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.
Really more like 8,000,000 vs. 23,000,000 using the largest definition.
There are others. No count is really parallel. But none of the reasonable comparisons are 10-1.
Manhattan-nearly 2X population of SF in 20 square miles, Brooklyn like 6X the population of Oakland in the same area....I think we're closer to that 10-1 than anything else. 5-1 is probably the most accurate.
You're essentially saying what I'm saying without admitting the obvious which is that LA is not and will never be structured in the fashion of having close building density, with tighter knit urbanity, and storefront walk ups, as well as smaller streets/avenues.
Thank you for your assistance in illustrating my point.
This is what I have termed the "slice of pizza at 1am" argument for superior urbanity.
This is where people take the specific quirks and anecdotal experiences from where they live and try to set those as the default for what the other cities "need to work on."
Surely on C/D you've seen a New Yorker try and close an argument with the "yeah but I can get my turkey and cheese sandwich at a bodega at 2 am" non-sequiter.
Is someone going to pass out if they have to walk 10 feet from the street to the storefront? I don't know.
Could it be that cities that actually have natural scenery were planned a certain way as to not obstruct views?
The main concourses of Los Angeles are very obviously styled after the grand boulevards of the world like Champs D'Elysees and Paseo Reforma. Smaller streets (which are present in various places like Venice, Culver City, Beverly Hills) mean absolutely nothing, just like getting that slice of pizza at 1 am means nothing.
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
^^^ No one is saying that LA isn't urban as a whole however. It's urban format/structure is just different from much of the core of the East cities +SF/Chicago.
Often times cities or developers will replicate other places around the world with their own rendition to make a place feel more urban. I've been on Rodeo, and Culver City, and I've walked on Champs Elysees, but I don't feel much of a resemblance.
The National Harbor outside of DC was designed with Las Ramblas in mind. While I might understand the intentions of the developer, most people wouldn't dare compare it's urbanity to Ramblas.
Thank you for your assistance in illustrating my point.
This is what I have termed the "slice of pizza at 1am" argument for superior urbanity.
This is where people take the specific quirks and anecdotal experiences from where they live and try to set those as the default for what the other cities "need to work on."
Surely on C/D you've seen a New Yorker try and close an argument with the "yeah but I can get my turkey and cheese sandwich at a bodega at 2 am" non-sequiter.
Is someone going to pass out if they have to walk 10 feet from the street to the storefront? I don't know.
Could it be that cities that actually have natural scenery were planned a certain way as to not obstruct views?
The main concourses of Los Angeles are very obviously styled after the grand boulevards of the world like Champs D'Elysees and Paseo Reforma. Smaller streets (which are present in various places like Venice, Culver City, Beverly Hills) mean absolutely nothing, just like getting that slice of pizza at 1 am means nothing.
It's all subjective. You score high points for the things that fit into your lifestyle. If it's a slice of pizza at 2am, so be it. Same with wanting to have a live music bar crawl until 4am. That might have mattered to me at age 22. I'm not 22 now. There are other things on my own subjective list that are important to me.
Really more like 8,000,000 vs. 23,000,000 using the largest definition.
There are others. No count is really parallel. But none of the reasonable comparisons are 10-1.
Correct. As far as actually urban areas, LA and SF are the most densely populated urban areas.
LA then falls apart when we look at the downtown core which is really disjointed compared to downtown SF.
Anyhow,
I think urban area is a proper metric for this comparison and I combined SF and SJ to illustrate that the Bay Area fits 5.37 million people in cohesive density into 800 sq miles. 2018 Urban Area Population/Area sqm/Density psm
New York 18,776,233/3,450/5,439
Los Angeles12,606,501/1,736/7,261
Chicago 8,636,309/2,442/3,539
Philadelphia 5,538,175/1,981/2,795
SF-SJ 5,370,517/809/6,638
Washington 5,051,789/1,321/3,823
Boston 4,475,825/1,873/2,389
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,132 posts, read 7,575,946 times
Reputation: 5796
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Correct. As far as actually urban areas, LA and SF are the most densely populated urban areas.
LA then falls apart when we look at the downtown core which is really disjointed compared to downtown SF.
Anyhow,
I think urban area is a proper metric for this comparison and I combined SF and SJ to illustrate that the Bay Area fits 5.37 million people in cohesive density into 800 sq miles. 2018 Urban Area Population/Area sqm/Density psm
New York 18,776,233/3,450/5,439
Los Angeles12,606,501/1,736/7,261
Chicago 8,636,309/2,442/3,539
Philadelphia 5,538,175/1,981/2,795
SF-SJ 5,370,517/809/6,638
Washington 5,051,789/1,321/3,823
Boston 4,475,825/1,873/2,389
^^^ Do you have Miami's numbers in relation to all these?
^^^ Do you have Miami's numbers in relation to all these?
Yes I added Miami as well as some others.
2018 Urban Area Population/Area sqm/Density psm
New York 18,776,233/3,450/5,439
Los Angeles12,606,501/1,736/7,261
Chicago 8,636,309/2,442/3,539
Miami 6,107,242/1238/4,932
Dallas 5,888,916/1,779/3,309
Houston 5,704,641/1,660/3,436
Philadelphia 5,538,175/1,981/2,795
SF-SJ 5,370,517/809/6,638
Atlanta 5,089,043/2,645/1,924
Washington 5,051,789/1,321/3,823
Boston 4,475,825/1,873/2,389
Phoenix 4,142,622/1,146/3,614
Seattle 3,153,326/1,010/3,121
Cool for Miami, I could rearrange borders to make the Bay Area have 6.6 million population in about 1,100 sq miles, but it wouldnt be a UA
Anyhow as I said in another thread, the Antioch, Concord and Livermore Urban Areas are part of the SF MSA but not the UA due to the East Bay Hills. They actually have become somewhat contiguous these days and have a larger combined population than the Nashville or Salt Lake Urban Areas.
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.
My list
