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.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,538,032 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
In fact, Beverly Hills looks downright overcrowded compared to most suburban areas of the Northeast.
Dude. Stop. You are just so wrong.
I live in the south okay? A place where cities are spread out like crazy and tend to be less populated in general. That said, even BATON ROUGE has suburbs that are as dense as that photo you just put up.
You REALLY aren't proving anything about California being more dense.
I mean heck, take NY for example. The state manages to be pretty rural despite it's high population. How? Millions upon millions of people squeezed in to the NYC metro area. Downstate NY is highly dense, even in the "small town" places. This does not sound very different from Cali.
The density in LA is only roughly 650 people per square mile higher. In the grand scheme this makes little to no difference. Especially considering that there are a lot of Mexicans in LA, and a lot of them are illegal. They live with families of twenty in a single bedroom apartment, I have personally witnessed it.
The density in SF is only about 400 more per square mile. Still a very minimal difference.
Is the density higher? Yeah, sure. Is it noticeable? Nope.
The density in LA is only roughly 650 people per square mile higher. In the grand scheme this makes little to no difference. Especially considering that there are a lot of Mexicans in LA, and a lot of them are illegal. They live with families of twenty in a single bedroom apartment, I have personally witnessed it.
The density in SF is only about 400 more per square mile. Still a very minimal difference.
Is the density higher? Yeah, sure. Is it noticeable? Nope.
No, LAs density is significantly higher than NY and nearly twice as high as DC.
Its definitely noticeable in person as one travels between NE cities. Density drops off as soon as you leave immediate urban areas whereas the suburbs look like farmland compared to suburban LA or suburban SF.
In fact basically the entire state of CA steamrolls over the Northeast as far as consistent density:
California Urbanized Areas Population Density, 2010
Los Angeles 6,999
San Francisco 6,266
San Jose 5,820
Delano 5,482
Davis 5,156
Lompoc 4,815
Woodland 4,550
Santa Maria 4,478
Oxnard 4,352
Lodi 4,320
San Diego 4,037
Stockton 4,037
Simi Valley 3,983
Tracy 3,934
Vallejo 3,929
Modesto 3,898
Mission Viejo 3,877
Turlock 3,873
Manteca 3,828
Fresno 3,821
Bakersfield 3,875
Salinas 3,775
Sacramento 3,659
El Centro 3,589
Riverside 3,546
Santa Barbara 3,507
Madera 3,501
Visalia 3,459
Porterville 3,425
Antioch 3,412
Vacaville 3,398
Fairfield 3,387
Santa Clarita 3,371
Livermore 3,335
Hemet 3,327
Napa 3,250
Watsonville 3,219
Hanford 3,169
Santa Rosa 3,145
Concord 3,023
Yuba City 3,019
Petaluma 3,007
Compared to the most dense in the NE, its not even close actually.
Northeastern Urbanized Areas Population Density, 2010
New York 5,318
Washington DC 3,470
Baltimore 3,073
State College(PA) 3,033
Philadelphia 2,746
Trenton 2,810
New Bedford(MA) 2,712
Reading 2,564
Boston 2,231
Providence 2,815
Location: That star on your map in the middle of the East Coast, DMV
8,128 posts, read 7,552,695 times
Reputation: 5785
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
No, LAs density is significantly higher than NY and nearly twice as high as DC.
Its definitely noticeable in person as one travels between NE cities. Density drops off as soon as you leave immediate urban areas whereas the suburbs look like farmland compared to suburban LA or suburban SF.
In fact basically the entire state of CA steamrolls over the Northeast as far as consistent density:
California Urbanized Areas Population Density, 2010
Los Angeles 6,999
San Francisco 6,266
San Jose 5,820
Delano 5,482
Davis 5,156
Lompoc 4,815
Woodland 4,550
Santa Maria 4,478
Oxnard 4,352
Lodi 4,320
San Diego 4,037
Stockton 4,037
Simi Valley 3,983
Tracy 3,934
Vallejo 3,929
Modesto 3,898
Mission Viejo 3,877
Turlock 3,873
Manteca 3,828
Fresno 3,821
Bakersfield 3,875
Salinas 3,775
Sacramento 3,659
El Centro 3,589
Riverside 3,546
Santa Barbara 3,507
Madera 3,501
Visalia 3,459
Porterville 3,425
Antioch 3,412
Vacaville 3,398
Fairfield 3,387
Santa Clarita 3,371
Livermore 3,335
Hemet 3,327
Napa 3,250
Watsonville 3,219
Hanford 3,169
Santa Rosa 3,145
Concord 3,023
Yuba City 3,019
Petaluma 3,007
Compared to the most dense in the NE, its not even close actually.
Northeastern Urbanized Areas Population Density, 2010
New York 5,318
Washington DC 3,470
Baltimore 3,073
State College(PA) 3,033
Philadelphia 2,746
Trenton 2,810
New Bedford(MA) 2,712
Reading 2,564
Boston 2,231
Providence 2,815
Your not even talking about the same topic as everyone else here... None of this has anything to do with the point of the thread... LA is not connected to Vallejo, or Bakersfield or Fresno, SF is not connected to Modesto or Sacramento or Oxnard, your just naming a bunch of cities and towns across the WC. That means nothing here.
DC however is connected to Baltimore which is connected to Phila/Delaware which is connected to central NJ or Trenton, which is connected to Northen NJ and NY which is connected to CT, which connects to Providence and RI which connects to New Bedford and on up to Boston etc. All within a 430 mile stretch, while keeping a total population of 50 million over that stretch. That same feat cannot be achieved on the WC anywhere, this is fact not my opinion. You cannot compare development patterns in the East with that of the WC. The urbanized areas on the EC connect at their end points consecutively back to back up the coast (almost uninterupted). I don't understand how hard that is to grasp and why you continually dispute it.
This 18Montclair guy is on every other thread cherry-picking stats that supposedly "prove" West Coast cities are "denser" than East Coast cities, and therefore better. Or something. The fact that, say, Manhattan has a density of something like 70,000 people per sq mile makes no impact on him, he just keeps reshuffling the deck chairs until 'presto' L.A. is denser than NYC. Only it isn't. If you listen to him long enough, he'll start trying to convince you that Chicago is really a simple village of mud huts compared to the sprawling, uber-dense Mega-City of San Francisco. In a minute he's going to start about how affluent and cosmopolitan Cali is and the N.E. is full of icky poor people and ghettos. Don't waste your time.
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.
)
