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 05-30-2007, 10:19 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,605,310 times
Reputation: 206

Advertisements

That's city limits. You have to remember that Los Angeles city limits covers vast swaths of wilderness (the mountains).

The Santa Monica mountain range covers L.A.'s city limits and it's almost 1/3rd of the total. Without this mountain range splitting L.A. in half, I'm sure the density figures will be much much higher...I'm sure, at least, over 10,000 pp.sq/mile.

And if you look at metro areas, you will get an even better picture of the whole area:

Chicago: Density: 1,318 /sq. mi. ; Area: 18,679 km˛
Los Angeles: Density: 2,665/sq. mi. ; Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-30-2007, 10:42 AM
 
Location: In God
3,073 posts, read 10,767,418 times
Reputation: 510
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
That's city limits. You have to remember that Los Angeles city limits covers vast swaths of wilderness (the mountains).

The Santa Monica mountain range covers L.A.'s city limits and it's almost 1/3rd of the total. Without this mountain range splitting L.A. in half, I'm sure the density figures will be much much higher...I'm sure, at least, over 10,000 pp.sq/mile.

And if you look at metro areas, you will get an even better picture of the whole area:

Chicago: Density: 1,318 /sq. mi. ; Area: 18,679 km˛
Los Angeles: Density: 2,665/sq. mi. ; Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
Wow. You would think that when the density is calculated, this would be included. But if Los Angeles is more dense, why are people always complaining about it being to sprawled with no character?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 10:58 AM
 
766 posts, read 2,269,645 times
Reputation: 698
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
That's city limits. You have to remember that Los Angeles city limits covers vast swaths of wilderness (the mountains).

The Santa Monica mountain range covers L.A.'s city limits and it's almost 1/3rd of the total. Without this mountain range splitting L.A. in half, I'm sure the density figures will be much much higher...I'm sure, at least, over 10,000 pp.sq/mile.

And if you look at metro areas, you will get an even better picture of the whole area:

Chicago: Density: 1,318 /sq. mi. ; Area: 18,679 km˛
Los Angeles: Density: 2,665/sq. mi. ; Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
The area of the LA metro area is misleading - that is probably using the truncated definition that just includes L.A. County, which has the city and the denser suburbs that surround it, as opposed to also including Orange County and the Inland Empire (which are the very essence of decentralized suburbia). Meanwhile, the Chicago area definition probably includes both the very dense Cook County (which includes the city) as well as the outlying highly decentralized suburbs. By simply looking at a map, you can tell that the LA area spreads out a lot further than the Chicago area, so it's not possible that Chicago's metro area is larger than LA's metro area (I'm not sure why Chicago has square km figures as opposed to sq. miles). Also note that while LA has the mountains in its city limits, Chicago has an abundant amount of park land and greenspace that could be subtracted from its own living space total, as well. Unless the average household is abnormally larger in LA as compared to Chicago (i.e. more people live in a typical LA unit than a Chicago unit), there's no way that LA could be considered denser than Chicago.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 11:47 AM
 
1,008 posts, read 3,731,099 times
Reputation: 249
I would agree with Frank that LA is NOT denser than Chicago. I've spent years in both cities and can attest to this. LA, if anything, is probably like Houston in terms of the layout of the land. Chicago is extremely urban and dense much like N.Y. city that's why it's such a popular place city. Downtown LA near Pershing Square is very dense with many stores/people that line the sidewalks. Chicago is the same way. Now here's where the cities separate...When you venture out of the downtown regions of both cities you find that LA as well as the rest of California to be very sprawled out. Chicago maintains that urban feel and high density of an original city.

Still I'd be surprised if any "big" city sprawls out more than LA. California in general is that way but you have a decent transit system. The state is becoming more dense as we speak. City developers recognize that people don't want nor like the mass sprawl and are trying to fill up the land with more homes and small businesses. The only problem is that land is extremely expensive in California. Much more than Chicago and probably topples NY.


In all honesty I can't see the comparison between Houston and Chicago.
After reading everyone's input and insight I reaffirm my initial belief, Houston and Chicago only share large populations and a vibrant ethnic culture.

