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.
seriously...we now even some lame troll making multiple accounts and voting for LA multiple times, with names such as "philly rapist", and apparently they are also a fan of myself ...I'm honored
But for the record, i maintain that some of you people who are still claiming that LA is all suburban sprawl after all the evidence that's been posted, are completely delusional and/or completely biased towards eastcoast style urbanity.
Well the poll has been rigged lol. Someone obviously is upset that Philly had the most votes and had too much time and decided to make ghost/troll accounts to vote for la. Pathetic lol. The mods might as well shut this one down
I can see your reasoning behind this question, but Philadelphia is consistently not 11,000+ persons per square mile for its entire land mass, in fact several areas are far less dense. Some neighborhoods have homes on huge suburban style lots, just as Los Angeles does in many areas.
In fact, using Philadelphia's average density as a basis, Im not so sure if Philadelphia's 100 densest square miles can rival this massive piece of Los Angeles:
An interesting question is how dense can a contiguous 135 square miles (physical land area of Philly) chunk of Los Angeles can get. At 1.6 million in approximately 100 square miles, you can add in nothing but blank and uninhabited 35 square miles of land and still get a greater population density than Philly.
Of course, density isn't everything and there are other issues that puts Los Angeles a bit back in terms of urban amenities. On the whole though, the urban part of Los Angeles is these days in roughly the same ballpark as Philly.
that giant purple blob showed an impressively vast area that has a population density above 5,000 ppsm. 5,000 ppsm however is not URBAN. It's suburban. That giant purple blob is totally irrelevant to this discussion.
Yea, but is +10,000 ppsm urban density then? There was a second map showing dark blue bits for that and the area was larger for Los Angeles was bigger, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by phillies2011
I don't know if you're a troll or you're extremely dense, but this has NOT been proven. No one has posted any facts to reach this conclusion. even 18 montclair has NOT made this claim. THIS IS NOT TRUE. Why you keep saying this without any factual basis is beyond perplexing.
I don't think 18Montclair needs to explicitly say it because it's already in the stats he posted. If he shows 100 square miles of Los Angeles to be 1.62 million in population, then that makes Los Angeles denser than the entire city of Philadelphia which has a smaller population (1.52 million) over a larger area (135 square miles). I don't see why that claim needs additional proof.
Again though, population density isn't the only measurement and feel Philly is a bit more urban than the urban parts of Los Angeles right now.
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.
