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.
LA is deceptively dense, but I think a big reason why western cities have higher density ratings is that they are not as dilapidated and abandoned. Detroit for example held 2.2 million people in the early 60s, but it is now under 700K. That means for every 3 housing units that used to hold a household, only 1 is occupied or still standing. Pittsburgh is another city that lost over half of its population from its peak in the mid 20th century. LA's population has gone up over time.
LA is deceptively dense, but I think a big reason why western cities have higher density ratings is that they are not as dilapidated and abandoned. Detroit for example held 2.2 million people in the early 60s, but it is now under 700K. That means for every 3 housing units that used to hold a household, only 1 is occupied or still standing. Pittsburgh is another city that lost over half of its population from its peak in the mid 20th century. LA's population has gone up over time.
Although Pittsburgh and Detroit lost a similar percentage off their peak, Pittsburgh's decline was more due to a shrinking in household size than a drop in the number of households. There certainly remains a good deal of blight, but well over half the city is 90%+ structurally full, with very little in the way of vacant lots.
LA is deceptively dense, but I think a big reason why western cities have higher density ratings is that they are not as dilapidated and abandoned. Detroit for example held 2.2 million people in the early 60s, but it is now under 700K. That means for every 3 housing units that used to hold a household, only 1 is occupied or still standing. Pittsburgh is another city that lost over half of its population from its peak in the mid 20th century. LA's population has gone up over time.
And while those cities saw their cores abandoned, LA tore down a huge amount of its SFH stock and replaced it with 3-4 story apartment buildings that take up nearly the entire lot. Being a hub for immigration into the United States played a huge role in keeping LAs core from experiencing the depopulation many similar Midwestern cities saw in the middle of the 20th Century.
Detroit for example held 2.2 million people in the early 60s, but it is now under 700K. That means for every 3 housing units that used to hold a household, only 1 is occupied or still standing.
Detroit metro's overall population hasn't descreased at all even though Detroit itself has emptied out, in fact I think it has grown some. That's all directly attributable to sprawl.
I don't think it's hard to say that LA is higher density, at least in part, because of crowding. It seems pretty clear.
The densest areas of LA are essentially all lower income, and those areas have higher-than-average household sizes.
In fact LA, as a whole, has higher-than-average household sizes. The Asian and Latino residents are culturally disposed to intergenerational living, even in "rich" areas like Irvine (mostly Asian), where every home comes with an "in law suite" to appeal to the local homebuyer demographic.
Put bluntly, Mexican and Chinese and Filipino households tend to be intergenerational, and that's at least half of LA right there.
The densest area of LA is Koreatown and it's not quite the poor immigrant ghetto you seem to think. I was considering moving there recently and the places that I liked were $2300-$2900 for a 2BR not including parking. There's def cheaper around but theres lots in that range as well. There are tenements but it's mostly not that.
Although Pittsburgh and Detroit lost a similar percentage off their peak, Pittsburgh's decline was more due to a shrinking in household size than a drop in the number of households. There certainly remains a good deal of blight, but well over half the city is 90%+ structurally full, with very little in the way of vacant lots.
Yeah, that's always been the really striking thing for me about Pittsburgh. Here's this big population loss, huge loss of industry, it's in the rust belt - you expect to see decay and abandonment - and it's there but it's nothing like what you'd see in Baltimore, Philly, Cleveland, etc.
Detroit metro's overall population hasn't descreased at all even though Detroit itself has emptied out, in fact I think it has grown some. That's all directly attributable to sprawl.
There's been significant out-migration from metro Detroit since the 1970s but because births+inmigration have exceeded the number of people leaving you get annual growth in the 0.05% to .15% range but since 2000 the metro population has been in real decline losing about .35% per year
And a smaller (but still very substantial in total numbers) population lives in a vast area (so vast in fact, it makes the NYC urban area nearly twice as large as LA's), which to me, sounds a lot like sprawl.
Then we have totally different definitions of sprawl.
Your definition of sprawl is apparently extreme high density surrounded by almost nothing. That is certainly an unorthodox defnition.
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
It doesn't matter why they didn't develop the desert - all that matters is that it is empty and therefore not a part of the LA urban area.
Actually, no, you just made that up. It absolutely matters. You're just using an arbitrary cutoff because you're trying to promote some weird definition of sprawl.
In fact, using your weird definition, if LA were denser, more urban, and more transit oriented, then it would be much sprawlier than today, because you would change the distrubution from a flat gradient of population Sunbelt-type format to one characterized by high density and a steep density curve. Under your definition you could turn LA into Hong Kong and yet LA would be no less sprawly, as long as the same urban area were maintained.
The densest area of LA is Koreatown and it's not quite the poor immigrant ghetto you seem to think. I was considering moving there recently and the places that I liked were $2300-$2900 for a 2BR not including parking. There's def cheaper around but theres lots in that range as well. There are tenements but it's mostly not that.
Not true. The densest Census tracts in LA are in the Rampart neighborhood, which is indeed a poor immigrant ghetto.
Koreatown is fairly high density too, and has high poverty and heavily immigrant. I don't know if I would call it a "ghetto" but it is certainly poor and immigrant.
The majority of Tri-state area residents live outside the city--over 12 million people in a staggering 4100 sq miles of land. We're going to pretend this doesn't exist because of a weighted statistic? Because of your excuses? Don't think so.
You quite obviously don't understand what "weighted density" means. Get back to us, please. Hong Kong isn't less dense than Phoenix just because you don't care about how a population is distributed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaymondChandlerLives
Household Size
New York City 2.64
Chicago 2.58
Los Angeles 2.83
Truly a staggering difference.
Indeed it is a significant difference, and you illustrate my point perfectly. That's an enormous difference across millions of people.
But you don't seem to understand the conversation. We're talking urban areas, not irrelevant city limits.
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.
