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.
not really, its not like its a one continuous city, its jus a lot of cities densely packed closeby
Saying its densely packed is relative because it's not really that densely packed at all away from the immediate urban cores.
The overlapping density and seamless development some of us think is pertinent to the term 'megalopolis' just doesnt exist that much in BosWash.
OTOH, LA is literally nonstop with very few empty parcels all the way to it's southern border along the 5.
But like I said, in popular perception, BosWash is considered a megalopolis so the boosters in this thread should be grateful for stereotypes, I suppose.
Sorry Montclair but you're leaving out Tijuana. If you're going to include SD, then I think it's fair to at least look at the binational relationship of CA and Mexico too. The development doesn't stop on the U.S. side of the border.
why do the majority of Americans stereotype Cali for being spread out and sprawling whereas the common stereotype of the northeast is people living stacked on top of each other?
People tend to think of the downtown areas and their immediate vicinities ONLY when discussing Northeast cities. They don't include the suburbs and townships surrounding them. Los Angeles is not treated the same way--people act the entire LA basin, sometimes the entire county, is the "the city" of Los Angeles. This is due in part to it's more de-centralized structure, a downtown area that is less a center of energy compared to other large cities, and less classically urban look even in its most densely populated areas. People think L.A. sprawls for these reasons. Just my theory.
The Bay Area isn't considered sprawly at all, and it's also in CA.
Quote:
It's clearly not a factual perception, but don't you feel it's at least based in some truth?
Not really.
Urbanized Area
New York - 3450 sq miles (18.6 million)
Philadelphia - 1981 sq miles (5.45 million)
Boston - 1872 sq miles (4.2 million)
Los Angeles - 1736 sq miles (12.2 million)
DC - 1322 sq miles (4.59 million)
Only DC is smaller in size. To be fair, the true size of the L.A. uban footprint is closer to 2,400 sq miles, but it's home to 15 million people. That's a larger population than Philly, Boston, and DC combined, in a much smaller area of land.
Compared to Boswash (minus the four main boroughs of NYC) L.A. is packed in far more tighter overall.
Quote:
Again, I think I said this on maybe page 30 or something...but these people are arguing for 2 cities (one of which isn't even a top 15 metro) compared to 4 of the biggest metros in the country. It's obviously silly.
Obviously the population of BosWash is significantly greater than LA-SD, but you could easily argue that the cohesiveness is greater amongst the latter two cities. Camp Pendleton is essentially a man-made barrier than keeps the two briefly separated along the 5. I would say it feels more cohesive than NYC/Philly overall. IMO, the mountains that separate OC and SD are scarcely different than the ones that separate the L.A. basin from the Valley. That's the way it feels to me anyway.
Quote:
I think another thing that separates ma/ct/ny/nj/philly from anywhere else in terms of population is that you have to go several hundred of miles in any direction to be in a truly unpopulated place, maybe even further.
True, but most of this is super low-density suburbs and townships. I find it baffling that East Coast posters defend that type of low-density development, while admonishing CA's more dense style. Other than that, I have no problem acknowledging the existence of the BosWash megapolis.
Last edited by RaymondChandlerLives; 08-16-2013 at 01:13 PM..
People tend to think of the downtown areas and their immediate vicinities ONLY when discussing Northeast cities. They don't include the suburbs and townships surrounding them. Los Angeles is not treated the same way--people act the entire LA basin, sometimes the entire county, is the "the city" of Los Angeles. This is due in part to it's more de-centralized structure, a downtown area that is less a center of energy compared to other large cities, and less classically urban look even in its most densely populated areas. People think L.A. sprawls for these reasons. Just my theory.
The Bay Area isn't considered sprawly at all, and it's also in CA.
Not really.
Urbanized Area
New York - 3450 sq miles (18.6 million)
Philadelphia - 1981 sq miles (5.45 million)
Boston - 1872 sq miles (4.2 million)
Los Angeles - 1736 sq miles (12.2 million)
DC - 1322 sq miles (4.59 million)
Only DC is smaller in size in size. To be fair, the true size of the L.A. uban footprint is closer to 2,400 sq miles, but it's home to 15 million people. That's a larger population than Philly, Boston, DC, and Baltimore combined, in a much smaller area of land.
Compared to Boswash (minus the four main boroughs of NYC) L.A. is packed in far more tighter overall.
Obviously the population of BosWash is significantly greater than LA-SD, but you could easily argue that the cohesiveness is greater amongst the latter two cities. Camp Pendleton is essentially man-made barrier than keeps the two briefly separated along the 5. I would say it feels more cohesive than NYC/Philly overall. IMO, the mountains that separate OC and SD are scarcely different than the ones that separate the L.A. basin from the Valley. That's the way it feels to me anyway.
True, but most of this is super low-density suburbs and townships. I find it baffling that East Coast posters defend that type of low-density development, while admonishing CA's more dense style. Other than that, I have no problem acknowledging the existence of the BosWash megapolis.
