Trying to get 7 billion people to fit in the state of Texas?
But the problem is we are not building new cities.That is major problem housing cost is so high.
No, just the reverse. New construction is often more costly than older homes. First, people normally prefer to live in new homes over comparable older ones because maintenance costs are less and new homes have current technology and amenities built into them. Second, comparability is hard to find since, despite the recent recession, today’s houses tend to be far larger, with larger rooms, and different lay-outs than older homes. Inner ring suburbs have been losing population because of this. Third, in many parts of the country older homes are in less desirable locations so that they are much, much cheaper. Fourth, we are building new cities all the time: they’re just called suburbs. (Almost everything I said is still true if you substitute apartments for houses.)
New cities are also being built in other countries, especially China. Their economic structures tend to be quite different so comparisons to America are difficult, but I can’t think of any place in the world where new cities relieve housing costs. Housing always lags population growth. If there is need for a new city, then there already exists such competition for housing that prices are bound to be driven up.
What I was trying to say is most cities became cities because of shipping ports,trade spots,job location and hub locations not building a city just for the fun of it of building a city. No one is going in desert or country now and say that’s build a city for the fun of it. Cities became cities because of shipping ports,trade spots,commerce trade and jobs.
The state of California have
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 12,150,996
San Francisco-Oakland 3,281,212
San Diego 2,956,746
Riverside-San Bernardino really still part of LA mentor area 1,932,666
Sacramento 1,723,634
San Jose 1,664,496
Fresno 654,628
Concord 615,968
Other cities below 600,000 people I will not list here.
The LA area really cannot sprawl much more because of mountains in way.:mad: The cost living is through the roof.:mad: A 500,000 home is low class home in LA a 1,000,000 is not big home in LA area at all.
When people move to California they normally big three big cities to move to LA area,
San Francisco area or San Diego area.
What is happening is cost of living going up and the dream of owning home will only be for upper class people. To deal with sprawl city planners are turning to condos and apartment because high cost problem. In way homes are a luxury in Hong Kong or Tokyo unless you are rich.
The state of Florida the city of Miami and Fort Lauderdale area is going to run into space problem in the future too.
The city sprawl is running close to everglades now so city cannot really sprawl much more in Miami and fort lauderdale area.
The state of Texas is little different as it can sprawl and more emphasis on suburb living.The sprawl is borderline nightmare now (Dallas and Fort Worth area or Houston area ) and if you had two or three times the people moving there some thing would have to be down about it.
There are hundreds of small little cities and towns in the US but no one wants move to them.And there is Detroit, Philadelphia and Baltimore that almost like ghost cities with crime problem.
The problem is there is only a handful cities in US that Americans or immigrants move to and well you got hundreds small little cities and town and lost cities like Detroit, Philadelphia and Baltimore and lots of empty land to built!!!
But these other handful cities are bursting like New York, Los Angeles,San Francisco,Miami and Fort lauderdale. Even city of Atlanta.
So it is problem city planners and the government is going have to deal with.
My prediction is in 50 years and very much so 80 years the suburb life will be over with most cities and apartments and condos will be the way to go.
I’m already mad at the amount of high-rise condos that got built in the Miami and Fort Lauderdale area and it is going to get much worse.
Los Angeles,New York or San Francisco I would not even dream amount moving there. A 600,000 home in any those three cities is nothing.
Unfortunately the real world in not far. People are not equally distributed in the world.And there is no plan to try to have cities on same playing filed base on equally population base.
So you got lots of small cities,towns,ghost cities and empty land that no one wants to move to. No job or just too small and people want a city not small city 200,000 people living or less. :eek::eek::eek: And you got handful of big cities like London,Paris,Tokyo,Delhi,Shanghai,Hong Kong so on.
The problem is People are not equally distributed in the world.
I guess I will have to move to small city under 600,000 people if I want home and a SUV
If you’re interested in this topic I just watched a very interesting documentary called “Perspectives in Population” which I found very eye opening. Presented by a Swedish Statistician, it’s a whole lot of stats well presented. Gives lots to think about. Focuses largely on the vast differences between how people perceive world population and the actual reality of world population.
I recommend it highly.
You identify the problem but don’t seem to grasp it.
There is no shortage of cheap, well-built, completely usable homes in the U.S. Really, there is an oversupply.
So why are they not being used? Because the determining factor is not the cost or availability of housing; it is the availability of jobs. Jobs drive housing much more than the other way around. If for some reason huge numbers of jobs became available in those cities people would flock to them, revitalize the decayed neighborhoods, and upgrade all the damaged houses. Guaranteed.
Why have the current cities in California been growing so rapidly? They have lots of jobs available in a favorable local economy. Would a new city have jobs in such numbers? No. We’ve seen examples all over the country of a large industrial plant moving to a rural location with thousands of new jobs, and no new cities of 600,000 (to use your figure) have resulted. As you say, cities require much more than that to form and grow.
The problem with housing is very much like the problem globally with food. The global supply is more than adequate, but it is concentrated in certain places for various historical and economic reasons. Food can be shipped easier than houses, but the economic wellbeing to afford the food can’t. Jobs are the answer to both problems. Create good jobs in more locations and the population and food will spread out and become more equitable. Concentrate the jobs and these problems inevitably follow. Figuring out the incentives to get jobs to move to those areas - away from the concentrations of populations with the needed skills - is the truly hard problem.
imho … computer models can facilitate political 'n sociological 'n economical indexes … proven prototypes already create algae for human consumption … desalination would keep us alive for a century, but not much longer … the two macros every human needs to sustain itself is limitless air and water.
What really needs to happen is the discovery of a way to synthesize phosphorus. Without that all the talk of floating continents and incredible density are moot.
Dude, phosphorus is an element. Are you talking about nuclear transmutation? Ain’t gonna happen soon.