Is LA closer to Chicago or New York population wise? (compared, metropolitan)
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.
Just because Atlanta is better than Los Angeles you getting mad? Gosh you Cali posters are so sensitive. Filled with dumb posters. Hey did you know your state drought is Man Made?
Yes I know the drought is man made... and yes I don't watch the news cause its biased. Anything else sir Bobby? if thats even your name newbie.
Nice video though and I've also seen this a while back, This is good enough proof for our drought. Lol at the theory of the " Ridiculously High ridge" that doesn't move anywhere and just stays on top of us it's because our government created it and maintained it.
Ideally it is best thought of as somewhere between a New York and a Chicago. Perhaps somewhere dead-center between the two or perhaps somewhere near the center of between the two but could skew a bit closer towards one of New York or Chicago depending on which measurement is used.
City Proper, 2014
- New York: 8,491,079
- Los Angeles: 3,928,864
- Chicago: 2,722,389
- Gap between New York and Los Angeles: 4,562,215
- Gap between Los Angeles and Chicago: 1,206,475
- Gap between New York and Chicago: 5,768,690
I personally use this one as the real size of a city's population:
Like the numbers show, Los Angeles is somewhere close to being directly between New York and Chicago. Remember, the void between New York and Chicago is enormous by any measure, so big that the gap between New York and Chicago, by any measurement would be the third largest city in the United States (even larger than Chicago) by any measure. So Los Angeles has a lot of "room" to work with in the space between New York and Chicago.
That being said, that is how things are in the present, the reality is that by every single measurement New York and Los Angeles are growing SUBSTANTIALLY far more than Chicago, so both are only widening the gulf between them and Chicago and rapidly at that. So while Los Angeles is more or less close to the center between New York and Chicago, by the day its getting closer to New York and leaving Chicago even further behind.
What differentiates NYC from LA and to an extent Chicago is that it gobbles up so much more land to reach the 20 million and so much more to reach the 23 million. Not only is a good portion of it non contiguous but it even takes in to account areas that are much more connected and within the sphere of influence of Philadelphia, Philly seems a lot bigger in real life than on paper partly because of its surroundings, some of which has been added to New York's stats for odd reasons.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,187,739 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
What differentiates NYC from LA and to an extent Chicago is that it gobbles up so much more land to reach the 20 million and so much more to reach the 23 million. Not only is a good portion of it non contiguous but it even takes in to account areas that are much more connected and within the sphere of influence of Philadelphia, Philly seems a lot bigger in real life than on paper partly because of its surroundings, some of which has been added to New York's stats for odd reasons.
The thing with the Cali metros, though, is while they may be more "dense" at the metro level and more uniformly similar in density throughout, they're nowhere close to the NYC metro in peak density. It's more of a uniform density "plateau" throughout the metro versus density "peaks" and flat valleys. Not just NYC, but all the East Coast core cities, major and minor, are denser than out West, save for SFs 49 sq miles.
Two different styles of development, hyper dense core surrounded by low density suburbs versus moderate density sustained throughout, and one is much better for the environment/your health. Not sure why we're celebrating the sustained density more on this thread (aka sprawl) over more defined core urban areas (aka cities) on a city vs city thread. CSAs nowadays seem to merely be places linked by a road and a radio signal. The fact that L.A. city proper itself is bigger than New York City and Philadelphia proper, or Philadelphia and Chicago proper, combined is telling, and not in a good way. Leave it to West Coasters to celebrate "uniform" sprawl.
Last edited by qworldorder; 10-28-2015 at 03:05 PM..
The thing with the Cali metros, though, is while they may be more "dense" at the metro level and more uniformly similar in density throughout, they're nowhere close to the NYC metro in peak density. It's more of a uniform density "plateau" throughout the metro versus density "peaks" and flat valleys. Not just NYC, but all the East Coast core cities, major and minor, are denser than out West, save for SFs 49 sq miles.
Two different styles of development, hyper dense core surrounded by low density suburbs versus moderate density sustained throughout, and one is much better for the environment/your health. Not sure why we're celebrating the sustained density more on this thread (aka sprawl) over more defined core urban areas (aka cities) on a city vs city thread. CSAs nowadays seem to merely be places linked by a road and a radio signal. The fact that L.A. city proper itself is bigger than New York City and Philadelphia proper, or Philadelphia and Chicago proper, combined is telling, and not in a good way. Leave it to West Coasters to celebrate "uniform" sprawl.
