U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: Which metropolitan area is overall better, and would rather live in?
New York metropolitan area 145 50.52%
Los Angeles metropolitan area 104 36.24%
Miami metropolitan area 38 13.24%
Voters: 287. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-20-2009, 01:38 PM
 
318 posts, read 55,211 times
Reputation: 78
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fleet View Post
Could you post a map showing the metro area of NYC?

I have never heard of a metro area of any city reaching out 100 miles!
When the city is as big as New York and has over 10M the metro area has to be proportionate.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-20-2009, 01:40 PM
 
Location: where my heart is
5,643 posts, read 4,024,942 times
Reputation: 1661
Mountains don't just suddenly appear. You don't go from flat land to high mountains. They call them the foothills of mountains and both NY and NJ contain areas that are the foothills to these mountains.

The Hudson Valley Region of Putnam County, which is about 50 miles from NYC (the Bronx) is probably the closest foothills. This is where West Point and the Foundry is/was. West Point was not built on flat land. This area is very "hilly" and you can see the Hudson River below. Very beautifiul, and very expensive, area. I once worked for an execuitve who live in Croton and took Metro North into Manhattan every day. Again, it's not 100 miles from NYC and you can certainly say the mountains start in this area.

The Poconos also aren't just in Pa. The foothills start in New Jersey. I don't know if this area of NJ is 100 miles from NYC, but I doubt it. Maybe 50? Again, my husband has worked with people in NYC who commuted from this area of NJ, or even just over the border in Pal.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 02:46 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,732 posts, read 7,147,299 times
Reputation: 2774
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANaples View Post
Mountains don't just suddenly appear. You don't go from flat land to high mountains.
Wrong. You have obviously never been to Southern California, or the Valley of the Sun (Phoenix) in Arizona .

Just because YOU haven't experienced something personally, does not mean it doesn't exist. You need to broaden your horizons a little.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 03:14 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
18,266 posts, read 15,727,602 times
Reputation: 4477
Quote:
Originally Posted by TANaples View Post
Mountains don't just suddenly appear. You don't go from flat land to high mountains. They call them the foothills of mountains and both NY and NJ contain areas that are the foothills to these mountains.

The Hudson Valley Region of Putnam County, which is about 50 miles from NYC (the Bronx) is probably the closest foothills. This is where West Point and the Foundry is/was. West Point was not built on flat land. This area is very "hilly" and you can see the Hudson River below. Very beautifiul, and very expensive, area. I once worked for an execuitve who live in Croton and took Metro North into Manhattan every day. Again, it's not 100 miles from NYC and you can certainly say the mountains start in this area.

The Poconos also aren't just in Pa. The foothills start in New Jersey. I don't know if this area of NJ is 100 miles from NYC, but I doubt it. Maybe 50? Again, my husband has worked with people in NYC who commuted from this area of NJ, or even just over the border in Pal.
I was talking about the fact that there are no mountains in the NYC metro area.
The Catskills are closer to Albany than to NYC!

And foothills are not mountains.

BTW, in Wyoming, you can go from flatlands to high mountains... the Grand Teton mountain range juts up from the flatlands.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 03:27 PM
 
536 posts, read 834,697 times
Reputation: 324
LA Metro.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 03:29 PM
 
Location: Bronx, NY
4,383 posts, read 5,468,692 times
Reputation: 5375
NYC hands down.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 03:30 PM
 
Location: Atlanta
7,732 posts, read 7,147,299 times
Reputation: 2774
^I agree, KeyserSoze - L.A. for me.

The other two don't even approach it in sooooo many ways.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 04:26 PM
 
766 posts, read 1,050,747 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
LA doesnt have a more dense urban area.
Actually, it is statistically shown that Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the US by a margin of 2,000 ppsm over NYC urban area.

Quote:
For example LAs urban area is 4319.9 sq mi with only a density 7068.3.
That is exactly why Los Angeles is dense because it has a significantly smaller urban area than NYC by size.

Quote:
The more land you add to the equation the less the density appears. Because all of the extra land that is added to it even though most of the people dont live on that. NYCs urban area is 2x the size at 8683.2sq mi maintaining a density of 5309.3 but if we take away 4000sq mi to compare to LA the density would be much higher. The topic is Metro and the Metro of NYC is still more dense.
There is no reason to add more land to the Los Angeles urban area because 4,300 sq mi is the entire urban area already. New York is a much larger build up area so you include more. The criteria for including urban area goes by a certain minimum density. Once the build up area has a lower density than the minimum density, then it is not included into the urban area. Both NY's and LA's urban areas follow the same criteria.

It would also be disproportionate to include only 4,300 sq miles of NY's urban area cuz that would be cheating since NY has more than that. NYC larger so you have to adjust that as well.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 04:30 PM
 
Location: Spain
1,856 posts, read 2,747,235 times
Reputation: 893
What exactly is included in "LA urban area"? Because if it includes ALL of Kern County that is just ridiculous, because that place is practically devoid of human life. If Kern county is included, it should be dropped and then LA's density would really go up a lot.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-20-2009, 05:01 PM
 
766 posts, read 1,050,747 times
Reputation: 475
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX View Post
What exactly is included in "LA urban area"? Because if it includes ALL of Kern County that is just ridiculous, because that place is practically devoid of human life. If Kern county is included, it should be dropped and then LA's density would really go up a lot.
The Los Angeles CMSA includes all of Kern County because it is based on commuting patterns. The Los Angeles urban area includes all the areas that achieve the minimum density required, so if Kern County is devoid of human life then it most certainly isn't a part of the urban area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:18 PM.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top