Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
LA does not have a higher density than Philly over 100 miles. I don't think LA has a higher density than Philly over 60 or 70 miles. Maybe between 15 and 50 miles LA might have a slight edge but other than that Philly in general has a higher density level than Los Angeles.
You have it backwards. Philly might have a slight edge at 15 miles or so(not sure here), 50 might be neck and neck (slight edge to L.A. by all accounts).
100 miles? L.A. is more dense and it's really hard to argue otherwise.
Central and South Los Angeles (minus the Hollywood Hills to the North):
97.08 sq miles (which includes a good 10 sq miles of parks and industrial districts)
Population (2000 census): 1,549,643
That chunk of land is already more populated than Philly, and it almost certainly grew from 2000-2010. 1.55 million Angelenos living on 87 sq miles of land. I know Philly loses a lot of land to airports/parks and whatnot, but even taking that into account, Philly does not make up the difference.
And while I'm at it...lets take a look at the Central, South, East, and Southeast regions of L.A. County, minus the Hollywood Hills:
252.68 sq miles
3,026,290 people
11,977 p/sq mile
One big connected mass that tops Philly's density at close to twice the area of land. And lest you think I'm cherry-picking, included in this mass are the cities Vernon (5 sq miles, population 94):
Instead of aknowledging his faux pas(posting an outdated article) Bajan jumps to his next rambling mess.
Why does he keep bringing up NYC neighborhoods?
I can understand wanting to keep the arguments confined to downtown areas. It's the only way Philly and D.C. can feel like "big boys" versus L.A. Pull back even a little, and don't even bother comparing. Head out even 6 miles from D.C., and it's borderline rural.
Depends on your definition of a little?
Also on your 135 cmparison, well in LA are you including 10,000 acres of farmaland, two aiports, a ship yard, largest refinery on the east coast, a navy base, huge port, a TON of industrial? No Yes LA at 135 has more people but in Philly at 134 sq miles only 90 is actually lived in at 1.55.
I agree the expanse of LA is larger, no doubt, but Philly urbanity in the core (developed/compressed whatever is on the whole more urban) and no not just in the core, or just a little bit from the core. There is more to this than pure population density. When they are close many other aspects come into play.
“It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5396573474/ - broken link)
L.A. is larger in area than DC, Philly, BOS, and SF combined, simply comparing psm within city limits won't lead to any accurate conclusions on core density. Not to mention, some of its densest neighborhoods are not part of city of L.A. (WeHo, Huntington Park, Maywood, etc).
So it breaks down like this. At 50 sq miles surrounding their CBDs, everyone(minus D.C.) is almost even in density. L.A. might actually have a slight edge, but pretty close, all of them. At 100 miles, it's safe to say L.A. is ahead. At 150, no question. At 264 continuous sq miles surrounding DTLA(Central, East, South, and Southeast regions) total over 3 million strong. That's Philly density over twice the area of land.
Even the urbanized area is 15 million people with an average density over 7,000.
A lot of folks think these numbers are meaningless in this debate, I disagree. L.A. has its weaknesses sure, but it's sheer size makes up for it. Jmo.
Just curious Ray, do you realize there are areas oustside of Philly with higher avg denisities than the city of Philly, do you think the city just stops oat the borders here? Not as expansive but this isnt unique to LA, you realize this, correct?
This image is from outside the cty limits looking back in
http://www.flickr.com/photos/phillytrax/5886249133/ (broken link)
More looking back from outside of Philly (This time the Jersey side)
Also on your 135 cmparison, well in LA are you including 10,000 acres of farmaland, two aiports, a ship yard, largest refinery on the east coast, a navy base, huge port, a TON of industrial? No Yes LA at 135 has more people but in Philly at 134 sq miles only 90 is actually lived in at 1.55.
I agree the expanse of LA is larger, no doubt, but Philly urbanity in the core (developed/compressed whatever is on the whole more urban) and no not just in the core, or just a little bit from the core. There is more to this than pure population density. When they are close many other aspects come into play.
“It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5396573474/ - broken link)
For the Love of Philly | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5357949269/in/photostream - broken link)
A good chunk you see on the right hand side of the city is mainly factories and industrial in nature, so no he wasn't cherry picking
In all honesty though looking at the trends and nabes individually it is quite impressive.
Some areas are still in decline and others are booming. Philly had (has to still in some areas) to totally reinvent itself from industrial devastation and yet the economy continues to remain very solid (maybe the most diversified and stable growth city in the country) and stopping the bleeding and showing growth was a big deal. Also remember Philly went from 2.8 people per residence to 2.1 (greater decline percentage wise than the over the last 70 years and more than the percentage population despite containing some of the most devestated nabes in the country)
Also in the core Philly grew the third most in the country and by a higher percentage than any large city in the country. Plus became far wealthier just in the last 10 years alone.
Philly by best estimates added ~40-50K from its bottom in 2005. 8-10K a year in total in the last 5 years is actually impressive understanding the city dynamic.
A good chunk you see on the right hand side of the city is mainly factories and industrial in nature, so no he wasn't cherry picking
There is a difference between a good chunk and 40+ sq miles though.
I actually defend the urbaness of LA and density (even walkability to an extent) but NO, not even close to what is in this area of Philly compared to LA. Plus I can knock out 30 sq miles and add border areas in Philly to get close to 1.8 million in 135 sq miles. Philly is over 2 million at 200 sq miles etc. The cities are built differently and LA more expansive with far more continuity extending out, no doubt but on urbanity, both urban, Philly moreso in the core. With similar densities there are many other aspects that go into urban-ess
I think LA is FAR more urban than people give it credit for, on this if you want use spread and expanse than LA, in core (not just DT) I would say Philly is definately moreso
Also on your 135 cmparison, well in LA are you including 10,000 acres of farmaland, two aiports, a ship yard, largest refinery on the east coast, a navy base, huge port, a TON of industrial? No Yes LA at 135 has more people but in Philly at 134 sq miles only 90 is actually lived in at 1.55.
I agree the expanse of LA is larger, no doubt, but Philly urbanity in the core (developed/compressed whatever is on the whole more urban) and no not just in the core, or just a little bit from the core. There is more to this than pure population density. When they are close many other aspects come into play.
“It’s a Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood" | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5396573474/ - broken link)
For the Love of Philly | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/tiascapes/5357949269/in/photostream - broken link)
Yes, the area he included has a lot of industrial/non-residential areas (also has train tracks, depots, and stations, wide roads, parks, office buildings, etc. just as Philly has), but it's also an area that is a bit less than 100 miles compared to Philly's 135 while still having a larger population--so in that comparison, it's like attaching over 30 miles of uninhabited vacuum land. Also, this would be from numbers over ten ago for Los Angeles compared to Philly's current numbers when it's both cities that have supposedly added a large number of people to downtown. Added to that would be the probably hugely undercounted illegal immigrant population that mostly avoided the census.
When drawing different sizes of contiguous areas to compare (20, 50, 100, 1000), Los Angeles is the densest among the choices for most sizes. Its mass transit is comparable for those areas though not great (definitely at the back of the pack, though not out of its league). The way the city is built is sort of goofy in places, so it belies how dense the city actually is. There are a lot of factors to weigh in where LA alternately does well and does not so well in comparison, but I can see the argument for LA winning in some cases.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
