Non-Road Boards > Off-Topic

Baja California...

(1/2) > >>

lamsalfl:
CAn't sleep because I am so excited about going to the Dome tomorrow for the NFC CG, so I was just playing with bingmaps.  If Baja California (all the way to Cabo San Lucas) was American and not impoverished, do you think we'd just have more San Diego-type cities down there?  Or is that peninsula too long and too isolated from mainland Mexico and the US?  When you look at aerials, it looks similar in geography and climate?  I assume it maintains the same Mediterranean climate as SoCal.

J N Winkler:
I think there would be more resort-type coastal development because Americans would be able to buy coastal properties without having to worry about the provision in the Mexican constitution which bans foreigners from having title to any land within a certain distance of the shoreline.  But large cities--probably not.  Much of Baja California is rocky and unsuitable for agriculture.  Much of Baja California Sur is fog desert as well.  Because it is a pleasant place to visit, it might attract software houses, but it would not have the cluster advantage of established locations like Silicon Valley.

Chris:
Are there enough water resources to support large cities there anyway? We all know cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas will get water shortages in the future. Large cities in the desert are not very sustainable, they require a huge amount of resources to function, especially U.S.-style developments which are not exactly known for their energy efficiency (think about all the airconditioning for instance).

J N Winkler:

--- Quote from: Chris on January 24, 2010, 07:05:50 AM ---Are there enough water resources to support large cities there anyway? We all know cities like Los Angeles, Phoenix and Las Vegas will get water shortages in the future. Large cities in the desert are not very sustainable, they require a huge amount of resources to function, especially U.S.-style developments which are not exactly known for their energy efficiency (think about all the airconditioning for instance).

--- End quote ---

Short answer:  yes, but the resources are unlikely to be local.  Large cities in desert areas like Phoenix, Tucson, and Los Angeles are heavily dependent on aqueduct systems.  Power does not have to be locally generated either--much of the intermountain West is also heavily dependent on hydroelectric power borne over high-voltage transmission lines, although there is some local generating capacity as well (think of the Palo Verde nuclear power plant near Phoenix).

As a generalization, in arid areas it is not urban development that gets squeezed out--it is agriculture.  Arizona is a bit of a special case, because the Indian tribes have a special claim on CAP water for agricultural purposes, but in general, in any area where access to water is controlled by a system of water rights allocated according to the principle of prior appropriation (essentially, first user gets the lion's share of the water), cities tend to squeeze out farmers because they can afford to pay more for more senior water rights.

I can see a lot of fishing and a lot of resort development in Baja, but very little farming.

Truvelo:
There would definitely be coastal resorts and upmarket neighborhoods it if was part of the US. I'm thinking of places such as Malibu where film stars live. Baja California would be full of such places.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page