U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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 03-06-2015, 02:55 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,687,118 times
Reputation: 6288

Advertisements

The problem with comparing the two urban footprints is the populations don't match. The demographia definition for LA and census-designated definition for New York come the closest.

Los Angeles: 14.67 million (2010 estimate), 2432 sq miles
NY: 18.31 million (2010 census), 3450 sq miles

New York is still larger in population, but even larger in terms of land area, over 1000 sq miles. This begs the question--does New York have a larger population than LA at 2432 sq miles? The answer is probably yes, but not by a huge margin. I'd even wager they're neck and neck.

For the record, the most dense 23 sq miles in LA has roughly 35% the standard density of Manhattan; it's most dense 300 sq miles has 43% the density of NYC, and it's most dense 500 contiguous sq miles (the LA Basin) has 52% the density of NYC + Hudson/Essex counties. It's a crude measurement, but you can see how LA begins to chip away at the density little by little.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-06-2015, 03:10 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheOverdog View Post
I'm not sure it actually does that, other than to change it 'one of the highest density, most sprawling suburban cities in the world'.

0-10 miles NY is 254% more dense than LA.
10-20 miles NY is 5% more dense than LA.
20-30 miles NY is 24% more dense than LA.
30-40 miles LA is 23% more dense than NY.

10 to 20+ miles from the central business district is sprawl.

A fair question would be if LA (or anywhere else in the US) was as dense as NYC at each of these ranges, and the population kept getting sucked in at an equal rate, how much smaller of an area would it entail?

In other words, Denver [155 sq miles] + New Orleans [350 sq miles] + St Louis [66 sq miles] would fit into Manhattan [34 sq miles]. How much space would the LA metro area take up?
Are you saying how much square mileage does it take for LA to equal Manhattan's population of 1.6 million? I don't know off the top of my head, but it would be less square mileage than every US city besides (maybe) Chicago. San Francisco maybe too, but geography would make that city tough to do, hard to say SF + Oakland are "contiguous." Either way, it would certainly be less than 160 square miles (10k ppsm) and probably closer to 80-100 square miles (15-20 ppsm).

Yes a huge factor in this equation is the fact that California has the country's densest suburbs. But like San Francisco in the Bay Area, Los Angeles has a densely populated urban core (DTLA + Mid-Wilshire + Hollywood) that is comparable with any other city in the US other than NYC. This is why when we go to standard density, Southern California is the third most densely populated city in the nation. Unfortunately, it is much poorer, less walkable and more disinvested in the core than those cities, so it often becomes an afterthought when folks think about what makes LA "LA".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 08:13 AM
 
Location: San Francisco/East Bay and Los Angeles, formerly DC and Boston
2,146 posts, read 3,436,547 times
Reputation: 1842
City of LA has 2.8 people per HH vs. 2.3 in SF, household density is much higher in SF than in LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 01:32 PM
 
9,701 posts, read 7,266,868 times
Reputation: 9846
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11 View Post
City of LA has 2.8 people per HH vs. 2.3 in SF, household density is much higher in SF than in LA.
This is quite obvious, as LA density is mostly poorer, larger households squeezing into existing housing, while SF tends to have smaller households in smaller units.

Just look at the densest parts of LA. They are almost all poor, immigrant areas. They are dense with people moreso than dense built form.

Yes, technically LA has a core roughly as dense as that of SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly, and DC. But, in practice, it doesn't matter. LA doesn't have quite the same feel as these cities becausue the density is different than those other cities. It isn't built density as much as old-fashioned overcrowding.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 01:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,687,118 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11 View Post
City of LA has 2.8 people per HH vs. 2.3 in SF, household density is much higher in SF than in LA.
San Francisco has a higher built density for the first 15 sq miles or so. After that, LA is clearly more dense.

All you have to do is compare LA's city limits (3.88 million, 8,300ppsm, 2.8 persons per household) to the census-designated San Francisco UA (3.28 million, 6,300ppsm, 2.6 persons per household). Bumping San Francisco up to 2.8 isn't going to make up the difference in density.

Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
This is quite obvious, as LA density is mostly poorer, larger households squeezing into existing housing, while SF tends to have smaller households in smaller units.

Just look at the densest parts of LA. They are almost all poor, immigrant areas. They are dense with people moreso than dense built form.

