Post

Conversation

I always find it hilarious when California NIMBYs warn housing reforms will make their coast "look like Miami" as if that's a bad thing. Miami's beaches are both more affordable, and have vastly more aesthetically pleasing urban design, than literally any beach in California. I'm sorry, but if you really think that the left image (Miami Beach) is a worse use of oceanfront land than the right image (Huntington Beach, CA), you should really move to Kansas and not involve yourself with coastal planning in any capacity.
Quote
Carl DeMaio
@carldemaio
CONDO TOWERS ON CA COAST! CA Democrats just passed SB 958, which eliminates environmental reviews of building height on the coast!  If Newsom signs the bill, it will allow developers to turn the CA Coast into Miami Beach with massive condo towers! WATCH:
The media could not be played.
David Watson ๐Ÿฅ‘
Post your reply

Look, I can be a pretty politically opinionated guy, and in the vast majority of respects I'd say California is a better state to live in than Florida. But when it comes to their oceanfront land use? It's not even close, Florida is the clear winner.
People don't really grasp this because dense cities tend to be more expensive than sprawling ones. They don't understand that it's the expense that caused the density, not the other way around.
I'm on vacation in Miami, and this is a YIMBY paradise. The number of high rises is incredible. If only they could get some road diets going...
I wouldn't exactly call it a paradise, there's definitely flaws in Miami's urban design. But compared to practically any other warm-weather U.S. city with a large oceanfront, it's probably got the best land use of them all.
You can make a smug density/affordability argument for them but the aesthetics of high rises are absolutely awful, especially on the beach. They are eyesores for miles in every direction.
California is WAY more conservative than Florida when it comes to housing and development along the coastline. Floridaโ€™s coastline is like a leftest urban wasteland and Californiaโ€™s coastline is pristine, clean, beautiful, and enjoyable year round.
South Florida beaches were ruined by overdevelopment. Just like Waikiki. The high-rises did not have to be crammed that close. That one stretch of beach in San Francisco, mostly built up in the '40s-'50s is not so great either. Luckily we have preserved many coastal areas.
Image
The issue is those high rises become run down quickly and nobody can afford to rehab them all, which is why the price craters. Myrtle Beach is full of abandoned or run down cheap high rise condo buildings.
Miami's model of self-contained towers (gym, pool, restaurant all included in each development) is horrible and not conducive to walkable urbanism or meaningful seaside life. I remember having to stay at the St. Regis Ball Harbor last year and trying to leave the hotel to grab a
How do you define best land use? simply being able to fit more people? If so, I can see tons of reasons why people would be against more people living in what they deem/feel is their neighborhood. Genuinely inquiring here, this seems to come down to what you are trying to
I wonder if more people would live at the beach if there were buildings like this? Iโ€™m afraid one is going to be built that may obstruct my view. The palisades fires decimated one particular area that is still sitting empty. Imagine a big high rise blocking this.
Image
Huntington beach lol. But no California doesnโ€™t want to line the beaches with high rises. Density. Parking. Cars.