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.
Well, I'm from California. I was impressed by NYC and a lot of the rest of the northeast corridor, so I stayed.
Of course, there are people from the northeast that are impressed by California or at least want to or have moved there. So, really, the question doesn't make sense since apparently people from the same area can have different opinions.
It would be nice though if some of the inland cities were great though (Sacramento is actually pretty alright, but Bakersfield, Fresno, and Stockton, blegh). Or if San Jose wasn't so dull as a city. Or if Tijuana had a lot more nicer parts. Actually, do the inland cities of California count as part of the comparison? I think maybe just going along the coast and calling that the California equivalent to the corridor is way nicer.
Also, if you actually read the rest of his post, that question probably would have made more sense to you. It seems like he was asking for a more substantial response since it's unclear what argument you're trying to make.
BigCityDreamer said Ohio is more densely populated than all of CA, not just the LA area. According to Wiki, CA just edges Ohio out but it is close.
The point is that most of the "densely populated states" in the top 10 don't even match the population of the Los Angeles region, much less the density, which makes the braggadocio unwarranted.
Some of those states (Delaware, Rhode Island) don't even match the population of the city of San Diego.
The point is that most of the "densely populated states" in the top 10 don't even match the population of the Los Angeles region, much less the density, which makes the braggadocio unwarranted.
Some of those states (Delaware, Rhode Island) don't even match the population of the city of San Diego.
BosWash = the 1,000 ppsm megapolis.
That comparison doesn't make much sense to me. The northeast urban areas are built differently and along transit corridors so that's how the megalopolis is arranged. So, yea, there'll be parts along the transit corridor that aren't major stops as well as places fringing out from the major nodes that aren't dense, but that's talking about something different than just one metropolitan region spreading out all over. I'm not going to touch the comparison of state boundaries to city boundaries as it seems so strangely arbitrary. A megalopolis is a different concept from a metropolitan area, a state, or a city. It seems like it'd make sense to talk about it on its own terms.
He stated specifically preservation of farmland and parks. LA did actually do a terrible job of that. If you go into the suburbs of NYC and Philadelphia (not sure about the other ones), you'll often see within those suburbs massive greenspaces, horses, and farm fields in between and adjacent to suburban properties (as can be seen in Montclair's satellite view posts). This accounts for why those numbers are so sprawl-y, and in my view is massively preferable to the dense, but still suburban lots and layout of Los Angeles. LA did awful planning by going with suburban concrete jungles of dense small lots over huge distances such that it gives most people little amenities in terms of natural beauty and greenspaces to stretch out and explore or in terms of having the ability to easily walk or bike around in its suburbs (despite the great year-round climate) and easily get to points of interests or to run day to day errands or have any sort of vibrant street life. It's ridiculously poor planning that was great for developers' bottom lines.
Even in the 80s, there was a lot more preserved parts in the suburbs especially among small hills and valley. The amount of construction and development that's gone into placing as many small lot sfhs as possible into every stupid nook and cranny has ended that. The creeks that I used to be able to visit and small trails that used to be visit, the small horse ranches that were there, and the small plots of citrus orchards are all for the most part just plain gone now. There was almost no attempt whatsoever at preserving these things. It's amazing.
How big are those parks?
The UAs of New York and Philadelphia combined are in the neighborhood of 5400 sq miles. Since UAs have a density minimum, the parks can't be THAT big.
5400 sq miles...if you took all the UAs in the Greater Los Angeles region + San Diego's UA, you would not approach that size. And posters have the stones to refer to L.A. as sprawling im this very thread. You're just giving the NE a pass for its low-density suburbs that are bleeding into each other, gobbling up tons of land so that everyone gets a big house with a huge yard, front and back. Then you turn around and bash L.A. for sprawl! Wow. Los Angeles has several dozens of sq miles devoted to parkland + mountains + the ocean. The suburbs (following the CA model) are dense and efficient by U.S. standards. I don't see anything wrong with it.
..5400 sq miles...if you took all the UAs in the Greater Los Angeles region + San Diego's UA, you would not approach that size. And posters have the stones to refer to L.A. as sprawling im this very thread. You're just giving the NE a pass for its low-density suburbs that are bleeding into each other, gobbling up tons of land so that everyone gets a big house with a huge yard, front and back. Then you turn around and bash L.A. for sprawl! Wow. Los Angeles has several dozens of sq miles devoted to parkland + mountains + the ocean. The suburbs (following the CA model) are dense and efficient by U.S. standards. I don't see anything wrong with it.
I've lived in Philly, DC, and Miami, so I have some experience with both models. I think what the NE defenders like about having dense city cores with low-density suburbs is you get a clear choice between the two. Miami, by comparison, is just really dense through the whole region between Coral Gables and Fort Lauderdale. It gives you less walkability, but more traffic--a pretty poor combination. However, on the plus, you get strip malls that have good restaurants and parking. Try to find good restaurants and plentiful parking together in NYC.
So, from my perspective, they're two different models that offer different things. But the dense suburb model feels more like sprawl and the non-dense suburb model actually is more sprawling. If I had the choice between sprawling city and sprawling urban area, I'd take the latter, because I could choose to live in the dense center and be near everything. But I don't fault people who want the other model.
The problem with LA is the geography made it very easy to sprawl w/o preserving much open space due the abundance of flat, wide open land, something no other area of coastal CA really has. The Bay Area with hills and water and San Diego with it's canyons/mesa's made it more difficult to sprawl over every inch of build-able land compared to LA.
Well that really didn't address nor add any perspective to the post...
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.
