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.
Boston has over 900k in its inner 57 square miles. . . if that's your sole criterion.
Not my sole reason, It's just Los Angeles is so big that most people wouldn't realize how urban it's city core is unless they actually visit the place instead of judging it by what they show on t.v.
Urban research needs to be performed using urban densities. That can be at the metropolitan area level or even the state level.
It may be surprising that California, which largely defined the suburbanized urban form that developed after World War II has the highest urban population density in the nation. California’s urban areas have an average density of 4300 per square mile.
California has the three most densely populated large urban areas in the country: Los Angeles at approximately 7000 residents per square mile,
San Francisco at approximately 6300 residents per square mile and San Jose with approximately 5800 residents per square mile.
Not my sole reason, It's just Los Angeles is so big that most people wouldn't realize how urban it's city core is unless they actually visit the place instead of judging it by what they show on t.v.
Urban research needs to be performed using urban densities. That can be at the metropolitan area level or even the state level.
It may be surprising that California, which largely defined the suburbanized urban form that developed after World War II has the highest urban population density in the nation. California’s urban areas have an average density of 4300 per square mile.
California has the three most densely populated large urban areas in the country: Los Angeles at approximately 7000 residents per square mile,
San Francisco at approximately 6300 residents per square mile and San Jose with approximately 5800 residents per square mile.
No one is discrediting LA's population density (they are that dense in part because of geography limiting their sprawl).
The debate here is about the physical/structural urbanity of the city, not population density.
I agree with that, I was just pointing out that Los Angeles is so big that you won't see it. But if we took Central LA by itself, we're talking about an area of physical urbanization with 873k in under 57 sq miles.If I cut off 10 sq miles of the surrounding mountains,than it'll be higher.
I think we even can argue Seattle as a top 6 urban structure. It's just a great debate that can go either way because D.C and Boston are kinda neck and neck.
I agree with that, I was just pointing out that Los Angeles is so big that you won't see it. But if we took Central LA by itself, we're talking about an area of physical urbanization with 873k in under 57 sq miles.If I cut off 10 sq miles of the surrounding mountains,than it'll be higher.
I think we even can argue Seattle as a top 6 urban structure. It's just a great debate that can go either way because D.C and Boston are kinda neck and neck.
Seattle's urban structure is certainly more walkable than LA's. Not discounting LA's density but it needs to work on pedestrian activity and its car culture.
I agree with that, I was just pointing out that Los Angeles is so big that you won't see it. But if we took Central LA by itself, we're talking about an area of physical urbanization with 873k in under 57 sq miles.If I cut off 10 sq miles of the surrounding mountains,than it'll be higher.
I think we even can argue Seattle as a top 6 urban structure. It's just a great debate that can go either way because D.C and Boston are kinda neck and neck.
Central LA has 873k in 57sqmiles.
The entirety of Cambridge, Somerville, Boston (58sqmile) have close to 1.5 million (1.15 Million Boston, 210k in Cambridge, 108k in Soerville) people by daytime population.
Im sure DC+Arlington is in that ballpark, ableit, a much bigger space.
I forgot about Seattle though, a lot more urban han it is given credit for:
Central LA has 873k in 57sqmiles.
The entirety of Cambridge, Somerville, Boston (58sqmile) have close to 1.5 million (1.15 Million Boston, 210k in Cambridge, 108k in Soerville) people by daytime population.
Im sure DC+Arlington is in that ballpark, ableit, a much bigger space.
I forgot about Seattle though, a lot more urban han it is given credit for:
NYC
CHICAGO SF
PHILLY BOS
SEATTLE DC LA MIAMI
ATLANTA BALTIMORE
San Francisco isn't above Philly let alone another tier
No one is discrediting LA's population density (they are that dense in part because of geography limiting their sprawl).
The debate here is about the physical/structural urbanity of the city, not population density.
The original question didn't specifically say structural. It simply said which is more urban.
Urban to me includes convenience to stores, restaurants, markets etc. Public transportation, walkability is all part of an area being urban.
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.
