Why are Bay Area cities so dense? (Sacramento, Santa Rosa: agricultural, transportation)

[the city]

I was looking through some one pictures of downtowns in the Bay Area. And for small cities their downtowns had tall buildings. Walnut Creek, Emeryville, Santa Rosa, and Concord are some I am referring to. It seems they all had buildings of 100 ft tall or over 50ft min. Is this usual?

[Majin]

Most bay area cities aren't dense.

[the city]

Originally Posted by Majin

Most bay area cities aren't dense.

They are more dense than So Cal cities though. And I had another question to ask too along this topic, but I can't remember now ha ha. Something about incorporated cities....

This thread had the pics:

https://www.city-data.com/forum/calif...ifornia-5.html

[Brenda-by-the-sea]

Land supply is a key term in city planning. Density of land use is directly related to the amount and availability of privately-owned, buildable land. Availability is often constrained by natural topography, agricultural uses and land administration (public or private). River valleys and flat broad basins like L.A. or Phoenix tend to have a lot of land inventory because there are few natural constraints of topography. The result is often sprawl. The Bay Area has a lot of natural boundaries that limit land supply like saltwater bays, foothills, peninsulas and public open space. Planners have to fit developments into a smaller total area of urbanizable land. As a result, such areas typically have denser, more compact urban footprints than cities that sprawl over flat plains.

[the city]

Originally Posted by Brenda-by-the-sea

Land supply is a key term in city planning. Density of land use is directly related to the amount and availability of privately-owned, buildable land. Availability is often constrained by natural topography, agricultural uses and land administration (public or private). River valleys and flat broad basins like L.A. or Phoenix tend to have a lot of land inventory because there are few natural constraints of topography. The result is often sprawl. The Bay Area has a lot of natural boundaries that limit land supply like saltwater bays, foothills, peninsulas and public open space. Planners have to fit developments into a smaller total area of urbanizable land. As a result, such areas typically have denser, more compact urban footprints than cities that sprawl over flat plains.

Interesting. Thank you for this feedback.

[KC6ZLV]

Some decades ago the voters in Contra Costa County voted to limit growth, or regulate it, or something. Anyway, the outcome was building taller office buildings.

I think it was called Measure C (not the same measure C for transportation funding) and was voted for sometime in the late 70s.

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by Majin

Most bay area cities aren't dense.

They are denser than the Sacramento Suburban Area. The only metro denser would probably be LA proper.

[jeffredo]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

They are denser than the Sacramento Suburban Area. The only metro denser would probably be LA proper.

Parts of West LA are as dense as Bay Area places like Palo Alto and Berkeley. Areas like Westwood Village, West Hollywood, Santa Monica, etc...

[Curmudgeon]

Guess they're just not too bright!

[EdJS]

If you think Bay Area cities are dense, it's clear you haven't travelled. Go to New York, Tokyo, London, Paris, or Shanghai and then you'll know the meaning of "dense".