Actually not sure I disagree with many things in this post. Though is groosly over-simplified.
One question for you Ray - what experience do you have with the area? meaning other than the cities themselves
Also most is low density suburbs, yes on the peripheral MSAs and even peripheral chunks of the UA, but wher the vast majority of the population resides, no (what experience do you have with place like Essex, Somerset, Mercer, or Camden county NJ or say a Bucks County in PA (Norhtern Buck and Souther bucks are vastly different in development consistency with Northern bucks being rural IMHO for example while Southern Bucks has areas like Bensalem, Levittown (yes an original Levittown, Britsol etc. all with densities more consistent with the areas you speak of in SOCAL albeit not gridded per se)
Re3meber that NYC gets to 12 million in like 1,000 sq miles, probably closer to 15+ in 1,700 sq miles.
Even Philly gets to 4.5 million in like 500-600 sq miles
The most consitently populated area is wha runs up the spine and connected space so-to-speak. The development patterns are different (in the NE even in the areas not in the city proper) density has significant gradiants, many times over a short distance. There is also far more preserved land intersperced in the NE, even preserved farmland.
While I agree the stretch along I5 is more consistent, to me the huge pink elephant is it develops more area with less people, could argue this is actually less efficient. Its not the cul-de-sac developments thta reduce density but more the preserved open space in this comparison. Also the density gradient is far different
So to me and knowing both spaces very well, they are generally equally connected, just in different forms. One with more peak and valley and the other with less peak and more continuity. The weighted density actually bears this out as more people live in a smaller area (trim the fat from the UA areas you post and it would bear out as well). Now for small swaths there will be lessor developed stretches, but rmember also just as an example, the one census tract blocking the direct tract to tract UA connection from CT to DE in NJ, has a large national revolutionary park in which there will never be any population. Now in this area is the developed grid like OC, no but again I am not sure that in and of itself is even more effecient.
Sorry Montclair but you're leaving out Tijuana. If you're going to include SD, then I think it's fair to at least look at the binational relationship of CA and Mexico too. The development doesn't stop on the U.S. side of the border.
Excellent point.
San Diego-Tijiuana is btwn 4-5 million people and is also far denser than most of BosWash.
Compared to Boswash (minus the four main boroughs of NYC) L.A. is packed in far more tighter overall.
Yup, from the ocean to San Bernardino, from oh, Valencia to San Clemente, nowhere else in the US is so dense and.developed over such a vast area like that.
Quote:
True, but most of this is super low-density suburbs and townships. I find it baffling that East Coast posters defend that type of low-density development, while admonishing CA's more dense style. Other than that, I have no problem acknowledging the existence of the BosWash megapolis.
Urbanized Area
New York - 3450 sq miles (18.6 million) Philadelphia - 1981 sq miles (5.45 million)
Boston - 1872 sq miles (4.2 million) Los Angeles - 1736 sq miles (12.2 million)
DC - 1322 sq miles (4.59 million)
Only DC is smaller in size in size. To be fair, the true size of the L.A. uban footprint is closer to 2,400 sq miles, but it's home to 15 million people. That's a larger population than Philly, Boston, and DC combined, in a much smaller area of land.
Compared to Boswash (minus the four main boroughs of NYC) L.A. is packed in far more tighter overall.
You can make the same case for the Philly urban area in regards to Trenton, Vineland and Reading but overall you are still correct in that LA does has a significantly larger population even with those urban areas added to Philly. I do disagree with LA-SD being more cohesive than NYC-Philly.
I'm a little confused by all this discussion about density along highways. The major cities of the east and those in SOCAL developed quite differently. The older east coast cities saw their rapid growth prior to the automobile age, which is reflected in their cores by the denser street footprint. To travel between them, they were connected first by stage and then by rail. Towns and boroughs grew up around these rail lines. By the time highways were built in the 20th Century, they were placed in the "country" as it would not have been sound to claim eminent domain through the heart of townships to lay down asphalt. Development followed suit along these highways, but it was further from the more concentrated areas of population.
SOCAL has seen more of its expansive growth post-automobile. In fact, much of that expansion would not have been possible without the automobile. As with many sunbelt cities, freeways were built not only to connect areas, with the express intent of permitting devolvement to sprawl over larger areas away from the older cores.
Two different models of development. Somewhere in these pages, someone seems to have turned this thread into a competition that one model of development is the winner and the other the loser. While they are different, it seems both have "won." But that sometimes seems difficult for some to admit on the pages of CD.
As to the thread itself: "Does The "Bos-Wash Megalopolis" really exist?" Yes, I personally believe it exists.
Last edited by Pine to Vine; 08-16-2013 at 02:00 PM..
Reason: correct typos (my downfall)
If high speed and relatively inexpensive transit among the nearby Great Lakes megalopolis and the Windsor-Quebec City is established with multiple trunk lines and paths is established then does that then become a megalopolis as well? What if we actually built things akin to a hyperloop?
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.
