Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2008, 10:51 AM
 
2,488 posts, read 2,931,625 times
Reputation: 830

Advertisements

LA has a dense metro. There is a difference between metro density and city density. In the east, suburbs are less dense then ones in the west, while the cities are more dense in the east then ones in the west. That was one weird thing about Denver. The suburbs were compact suburban housing over and over. While majority of the city looked the same also.

You go to the east, they are old, filled with rowhouses and highrises, yet the suburbs are wider, and more spacious, excluding the first ring of historic street car suburbs that were built in the east.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-05-2008, 11:17 AM
 
Location: Philadelphia,New Jersey, NYC!
6,963 posts, read 20,527,346 times
Reputation: 2737
Default cool ariel pics of metro LA

talk about spread out wow!








Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-05-2008, 11:17 AM
 
11,289 posts, read 26,180,873 times
Reputation: 11355
LA as a city is not near the top of densest cities.

LA metro is dense because of all the mountains/land. In the suburbs the developers know to pack in as many houses as possible because there just isn't a lot of land available.

Chicago has 32,000 people per square mile in its dense areas along the northern areas of the city. The suburbs though counter that because there's thousands of miles of farmland that can be developed, and people want space to spread out. Developers don't care because there's no crunch on open land.

The suburbs are finally getting the point of building more dense, and packing in more people/dense buildings in the older suburbs. I think the rise in gas prices is going to facilitate this greatly all across the country.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2008, 08:03 PM
 
1,149 posts, read 5,633,700 times
Reputation: 624
Thanks. What about Minneapolis which like Portland is a city combating sprawl through urban planning. The growth boundary is greater than Portland though.

Quote:
Originally Posted by CubsGiantsIndiansfan2008 View Post
Well dense cities can still have urban sprall, but here we go:

New York City
San Francisco
Chicago
Boston
Miami
Cinncinatti
Pittsburg
Portland
Seattle
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-08-2008, 10:12 PM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
18,980 posts, read 32,624,505 times
Reputation: 13630
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago60614 View Post
LA as a city is not near the top of densest cities.

LA metro is dense because of all the mountains/land. In the suburbs the developers know to pack in as many houses as possible because there just isn't a lot of land available.

Chicago has 32,000 people per square mile in its dense areas along the northern areas of the city. The suburbs though counter that because there's thousands of miles of farmland that can be developed, and people want space to spread out. Developers don't care because there's no crunch on open land.

The suburbs are finally getting the point of building more dense, and packing in more people/dense buildings in the older suburbs. I think the rise in gas prices is going to facilitate this greatly all across the country.
LA has some REALLY dense areas as well. Part of Koreatown have around 100,000 people per square mile!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2008, 12:12 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
20,512 posts, read 33,510,933 times
Reputation: 12147
Quote:
Originally Posted by CubsGiantsIndiansfan2008 View Post
Well dense cities can still have urban sprall, but here we go:

New York City
San Francisco
Chicago
Boston
Miami
Cinncinatti
Pittsburg
Portland
Seattle
Miami is dense. Urban it is not. The entire area is built around for you to get back only a car. The bus system is terrible and the rail system leaves alot to be desired.

I would say major urban cities in the US are NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, and maybe Seattle and Detroit city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2008, 12:44 PM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,982 posts, read 35,192,720 times
Reputation: 7428
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
Miami is dense. Urban it is not. The entire area is built around for you to get back only a car. The bus system is terrible and the rail system leaves alot to be desired.

I would say major urban cities in the US are NYC, SF, Chicago, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington DC, Baltimore, and maybe Seattle and Detroit city.
Detroit seems its about as urban as Houston or Dallas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2008, 02:05 PM
 
Location: Where you wish you lived, LA
304 posts, read 904,369 times
Reputation: 136
seattle isnt really urban either

its pretty boring without the skyline
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2008, 03:31 PM
 
Location: San Diego
43 posts, read 273,487 times
Reputation: 19
Quote:
Originally Posted by internat View Post
Please list them. I'm thinking of cities like San Francisco, NYC and Boston. Los Angeles on the other hand is low density urban sprawl.

what do you know you obviously never been to are seen Los Angeles.
just another Troll trying to down another good American city
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2008, 03:40 PM
 
1,149 posts, read 5,633,700 times
Reputation: 624
You have made 4 posts. That should say something. You're accusing me of something I am not.

I have been to Los Angeles. I just prefer compact cities. Perhaps I should have asked for compact cities.

A lot of visitors to Los Angeles do ask "where is the city?". You're mistaken if you think I'm the only one who says Los Angeles is more like a giant suburb of towns and communities. I don't get it why you take it personal. I suggest you stop the childish name-calling and get back to the topic. If you have nothing to say...

Quote:
Originally Posted by SDSU View Post
what do you know you obviously never been to are seen Los Angeles.
just another Troll trying to down another good American city

Last edited by internat; 08-09-2008 at 03:49 PM..
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 $104,000 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.
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:36 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top