Political tone, transit, land layout, specific industry, housing costs, apartment rentals and weather couldn't be more different. So the big question is what city does Houston "BEST" compare to? I'm thinking Atlanta but I may be wrong.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 2,605,310 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank the Tank View Post
The area of the LA metro area is misleading - that is probably using the truncated definition that just includes L.A. County, which has the city and the denser suburbs that surround it, as opposed to also including Orange County and the Inland Empire (which are the very essence of decentralized suburbia). Meanwhile, the Chicago area definition probably includes both the very dense Cook County (which includes the city) as well as the outlying highly decentralized suburbs. By simply looking at a map, you can tell that the LA area spreads out a lot further than the Chicago area, so it's not possible that Chicago's metro area is larger than LA's metro area (I'm not sure why Chicago has square km figures as opposed to sq. miles). Also note that while LA has the mountains in its city limits, Chicago has an abundant amount of park land and greenspace that could be subtracted from its own living space total, as well. Unless the average household is abnormally larger in LA as compared to Chicago (i.e. more people live in a typical LA unit than a Chicago unit), there's no way that LA could be considered denser than Chicago.
Fine, let's use urbanized areas. You have to remember that California counties are large, but anyway. Urbanized area stops where most of the development stops:

USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 02:41 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,721,293 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
Fine, let's use urbanized areas. You have to remember that California counties are large, but anyway. Urbanized area stops where most of the development stops:

USA Urbanized Areas: 2000 Ranked by Population(465 Areas)
Interesting figures you posted...b/c that separates Dallas even more from Houston...but they're a/b the same in density, which I guess it's not overly surprising since they're very similar cities.

I do liken Dallas and Houston more closer to LA in nature than Chicago. Chicago as I have said in previous posts represents the old traditional American city...the "northern cities"...LA is more the grandfather of sunbelt cities...lots of suburbs, lots of sprawl, etc. This is why NYC and Chicago are the only 2 American cities in the top 10 largest skylines of the world according to the Emporis forumula (see emporis.com for details).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 02:46 PM
 
1,008 posts, read 3,731,099 times
Reputation: 249
I think the emporis formula is precise. CA is a major sprawl as everything is built out as opposed to Chicago and NY which build up. But remember California has a decent rail and bus system and excellent weather even though the air quality could be better. In other words, you can wait 15 minutes "average" for a bus or train without sticking to your clothing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 02:54 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,721,293 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Supernova7 View Post
I think the emporis formula is precise. CA is a major sprawl as everything is built out as opposed to Chicago and NY which build up. But remember California has a decent rail and bus system and excellent weather even though the air quality could be better. In other words, you can wait 15 minutes "average" for a bus or train without sticking to your clothing.
I like the emporis formula myself. I think it's fair. And when you think a/b it, most of the world's skylines when you think skylines reside in Asia nowadays. They have 50% of the world's cranes in Shanghai alone.

As for LA, you're preaching to the choir when it comes to this topic of LA and Chicago.
But I do agree that when people think of America's largest cities, LA, Chicago, and NYC get mentioned in the same breath.
The next tier are your Dallas, Houston, maybe DC, definitely San Francisco, probably above Dallas and Houston....though Dallas and Houston are both bigger than San Fran. By the end of the decade, Dallas and Houston MSA's will be #4 and 5 respectively ahead of Philly.

But I do believe that LA does represent the granddaddy of sunbelt cities. Freeways, infrastructure, relatively good city layout with yes urban sprawl. Dallas, Atlanta, Houston all tend to emulate that pattern.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 03:03 PM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,633 posts, read 27,052,687 times
Reputation: 9577
that 2nd tier is packed. Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, Washington DC, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Miami. Although you may say that DC, SF, and Boston are all in their own tier having 7-9 million people and Dallas , Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, and Miami having 5-7 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-30-2007, 03:34 PM
 
609 posts, read 2,721,293 times
Reputation: 140
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
that 2nd tier is packed. Houston, Dallas, Philadelphia, Detroit, Boston, Washington DC, Atlanta, San Francisco, and Miami. Although you may say that DC, SF, and Boston are all in their own tier having 7-9 million people and Dallas , Detroit, Atlanta, Philadelphia, Houston, and Miami having 5-7 million.
Well, your stats are using two different statistical measures.

If you are using MSA's, DFW is the 4th largest MSA in the country in at 6.03 million people Houston is #6 at 5.5 million people.

THen you change and use CMSA's to up the SF, Miami, and DC populations.

Must use one or the other. Personally, I think MSA's are a much more accurate reflection of the city than the CMSA, which tends to reach a bit far. For example, Worchester and Manchester, NH are part of the Boston CMSA....that's a stretch....whereas in the Boston MSA, it's not.

Now Miami does not even have an associated CSA. IT's MSA population is less than that of Houston and Dallas.

BUt MSA's seem to reflect the cities better overall...and thus Dallas and Houston are #4 and #6 respectively.
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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top