Where is Sprawl worse? California or Florida? (map, largest, compare)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Why are you trying to seperate the Inland Empire from LA, its the same CSA and a big reason why California is considered sprawl capital. Don't even try to act like people from the Inland Empire don't commute to LA on a daily basis.

LA CSA:
17,786,419 Population
33,954 sq. mi.

South Florida MSA (there is no CSA):
5,547,051 Population
890/sq. mi.

3.2 x larger population in LA
38 x larger area in LA

Why are you comparing a CSA to a MSA? Shouldn't be an apples vs apples comparison of MSA vs MSA?

[DANNYY]

Originally Posted by sav858

Why are you comparing a CSA to a MSA? Shouldn't be an apples vs apples comparison of MSA vs MSA?

It's essentially the same thing, a CSA is just an extended version to an MSA, the threshold to CSA is 15% commuter rate requirements and MSA is 25%, due to being geographically locked there is no CSA for South Florida.

So when it comes down to it and to things like "diversity", "metro", and all that stuff it is an apples to apples comparison to compare the largest form that a metro exists in, and for places like Miami & Phoenix that don't have CSA's its their MSA's against other metro's.

[sav858]

Using Walkscore.com, CA cities overall rank as more walkable than Florida cities.

Cities in California on Walk Score
Cities in Florida on Walk Score

Greater density doesn't necessarily mean it's "walkable" but it does mean amenities generally will be closer together and therefore more "walkable". CA metro areas overall are denser than Florida's. San Diego is less dense than South Florida but LA and SF areas are more dense. And SD is denser than the rest of FL metro's.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Why are you trying to seperate the Inland Empire from LA, its the same CSA and a big reason why California is considered sprawl capital. Don't even try to act like people from the Inland Empire don't commute to LA on a daily basis.

LA CSA:
17,786,419 Population
33,954 sq. mi.

South Florida MSA (there is no CSA):
5,547,051 Population
890/sq. mi.

3.2 x larger population in LA
38 x larger area in LA

We've exhausted this myth ad nauseum here on city-data.

Are you seriously suggesting that LA's 18 Million people are spread out evenly on huge lots of suburban tract homes from the ocean nonstop until the CA/AZ border?



http://mrhansonsclass.pbworks.com/f/...lation_map.png

Actually the state of Florida, with a similar population as Los Angeles should be ashamed of how it sprawls compared to LA.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by DANNYY

It's essentially the same thing, a CSA is just an extended version to an MSA, the threshold to CSA is 15% commuter rate requirements and MSA is 25%, due to being geographically locked there is no CSA for South Florida.

So when it comes down to it and to things like "diversity", "metro", and all that stuff it is an apples to apples comparison to compare the largest form that a metro exists in, and for places like Miami & Phoenix that don't have CSA's its their MSA's against other metro's.

When you talk about density and development, using a CSA vs a MSA makes a big difference, especially in a place like CA with huge counties. Using CSA's you start to include farther out places that includes all of the undeveloped land that will never be built on. When you use LA's CSA you're including all of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties, which stretch all the way to the Nevada and Arizona statelines. Might as well start calling LA the "Tri-State" area then, haha. SB County alone is over 20,000 sq miles itself. That's ridiculous to try to include all of that area that will never be developed and is not even within commuting distance of LA.

[dweebo2220]

Originally Posted by EndersDrift

Why are you trying to seperate the Inland Empire from LA, its the same CSA and a big reason why California is considered sprawl capital. Don't even try to act like people from the Inland Empire don't commute to LA on a daily basis.

LA CSA:
17,786,419 Population
33,954 sq. mi.

South Florida MSA (there is no CSA):
5,547,051 Population
890/sq. mi.

3.2 x larger population in LA
38 x larger area in LA

Nah... see this is exactly why I separated Inland Empire from LA. Because CSA's are based on counties which in southern california are the size of states. Look at a map of counties out here and you'll understand that it's absolutely absurd to make county-based comparisons (especially when attempting to make comparisons about density).

To say that LA is 33,954 square miles is like saying that all of the gators in the everglades live in miami. The VAST majority of the territory in LA, Riverside, and San bernardino counties is desert or mountains. Orange county is the only majority urbanized county.

Look at this map. The eastern counties stretch OFF THE MAP. Far beyond where the LA metro area is. Saying that people in Barstow and Palm Springs commute to LA is like saying San Diegans commute to LA:



If you want accurate representation of the inhabited CSA, add up all of the major contiguous UA's in the 5 county area:

Los Angeles
11,789,487
1667.9
Riverside SB
1,506,816
438.8
Lancaster Palmdale
263,532
90.4
Oxnard
337,591
75.7
Thousand Oaks
210,990
86.2
Santa Clarita
170,481
54.3
Simi Valley
112,345
27.1


The total is
14,391,242 in 2404 square miles.

That's just shy of 6,000 people per square mile.


Also, you quoted the density for the south florida MSA, not the area. Check it out again:
South Florida metropolitan area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The South Florida MSA is over 6,000 square miles, not 890.
The LA five-county CSA, at 524 people per square mile, is mathematically "less dense" than South Florida's whopping 890 people per square mile. But this is like comparing the densities of states. You'd have to be a fool to do that.

