coast form New Haven to the New York border, it certainly feels that way when riding on the train.

Griffith Park is, at best, a three mile by three mile square (this is extremely generous, especially latitudinally) completely surrounded by human development and easily traversed in a day.

I'm focusing on LA, because that is the major urban center of Southern California. The point was to show that Oregon's cities have expanded far less than California's, with less encroachment on undesirable (i.e mountainous terrain) due to a combination of reduced demand and more stringent land use laws.

Oregon still has a lot of land used, but the population density doesn't lie.

Honestly, a lot of this is based simply on my analysis of what I see from Google Maps. I see a California stat is vastly more developed than Oregon, but is still relatively pristine compared to the older states on the Eastern Seaboard or in the Midwest.

[vagusnerve]

I agree. It's why I would prefer a spread out city like LA over a hamster maze like NYC.

It is the belief that we are running out of room in the country that leads environmentalists, etc. to lobby for more strict zoning and development. The result is more expensive, on top of each other, housing. It's one of those ways that good intentions end up hurting people.

In 400 years, we've only used up 5% of the land we have to work with. We have room that we could be using.

5% of total land? really? you think that?

oregon and california are two of the most montinous areas of the world.
western oregon, for example, has only a small swath of flat land called the willamette valley. this is where 90%+ of the population of the entire state lives. coincidentally, this is some of the best farmland in the world. draw your own conclusions, but don't try to pawn off this 5% as relevant.

[vagusnerve]

What is the official USDA standard? I wasn't going off of anything formal, just how I perceive development. For example, even though Connecticut probably is not considered an urbanized mess along the coast form New Haven to the New York border, it certainly feels that way when riding on the train.

Griffith Park is, at best, a three mile by three mile square (this is extremely generous, especially latitudinally) completely surrounded by human development and easily traversed in a day.

I'm focusing on LA, because that is the major urban center of Southern California. The point was to show that Oregon's cities have expanded far less than California's, with less encroachment on undesirable (i.e mountainous terrain) due to a combination of reduced demand and more stringent land use laws.

Oregon still has a lot of land used, but the population density doesn't lie.

Honestly, a lot of this is based simply on my analysis of what I see from Google Maps. I see a California stat is vastly more developed than Oregon, but is still relatively pristine compared to the older states on the Eastern Seaboard or in the Midwest.

Handsomedan you're right about the growth in California and Oregon.

California does indeed have very relaxed laws regarding development compared to its northern neighbor.

I don't think you can deny that Oregon has probably learned from California. The Oregon land use laws will limit the sprawling development into the hinterland that California cities suffer from.
This idea that sprawl is a political notion only is preposterous. What a load of steaming s***.

[alabamaduck]

What does this have to do with how we landed DAT again?

[vagusnerve]

What does this have to do with how we landed DAT again?

nothing!

[greenyellow]

What does this have to do with how we landed DAT again?

nothing!

Funny how far off on a tangent we can get a conversation.

[wheaton4prez]

What is the official USDA standard? I wasn't going off of anything formal, just how I perceive development. For example, even though Connecticut probably is not considered an urbanized mess along the coast form New Haven to the New York border, it certainly feels that way when riding on the train.

The USDA uses census data which is based on population densities: http://www.census.gov/population/censusdata/urdef.txt

I think that going by perception when traveling to an area in a relatively short time is an easy way to be mistaken about this. Most people that go to California just fly in to LA or SF and then fly out.

Griffith Park is, at best, a three mile by three mile square (this is extremely generous, especially latitudinally) completely surrounded by human development and easily traversed in a day.

I wasn't talking about Griffith Park by itself. Griffith Park is one area attached to a larger stretch of wilderness. You can start at Griffith Park and hike trails all the way to Malibu.

I'm focusing on LA, because that is the major urban center of Southern California. The point was to show that Oregon's cities have expanded far less than California's, with less encroachment on undesirable (i.e mountainous terrain) due to a combination of reduced demand and more stringent land use laws.

You have not demonstrated this point.

Oregon still has a lot of land used, but the population density doesn't lie.

Population density and stringent land use laws are not the same thing. Besides, doesn't increased population density imply less expansion?

Honestly, a lot of this is based simply on my analysis of what I see from Google Maps. I see a California stat is vastly more developed than Oregon, but is still relatively pristine compared to the older states on the Eastern Seaboard or in the Midwest.

So, you think that the USDA is wrong?

[wheaton4prez]

5% of total land? really? you think that?

Do you think that the United State Department of Agriculture is lying?

oregon and california are two of the most montinous areas of the world.
western oregon, for example, has only a small swath of flat land called the willamette valley. this is where 90%+ of the population of the entire state lives. coincidentally, this is some of the best farmland in the world. draw your own conclusions, but don't try to pawn off this 5% as relevant.

How is the percent of urbanized land not relevant when we're discussing land use laws?