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.
If L.A. annexed all of the cities that most already associate as being L.A., it would possibly surpass NYC in population. Places like Beverly Hills, the Sunset Strip of West Hollywood, Santa Monica, Pasadena and Manhattan Beach are all generally assumed to be L.A. But, they are actually their own cities whose populations do not count towards L.A.
The LA metro area as a whole is more populated then NYC proper (12,828,837 by wikipedia standards). But the NYC metro is, by far, larger (18,897,109 people; 22,085,649 if you count southwestern CT).
City-wise, probably so. As far as the Metro area and the CSA goes, I could see Los Angeles overtaking New York eventually. There's a lot more space to keep growing and building and in LA, but not so much in New York, it's pretty much already at its limit.
The LA metro area as a whole is more populated then NYC proper (12,828,837 by wikipedia standards). But the NYC metro is, by far, larger (18,897,109 people; 22,085,649 if you count southwestern CT).
According to Wikipedia, the "Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area" has a population of 17,877,006.
And I'm not really talking about L.A. counting everything in the "metro area". Just the places that are immediately associated with L.A. and assumed to be a part of it...but are not officially.
No NYC will not be surpassed in our lifetimes unless something really dramatic happens. The population is still rising here so the city is only getting bigger. As far as the metro goes I don't see LA's metro passing NYC's in our lifetime either unless like some huge new wave of Mexican immigrants or something pours into that area. It's not like that area's population is increasing at a rate way ahead of ours it's pretty close IRC.
City-wise, probably so. As far as the Metro area and the CSA goes, I could see Los Angeles overtaking New York eventually. There's a lot more space to keep growing and building and in LA, but not so much in New York, it's pretty much already at its limit.
There's plenty of room for growth - up. Rent the movie "The Fifth Element".
And I'm not really talking about L.A. counting everything in the "metro area". Just the places that are immediately associated with L.A. and assumed to be a part of it...but are not officially.
The problem is that Los Angeles County is so large that you really get into trouble defining what is "LA" under that criterion. Torrance? Norwalk? Pasadena? Since the city proper has boundaries that really don't care about geography, it's kind of an arbitrary measure. That's why people compare LA and NYC metro areas rather than cities proper, not that I necessarily think that's the best way (urbanised area would probably make more sense, but now NYC is being counted with Philadelphia, so…).
I mean so far it is, but
I don't have a genie in
the bottle either, ya dig?
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.