^^^ courtesy of nei //www.city-data.com/forum/urban...angeles-5.html
Lol thanks for stating the obvious about NYC's peak density that everyone already knows about, and fyi LA's inner core (50 sq miles) is just as dense as Philadelphia's, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, so major oversight on your behalf don't ya think
LA as a metro area is MUCH more similar to Chicago metro. NYC metro is in an entirely different league and now has over 20 million people living there. LA metro is only around 13 million. Chicagoland is only 9.6 million.
LA as a metro area is MUCH more similar to Chicago metro. NYC metro is in an entirely different league and now has over 20 million people living there. LA metro is only around 13 million. Chicagoland is only 9.6 million.
I would agree but to me at least the LA CSA is just as contiguous as New York's MSA, at least within the area I highlighted (17.3 million) which has no breaks in development leading in to Los Angeles.
I would agree but to me at least the LA CSA is just as contiguous as New York's MSA, at least within the area I depicted which has no breaks in development leading in to Los Angeles.
Exactly. Once I-10 hits Redlands, there's continuous development all the way to Santa Monica Beach. Plus there's no way the Inland Empire exists in any way without LA being there.
Just because Atlanta is better than Los Angeles you getting mad? Gosh you Cali posters are so sensitive. Filled with dumb posters. Hey did you know your state drought is Man Made?
Well that seals the deal. I don't think your a new poster at all. I'm sure you were waiting for an attack but you jumped down this guys throat with your obviously planned agenda when his comment didn't even warrant it.
But I'm curious, tell us what is so fascinatingly better about ATL? And if you are a newbie, better back it up with facts or your gonna get torn apart.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,187,739 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calisonn
^^^ courtesy of nei //www.city-data.com/forum/urban...angeles-5.html
Lol thanks for stating the obvious about NYC's peak density that everyone already knows about, and fyi LA's inner core (50 sq miles) is just as dense as Philadelphia's, Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco, so major oversight on your behalf don't ya think
But it's not functional density, due to LA's car-oriented layout. LA is dense in certain spots, but it's a dysfunctional density not conducive or beneficial to human activity or the environment. Again, why the sudden rush to densify DTLA and expand PT? Los Angeles has all the negatives of density without much of the positives.
Here's a more in-depth article on the relationship between density and sprawl.
The most accurate measure of density and urban form listed here, the density gradient index, clearly speaks to the reality of the situation: older East Coast cities, when ALL factors are accounted for, are more dense, which coincides with popular perception/experience.
Why the aside on density about a thread concerning "Los Angeles's" population when compared to NYC and Chicago? Because there's an over reliance on metropolitan areas on this forum in virtually every thread without context. As Red John posted, there are myriad ways of measuring population areas, and I'm apt to agree with him that LA is probably the midpoint between the two. That said, there's too much of a tendency on here to discount traditional urban cores in order to pad the stats.
"Los Angeles" might be urbanized all the way to Riverside in a more uniform density than any other metro, but that still does not make Riverside a part of Los Angeles, just like New Haven isn't "New York". Since LA and other Western/Southern metros have less distinct " lines" between city and suburb, it's tempting to view it all as one entity, but then where do we draw the line? Using the same arguments being propagated in this thread, and countless others, I can literally put forth a convincing argument that I live/work in a 50,000,000 plus metropolis. And guess what? Technically, I'm right.
So not to come off too harsh, but I'm much more inclined to believe Los Angeles is closer to Chicago in population than NYC, as they are traditionally defined. Like it or not, and as arbitrary as they CAN be, city propers still do mean something in how a city is defined. Identity matters, and I'm betting a lot of folks in Orange County don't consider themselves Angelenos. Looking at it from a metro level, and accounting for Sunbelt style development and the density gradient index, then Los Angeles is closer to NYC, but not by too much ( I think UN Urban Area is most objective/standardized). And since I'm an urbanist, who actually likes the traditional definition of a city, and all of its real benefits, I'm voting closer to Chicago (and for the record, the real New York to me is the 5 boroughs, and not 20,000,000 folks, so there's no bias here--well, maybe a little).
Last edited by qworldorder; 10-28-2015 at 07:23 PM..
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.
