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.
Atlanta feels huge, but doesn't have the same feeling on street level in majority of the city. On I-85, sure it looks massive but when you get down it could be mistaken for Baton Rouge. Yes it will feel huge on Peachtree St but not so much in suburban Atlanta.
I see how you can have this opinion when you drive in on I-85 on the southwest side. It's the least populated area of the metro and the least developed corridor. Quite a far cry from everywhere else. For example, development is heavy along I-85 on the city's northeast side for about forty miles from downtown. On the southwest side, it drops off quickly after about fifteen to twenty miles. However, on the south-central/southeast side, along I-75, the development extends much farther, thirty miles from downtown. On the northwest side, development extends significantly forty miles from downtown as well.
NYC #1 and #1
Chicago #2 and #3
SF #3 and #4
Philly #4 and #8
DC #5 and #5 (N/I Baltimore)
Boston #6 and #10
LA #7 and #2
Detroit #8 and #15 (shocker!)
Miami #9 and #9
Seattle #10 and #12
*DFW N/A and #6
*Houston N/A and #7
*Atlanta N/A and #11
*big-time metro, city feels suburban and small(er) than other majors
I see that you made up some figures.
Boston is #6 in city population. Seattle #10? Boston's metro is larger? Only if you add in other metros, like Providence, Worcester, Nashua, and Manchester.
Have you ever traveled to any of these cities to make such a list I can tell by your list that you never have, I can see someone making a case for the city of Chicago but in no way do any of these other cities feel larger than LA
Yeah, it's crazy.
I've been to all large metropolitan areas in the U.S. In terms of geographic size and the feeling of large:
1) New York
2) Los Angeles
3) Chicago
4: Tied: Atlanta/Dallas/Houston- all fairly similar
7: Philadelphia
8: San Francisco Bay
9: Washington D.C. (without Baltimore)
10: Detroit
11. Miami
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. Cleveland/Akron/Canton (all pretty much combined these days)
15. Boston
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul
Can't argue with your perception, but in fact LA is about as densely populated over the same amount of land as the other 7 (NYC excluded obviously). But to an outside I'm sure it wouldn't seem that way because of the low rise buildings, lack of a prominent skyline, west-coast urban aesthetics and sporadic car-oriented urban fabric. But like you said, it is your perception there's no way to argue that.
The LA region is fairly dense. Flying in over it, it's probably the most dense metropolitan area in the U.S. Other dense notables are Phoenix (Yes, it's true), and Miami. The Bay area is also fairly dense.
Boston is #6 in city population. Seattle #10? Boston's metro is larger? Only if you add in other metros, like Providence, Worcester, Nashua, and Manchester.
The LA region is fairly dense. Flying in over it, it's probably the most dense metropolitan area in the U.S. Other dense notables are Phoenix (Yes, it's true), and Miami. The Bay area is also fairly dense.
Yeah Phoenix and Miami are pretty dense at the metro level but nothing compared to the Bay area or LA area.
LA is technically the densest metro area and most of this is because its suburbs maintain that urban/suburban hybrid and seriously stretch in every direction.
I've been to all large metropolitan areas in the U.S. In terms of geographic size and the feeling of large:
1) New York
2) Los Angeles
3) Chicago
4: Tied: Atlanta/Dallas/Houston- all fairly similar
7: Philadelphia
8: San Francisco Bay
9: Washington D.C. (without Baltimore)
10: Detroit
11. Miami
12. Phoenix
13. Seattle
14. Cleveland/Akron/Canton (all pretty much combined these days)
15. Boston
16. Minneapolis-St. Paul
To be fair though, most people who have been to all of these metropolitan areas would likely say "Yeah, it's crazy" to you're ranking as well.
Location: Cleveland bound with MPLS in the rear-view
5,509 posts, read 11,882,194 times
Reputation: 2501
Quote:
Originally Posted by munchitup
Can't argue with your perception, but in fact LA is about as densely populated over the same amount of land as the other 7 (NYC excluded obviously). But to an outside I'm sure it wouldn't seem that way because of the low rise buildings, lack of a prominent skyline, west-coast urban aesthetics and sporadic car-oriented urban fabric. But like you said, it is your perception there's no way to argue that.
LA's CITY population density is well behind the others.....hence the ranking. I realize its metro is #1, yet the perception I get puts it more like #2 behind NY.....oh well.
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.
I can tell by your list that you never have, I can see someone making a case for the city of Chicago but in no way do any of these other cities feel larger than LA