Yes, technically LA has a core roughly as dense as that of SF, Chicago, Boston, Philly, and DC. But, in practice, it doesn't matter. LA doesn't have quite the same feel as these cities becausue the density is different than those other cities. It isn't built density as much as old-fashioned overcrowding.
LA's core built density is higher than DC's, comparable to Philly and Boston's, and lower than Chicago and San Francisco's. From 50 sq miles out, it is easily has the highest built density of any of these cities.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-07-2015, 02:52 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 13,126,644 times
Reputation: 3985
What about areas like West Hollywood, Glendale, Westwood, Santa Monica, Venice, Miracle Mile, Fairfax, Beverly Hills, Beverly Grove, Sawtelle, Pasadena, etc that are high density and certainly not low income areas? Not only that, but they have almost the exact same built form as lower income areas - overcrowding may be why LA has a few tracts in the 75k+ ppsm ange, but does nothing to explain the vast areas of 20k+ppsm areas in areas that range from lower middle class to upper class.

Also funny is the willingness to ignore the fact that SF and the East Bay have nearly the same situation in many of its neighborhoods and have racial demographics very similar to Southern CA. Chinatown / Tenderloin, anyone?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-08-2015, 09:54 PM
 
10,630 posts, read 23,432,789 times
Reputation: 6703
Hollywood, as just one example, is very dense and has gentrified rapidly over the past 10-15 years. And many of the neighborhoods mentioned do, in fact, feel classically dense in the built form, not just in terms of overcrowding. Walk around Hollywood or Koreatown and there are plenty of large apartment buildings, for example.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 04:35 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,958,688 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives View Post
Los Angeles: 14.67 million (2010 estimate), 2432 sq miles
NY: 18.31 million (2010 census), 3450 sq miles

New York is still larger in population, but even larger in terms of land area, over 1000 sq miles. This begs the question--does New York have a larger population than LA at 2432 sq miles? The answer is probably yes, but not by a huge margin. I'd even wager they're neck and neck.
The answer is, yes it does and no, it's not neck and neck.
LA - 14.67 million, 2432 sq miles
NY - 15 million, 1645 sq miles
NY - 16.7 million, 2161 sq miles (at 2432 NY is around 17.3 million)


By radius -
LA - 11.26 million, 2478 sq miles
NY - 15.82 million, 2431 sq miles
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 05:03 AM
 
2,388 posts, read 2,958,688 times
Reputation: 1953
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Not trying to be impolite to drivecarephilly, but I'm rather surprised at his posts being that he's from the NYC area that he ignores the lot size difference and describes the density difference mainly from marshland.
So I did the math on this and NYC has 18,262 people living on 54.35 sq. miles - or 0.2% of the population on 18% of the land area. Most of this is a bunch of census tracts that include a few blocks of housing that shares a census tract with 4 square miles of wetlands. It also includes the airports.

Leaving out similar low density census tracts from LA County (just looking at the incorporated parts included in the urban area) you get 9,986 people living on 63 sq. miles - or ~0.01% on 4.5% of the land area.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-09-2015, 02:33 PM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
9,832 posts, read 7,687,118 times
Reputation: 6288
Quote:
Originally Posted by drive carephilly View Post
The answer is, yes it does and no, it's not neck and neck.
LA - 14.67 million, 2432 sq miles

NY - 16.7 million, 2161 sq miles (at 2432 NY is around 17.3 million)


By radius -
LA - 11.26 million, 2478 sq miles
NY - 15.82 million, 2431 sq miles
Not sure where this radius number comes from, but it's obviously incorporating a lot of uninhabited areas for Los Angeles since the census-designated UA is 1736 sq miles with a population of 12.1 million.

Riverside (545 sq miles, 1.93 million) and Mission Viejo (150 sq miles, 584k) round out the rest of the Los Angeles urban footprint--2431 sq miles, 14.67 million. Virtually identical to Demographia's boundaries for Los Angeles.

Quote:
NY - 15 million, 1645 sq miles
Would like to see the numbers for this.

If NYC = 8.2 million, 303 sq miles, then the other 7.8 million live in 1342 sq miles? Doesn't seem likely, but who knows?

Quote:
at 2432 NY is around 17.3 million
This would mean that, per US definitions, the NY UA only adds 1.2 million people in over the next 1000+ sq miles.

New York Urbanized Area = 3450 sq miles, 18.5 million
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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