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.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,043,145 times
Reputation: 4047
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by dweebo2220
I'm sorry, I'm still not tracking. I took a look again at your post and it seems like you're trying to find some significance in the difference between the urban area populations and the MSA populations. I think this is an interesting factor to look at and might hold some interesting insights. That said, it appears you are trying to use that difference to measure "sprawl".. this is where I lose you. Maybe you can explain better why those population differences are significant between the two measurements?
i've bolded the part of your statement that makes the least sense to me. Where did you "count how far out they're both sprawled" and what does this mean? I'm especially confused given that you don't give figures for area -- what I assume you mean by "how far out."
Oh okay my bad. Yeah basically Urban Area (UA) measures the real size of a region. And Los Angeles rightfully is larger than Chicago, but when you look at Los Angeles at CSA level you notice how it has a "18 million" population, right? Many people think that is the actual size of Los Angeles. But take a look at the Urban Area (UA) and it comes at near 14 Million people, right? That means in a continuous urban development, or stretch of continuous development, 14 Million people are interlinked into Los Angeles continuously. But the difference between the CSA to UA is about 3-4 Million people, which counts as the sprawl, sprawl as in unnecessary and disjointed from the continuous development. Meaning that those 3-4 Million people that got dropped going from Los Angeles CSA to Los Angeles UA, are in a more sprawl centric location that is more in terms "isolated" from the core region of Los Angeles.
Comparatively if you look at Chicago going from CSA to UA, you notice how only a small sum of people (a few hundred thousand) are only disjointed between the urbanized continuous development and the metropolitan area as a whole. Meaning Chicago's sprawl only accounts for a few limited amount of people being disjointed from the continuous urban development of the metropolitan area.
I hope that makes better sense though, because I'm honestly having a hard time putting a map visual into word perspective haha. If you look at the sprawl Index, Riverside-San Bernardino MSA (which is apart of Los Angeles CSA) is the most sprawled place in the country. I'm going to have to find that index, I saw someone post it just last week actually in some Washington DC thread.
Oh okay my bad. Yeah basically Urban Area (UA) measures the real size of a region. And Los Angeles rightfully is larger than Chicago, but when you look at Los Angeles at CSA level you notice how it has a "18 million" population, right? Many people think that is the actual size of Los Angeles. But take a look at the Urban Area (UA) and it comes at near 14 Million people, right? That means in a continuous urban development, or stretch of continuous development, 14 Million people are interlinked into Los Angeles continuously. But the difference between the CSA to UA is about 3-4 Million people, which counts as the sprawl, sprawl as in unnecessary and disjointed from the continuous development. Meaning that those 3-4 Million people that got dropped going from Los Angeles CSA to Los Angeles UA, are in a more sprawl centric location that is more in terms "isolated" from the core region of Los Angeles.
Comparatively if you look at Chicago going from CSA to UA, you notice how only a small sum of people (a few hundred thousand) are only disjointed between the urbanized continuous development and the metropolitan area as a whole. Meaning Chicago's sprawl only accounts for a few limited amount of people being disjointed from the continuous urban development of the metropolitan area.
I hope that makes better sense though, because I'm honestly having a hard time putting a map visual into word perspective haha. If you look at the sprawl Index, Riverside-San Bernardino MSA (which is apart of Los Angeles CSA) is the most sprawled place in the country. I'm going to have to find that index, I saw someone post it just last week actually in some Washington DC thread.
I've always like UA, basically LA is big, but also part of the Southern Cal Megaregion however you wish to define it. NYC is big, but also part of the Northeast MegaRegion. That is how I look at it. Your original post on the matter was not confusing to begin with.
ROFLMAO! You're not alone in this BacktoBlue, I knew I wasn't trippin. I remember you and GOB had some classic battles back in the day, kind of miss you guys going at it
Wtf how does this relate to me? I must be like a celebrity to you southerners. Wow "Classic battles back in the day", the hell is that supposed to mean?
PS, now we really know california sur shouldn't be taken seriously, he thinks LA is on NYC's level...
LA is no where near NYC's level. The only cities that might be "above" NY are probably London, Paris, or Tokyo. You can pull out some random numbers about density and such, but if you just travel to either city or look at some pictures, NYC proper is obviously much more dense. You can find typical sprawling suburbia a short walk (LOL) from LA's "downtown". Or should I say inner suburbs. Anywhere in NYC proper , Manhattan, Brooklyn, Queens, etc. You find nothing but miles and miles and miles of skyscrapers and midrise apartment buildings. In LA, you find nothing but miles and miles of low-income suburbs, smog, cars, congested highways, etc. LA is wayyy under NY, and arguably Chicago and Washington. In the economic sense, even Miami (showing a bit of my hometown pride here ) is a WORLD leader. Cruise ship capital of the world, tons of corporations are headquarted here, tourism, finance, a large percentage of forgein US conulates, nightclubs, etc. Obviously NY is superior to Miami, but that just proves that LA is far from first place, and stands at a shaky second.
Dude, most of South Florida is sprawling suburbs also. Outside of downtown, Miami is nothing but high-density suburban sprawl. Miami looks quite similar to LA in that sense. Let's leave this argument to NYC and LA.
