Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [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)
 
 
Old 09-27-2016, 10:42 PM
 
17,876 posts, read 15,742,791 times
Reputation: 11650

Advertisements

Los Angeles is denser than even Northern NJ it seems.

The City of Los Angeles is 469 sq mi and about the same size as Bergen County, Essex County, and Hudson County ( all in NJ of course ) combined. But the City of LA has about 4 mil people giving it about 8K/sq mi. Those three NJ counties combined on have around 2.3 mil. But Hudson County alone is +14K/sqmi. Newark NJ is roughly 11K/sq mi.

I dont know about the suburbs around City of Los Angeles though. The County of Los Angeles is almost half the size of NJ already, and has a density of 2,100/sq mi. The whole State of NJ has a density of 1,210/sq mi. Now County of Los Angeles has almost 10 mil people and they mostly live in the southern half of the county. The whole State of NJ has almost 9 mil people in the whole state.

But does anywhere in Count of LA or Orange county have anything near the density of Hudson County, or Newark? With over 100K people of course. It does not matter if you combine towns.

I am just trying to get the picture of the development, and urban/surburban sprawl of both place compared and contrasted with each other.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-27-2016, 11:48 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
317 posts, read 401,327 times
Reputation: 355
New Jersey is the most densely populated state because of its small size and close commute to NYC. That doesn't mean there is more people. Of couse the city of LA is denser than northern Jersey. That goes without saying. I'm from Bergen county and without a doubt LA is denser than north Jersey.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2016, 12:51 AM
 
Location: South Bay
7,226 posts, read 22,105,135 times
Reputation: 3626
LA city has some very dense areas, the densest being immigrant heavy, low income neighborhoods just west of downtown. High density areas extend well beyond this though. If you were to remove housing in the valley and in the hills I'm sure you'd be at those Hudson and Newark numbers that you mentioned. This would probably cut the city population in half though, but that still leaves 2 million people.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2016, 01:15 PM
 
12,823 posts, read 24,288,846 times
Reputation: 11039
Quote:
Originally Posted by NJ Brazen_3133 View Post
Los Angeles is denser than even Northern NJ it seems.

The City of Los Angeles is 469 sq mi and about the same size as Bergen County, Essex County, and Hudson County ( all in NJ of course ) combined. But the City of LA has about 4 mil people giving it about 8K/sq mi. Those three NJ counties combined on have around 2.3 mil. But Hudson County alone is +14K/sqmi. Newark NJ is roughly 11K/sq mi.

I dont know about the suburbs around City of Los Angeles though. The County of Los Angeles is almost half the size of NJ already, and has a density of 2,100/sq mi. The whole State of NJ has a density of 1,210/sq mi. Now County of Los Angeles has almost 10 mil people and they mostly live in the southern half of the county. The whole State of NJ has almost 9 mil people in the whole state.

But does anywhere in Count of LA or Orange county have anything near the density of Hudson County, or Newark? With over 100K people of course. It does not matter if you combine towns.

I am just trying to get the picture of the development, and urban/surburban sprawl of both place compared and contrasted with each other.
In California we really don't do suburbs the way Easterners would understand. We do more of what I'd call low density urban. Grid or at best what I term curvy grid, very miniscule (in some cases zero) lot lines, lots of concrete and landscaping. Properties are generally smallish. We just don't have leafy burbs like you might find in say Tappan or Morris Plains.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2016, 05:16 PM
 
Location: Los Angeles
4,625 posts, read 3,355,571 times
Reputation: 6147
OP: Here is a mapping tool from the LA Times that will show you pop density for various neighborhoods and cities in LA County.

Population Density Ranking - Mapping L.A. - Los Angeles Times

There are 15 with a population density of 20,000 per square mile or more. LA grew up on streetcars in the 1890 to 1920 period so the urban core of LA is fairly dense.

Both the Koreatown and Westlake area within the city of LA have about 40,000 persons per sq mile.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2016, 07:08 PM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,256,590 times
Reputation: 6220
Besides a few urban nodes and corridors, LA is very dense sprawl, not typical suburban. For example, the corridor from Santa Monica through Mid-Wilshire to to Downtown LA along streets such as Santa Monica Blvd, Wilshire Blvd, Olympic, Pico, etc. is extremely densely populated, quite walkable, and quite well served by public transit, even though it has a high concentration of SFHs with front and back yards. Some apartment complex neighborhoods are mixed in there as well, or duplex/triplex style. It's no NYC, but it's denser than what people give LA credit for.