I'm not making any value judgments when I say that CA's urban areas are much more densely populated than Florida's.

I just want to get the facts straight so people realize that they are actually reacting to the high-density of CA urban areas when they call them "sprawled." Houses are packed very tight in CA, so you actually can see the urbanized area as a contiguous entity. Tightly-packed sprawl is "in your face" compared to the leafy, less dense suburbs of other regions. In most of the US outside of the west, populations are much more dispersed, making it more difficult to see the metropolis as coherent and so people perceive them as being less sprawled.

[dweebo2220]

okay, well I guess I was composing that ^^ while two others had the same idea...

That's a better map than mine, 18Montclair.

Also, I realize I maybe should have added the Mission Viejo UA...

[EndersDrift]

You all are comparing density to sprawl. The two are not the same. I don't know how to explain this to you.

I get what you're saying with CSA being a much larger area but LA as a whole is a much larger area. Those numbers exist for a reason and believe it or not the US Census is in a better position than you are to decide those boundaries.

Worst Traffic:
Which cities have the worst traffic? – This Just In - CNN.com Blogs
Southern California and San Francisco both make the list. And note it doesn't say L.A. it says Southern California

Pretty much any city with a large CSA is by definition a place with lots of Urban Sprawl. When the conversation for LA is to include Inland Empire or not, when you have to ask for San Francisco if San Jose is being included or not. Or Tampa with Sarasota. Even Orlando with Clermont..

But Miami? Nope, sorry no CSA and not on any list for the worst urban sprawl.
San Antonio among top cities for urban sprawl | San Antonio Business Journal
Planned growth vs. sprawl: the best and worst cities / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com

[EndersDrift]

Originally Posted by dweebo2220

Nah... see this is exactly why I separated Inland Empire from LA. Because CSA's are based on counties which in southern california are the size of states. Look at a map of counties out here and you'll understand that it's absolutely absurd to make county-based comparisons (especially when attempting to make comparisons about density).

To say that LA is 33,954 square miles is like saying that all of the gators in the everglades live in miami. The VAST majority of the territory in LA, Riverside, and San bernardino counties is desert or mountains. Orange county is the only majority urbanized county.

Look at this map. The eastern counties stretch OFF THE MAP. Far beyond where the LA metro area is. Saying that people in Barstow and Palm Springs commute to LA is like saying San Diegans commute to LA:



If you want accurate representation of the inhabited CSA, add up all of the major contiguous UA's in the 5 county area:

Los Angeles
11,789,487
1667.9
Riverside SB
1,506,816
438.8
Lancaster Palmdale
263,532
90.4
Oxnard
337,591
75.7
Thousand Oaks
210,990
86.2
Santa Clarita
170,481
54.3
Simi Valley
112,345
27.1


The total is
14,391,242 in 2404 square miles.

That's just shy of 6,000 people per square mile.


Also, you quoted the density for the south florida MSA, not the area. Check it out again:
South Florida metropolitan area - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The South Florida MSA is over 6,000 square miles, not 890.
The LA five-county CSA, at 524 people per square mile, is mathematically "less dense" than South Florida's whopping 890 people per square mile. But this is like comparing the densities of states. You'd have to be a fool to do that.

I'm not making any value judgments when I say that CA's urban areas are much more densely populated than Florida's.

I just want to get the facts straight so people realize that they are actually reacting to the high-density of CA urban areas when they call them "sprawled." Houses are packed very tight in CA, so you actually can see the urbanized area as a contiguous entity. Tightly-packed sprawl is "in your face" compared to the leafy, less dense suburbs of other regions. In most of the US outside of the west, populations are much more dispersed, making it more difficult to see the metropolis as coherent and so people perceive them as being less sprawled.

Woops, that did seem oddly small even for South Florida. but see the links I just posted for further verification that despite my exhausted research (exhausted as in I should be sleeping right now) there is no way to argue Miami as being more sprawled than LA or SF.

[dweebo2220]

^^ Yes, people do talk about high density sprawl. This is what you find in CA.

"sprawl," though, doesn't really have a consistent meaning. Let's agree that there is "no way to argue Miami as being more sprawled than LA or SF" because there is no way to argue that anywhere is more sprawled than any other until we determine what we're talking about.

Usually, people talk about density because it's at least somewhat precise.

"I get what you're saying with CSA being a much larger area but LA as a whole is a much larger area. Those numbers exist for a reason and believe it or not the US Census is in a better position than you are to decide those boundaries."

^^ The US Census doesn't use CSA's to calculate density or to determine what places are more "sprawled." Again, you'd have to be a fool to think that the LA CSA's area measurements have any relevance to the actual urban experience. In other words, I'm starting to think you are a fool .

"Pretty much any city with a large CSA is by definition a place with lots of Urban Sprawl."

^^I'm sorry but this statement doesn't actually mean anything. Are you simply saying that CA's urban areas have more urban sprawl because they are larger population centers and hence have more suburban homes? (We all know that US metros are overwhelmingly characterized by suburban housing)

CA must be dumber too because there are more dumb people here. And it must be smarter because there are more smart people here. And it must be both richer and poorer too.