1. Way more diversity (when you see Hispanics you see all kinds there, I hardly saw any Puerto Ricans in LA). I have seen Indians in NYC, Indians mixed with White, Indians mixed with Black, Indians mixed with Hispanic, and Indians mixed with other Asians in NYC.
2. Way more to do and a lot safer.
3. Way better police force and gangs aren't as big of an issue.
4. No race or ethnic group has a monopoly on NYC as Mexicans do on LA.
5. Better people.
Oh okay my bad. Yeah basically Urban Area (UA) measures the real size of a region. And Los Angeles rightfully is larger than Chicago, but when you look at Los Angeles at CSA level you notice how it has a "18 million" population, right? Many people think that is the actual size of Los Angeles. But take a look at the Urban Area (UA) and it comes at near 14 Million people, right? That means in a continuous urban development, or stretch of continuous development, 14 Million people are interlinked into Los Angeles continuously. But the difference between the CSA to UA is about 3-4 Million people, which counts as the sprawl, sprawl as in unnecessary and disjointed from the continuous development. Meaning that those 3-4 Million people that got dropped going from Los Angeles CSA to Los Angeles UA, are in a more sprawl centric location that is more in terms "isolated" from the core region of Los Angeles.
Comparatively if you look at Chicago going from CSA to UA, you notice how only a small sum of people (a few hundred thousand) are only disjointed between the urbanized continuous development and the metropolitan area as a whole. Meaning Chicago's sprawl only accounts for a few limited amount of people being disjointed from the continuous urban development of the metropolitan area.
I hope that makes better sense though, because I'm honestly having a hard time putting a map visual into word perspective haha. If you look at the sprawl Index, Riverside-San Bernardino MSA (which is apart of Los Angeles CSA) is the most sprawled place in the country. I'm going to have to find that index, I saw someone post it just last week actually in some Washington DC thread.
Ahhhh.. It's clearer now. What you actually appear to be attempting to define is something called "leapfrog development" (where development jumps a considerable distance before starting up again). Usually, however, "leapfrogging" is accounted for in urbanized area boundaries. The common distances that leapfrogging makes are not farther than what is allowed by urbanized area definitions to constitute "continuous."
Your calculations simply measure what population lies outside the primary urbanized area of a region. The differences you are finding between LA and Chicago are entirely based on topography.
Due to the mountains and nature preserves of southern california, there are three urban areas that are not contiguous with the Los Angeles UA (though they are heavily interconnected economically). I would love for a definition to be established that incorporates these urban areas into one (without including the vast stretches of unpopulated desert that happen to be at the far reaches of the incredibly large southern california counties). This definition could also include the sparsely-populated areas along the main highways between them.
Here are the major urbanized areas in Greater Los Angeles:
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana: 7,068 people per sq. mile
Riverside-San Bernardino: 3,434
Lancaster-Palmdale: 2,915
Oxnard: 4,459
Just for comparison:
Chicago: 3,913
Philadelphia: 2,861
Boston: 2,322
Seattle: 2,844
As you can see, the other three urbanized areas in the greater Los Angeles area are comparable in density to other major US urban centers (not "the most sprawled place in the country" as you describe.)
If LA is the most urbAn metro in the country, why does everyone give it a hard time. I've seen plenty of pictures of LA, and it seems to have the most diverse housing stock in the country. Also, its downtown seems to be pretty busy.
Because LA started out as the most suburban urban area in the country. LA began as the first place where regular people could afford a small bungalow along the trolley line. The population density back then was far lower than other urban regions of the US. Since then (and especially since WWII) every US metro region has experienced incredible suburban development. LA's happened within the fabric of the (comparatively) walkable pre-war interurban trolley network, and within a basin surrounded by mountains and desert, making the development much more compact. LA has very little of the "exurban" sprawl characteristic of the US regions that experienced suburban development more recently.
In other words, LA was the first American city to come of age in the suburban era, so it's urban identity is very much tied to the suburban ideal.
If LA is the most urbAn metro in the country, why does everyone give it a hard time. I've seen plenty of pictures of LA, and it seems to have the most diverse housing stock in the country.
It's because LA has consistent suburban development. I.E. suburbs here can easily be in the 8-10K people per square mile area... it is like that over LA but goes on forever. The core is weak, DT is weak, PT has weak coverage (see ATL even better for the sunbelt) and what dense areas they have are all sporadic making it a weak urban fabric. The end.
If LA is the most urbAn metro in the country, why does everyone give it a hard time. I've seen plenty of pictures of LA, and it seems to have the most diverse housing stock in the country. Also, its downtown seems to be pretty busy.
Dense and urban aren't the same thing, people are using too many different words to try and say different things. You can be urban and not as dense as some other places, like the Boston UA to the LA one, who's gonna say central LA is more urban and active than Boston? And you can have very dense "suburbia" but that doesn't make it urban, the houses may be all packed together and the lawns might be smaller but are there any shops around, can you get around without a car, isn't it all just single family residences, that doesn't fit any part my definition of urban. Sprawl's another word that's all over the place.
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.
) is a WORLD leader. Cruise ship capital of the world, tons of corporations are headquarted here, tourism, finance, a large percentage of forgein US conulates, nightclubs, etc. Obviously NY is superior to Miami, but that just proves that LA is far from first place, and stands at a shaky second.