That said, we don't really have the two extremes. Yes, we have dense neighborhoods of SFH and dense urban nodes, but we don't have anything that could match the area consisting of Hoboken, Jersey City, Newark, Weehawken, Union City, West New York. It's much denser and more reliant on public transit than anywhere in LA. OTOH, we don't have much like Short Hills in Essex County or the part of Bergen County bordering NY State.

Overall, LA is a consistent medium density. SFH neighborhoods have very small lots. Apartment complexes are not often that tall, though that is changing quickly in DTLA. North Jersey varies from super urban Hoboken and Jersey City and parts of Newark to the epitome of suburban. LA doesn't vary as much.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-28-2016, 10:15 PM
 
Location: C.R. K-T
6,202 posts, read 11,385,422 times
Reputation: 3804
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
We just don't have leafy burbs like you might find in say Tappan or Morris Plains.
Those leafy burbs put Houston to shame. I remember on my last visit to NYC (10 years ago) and I was driving on the Thruway in Nanuet and saw lots of room between the houses along the thruway in glimpses through some of the branches in the tree line. When I saw the satellite maps of that same area a few years later, I couldn't believe that the lots are much larger than the common lots in suburban Houston. When street view came along, I was surprised that they had no fences!

Looking at NYC suburbs on satellite view, it seems that the lots are larger and the sprawl is further out to compensate having to commute/grow up in the concrete jungle of NYC. Having commuter trains helps immensely since commuting on freeways/parkways for that long, even in little to no traffic, is tiresome and expensive (parking, gas, wear and tear). Without the commuter train, that super low-density sprawl would not be feasible.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2016, 02:36 AM
 
11,445 posts, read 10,387,718 times
Reputation: 6273
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
Those leafy burbs put Houston to shame. I remember on my last visit to NYC (10 years ago) and I was driving on the Thruway in Nanuet and saw lots of room between the houses along the thruway in glimpses through some of the branches in the tree line. When I saw the satellite maps of that same area a few years later, I couldn't believe that the lots are much larger than the common lots in suburban Houston. When street view came along, I was surprised that they had no fences!

Looking at NYC suburbs on satellite view, it seems that the lots are larger and the sprawl is further out to compensate having to commute/grow up in the concrete jungle of NYC. Having commuter trains helps immensely since commuting on freeways/parkways for that long, even in little to no traffic, is tiresome and expensive (parking, gas, wear and tear). Without the commuter train, that super low-density sprawl would not be feasible.
Nanuet is not very close to NYC proper, while by suburban Houston I'm guessing you mean suburban areas within Houston proper?

Also, I live in a suburb of NYC myself, and where I live the lot sizes aren't particularly large. As a matter of fact, my suburban town is about as dense as the city of Los Angeles!

Check out Baldwin, New York on Google Maps if you're curious.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2016, 02:38 AM
 
11,445 posts, read 10,387,718 times
Reputation: 6273
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
In California we really don't do suburbs the way Easterners would understand. We do more of what I'd call low density urban. Grid or at best what I term curvy grid, very miniscule (in some cases zero) lot lines, lots of concrete and landscaping. Properties are generally smallish. We just don't have leafy burbs like you might find in say Tappan or Morris Plains.
California cities are suburbs compared to NYC! I was gonna say Philly too, but I found out Philly isn't that much denser than LA.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2016, 10:26 AM
 
8,256 posts, read 17,256,590 times
Reputation: 6220
Quote:
Originally Posted by l1995 View Post
California cities are suburbs compared to NYC! I was gonna say Philly too, but I found out Philly isn't that much denser than LA.
The difference is that the urban cores of NYC and Philly are much denser than the suburbs, thereby neutralizing the density as a whole of the area. NYC is obviously much denser than anywhere in the country. Philly has a very dense built environment, but due to decay and suburbanization/white flight, its density is not as high as it could be.

At its largest in the 1950 census, it had 2,071,605 people, making for a density of 15,448.21/sq mi compared to 11,635.3/sq mi today. That's almost double LA's at 8,282/sq mi. Large swaths of land in North Philly are urban wastelands with boarded up blocks of houses or completely empty blocks with natural grass taking over the streets. Yet, still, Philly is denser than LA.
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.


 
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:

Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

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 > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

© 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