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 have never been to Southern Ca., only the North. I don't like tropical at all and Miami is out of the question. Yes, I have been to Miami. NYC is my choice.
Actually, it is statistically shown that Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the US by a margin of 2,000 ppsm over NYC urban area.
That is exactly why Los Angeles is dense because it has a significantly smaller urban area than NYC by size.
There is no reason to add more land to the Los Angeles urban area because 4,300 sq mi is the entire urban area already. New York is a much larger build up area so you include more. The criteria for including urban area goes by a certain minimum density. Once the build up area has a lower density than the minimum density, then it is not included into the urban area. Both NY's and LA's urban areas follow the same criteria.
It would also be disproportionate to include only 4,300 sq miles of NY's urban area cuz that would be cheating since NY has more than that. NYC larger so you have to adjust that as well.
Finally someone understands me.
From Wiki: The US Census Bureau defines an urban area as: "Core census block groups or blocks that have a population density of at least 1,000 people per square mile (386 per square kilometer) and surrounding census blocks that have an overall density of at least 500 people per square mile (193 per square kilometer)."
Actually, it is statistically shown that Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the US by a margin of 2,000 ppsm over NYC urban area.
That is exactly why Los Angeles is dense because it has a significantly smaller urban area than NYC by size.
There is no reason to add more land to the Los Angeles urban area because 4,300 sq mi is the entire urban area already. New York is a much larger build up area so you include more. The criteria for including urban area goes by a certain minimum density. Once the build up area has a lower density than the minimum density, then it is not included into the urban area. Both NY's and LA's urban areas follow the same criteria.
It would also be disproportionate to include only 4,300 sq miles of NY's urban area cuz that would be cheating since NY has more than that. NYC larger so you have to adjust that as well.
Thats not what I said. Its kind of misleading to go by the normal density rule. Which is when you take the population and divide by the amount of land you get the amount of density, but thats misleading why because thats not what the actually density is. If i have a town of 10,000 people in 20 sq mi you get a density level of 500 people per sq mi. Who is to say that most of those people in actuality only live in 5 sq mi of the town while like 30 people live on 5 sq mi, 5 sq mi of empty land and two parks take up 2.5 sq mi each. This was my point statistically LAs metro area is denser than NYCs but how do you know that alot of the land is used for the alot of the population.
And your point is? You accused me of only knowing of the South. I pointed out that I am indeed from the Midwest, so I know of things other than the South.
What does a mountain range in Vermont have to do with the Midwest?
Thats not what I said. Its kind of misleading to go by the normal density rule. Which is when you take the population and divide by the amount of land you get the amount of density, but thats misleading why because thats not what the actually density is. If i have a town of 10,000 people in 20 sq mi you get a density level of 500 people per sq mi. Who is to say that most of those people in actuality only live in 5 sq mi of the town while like 30 people live on 5 sq mi, 5 sq mi of empty land and two parks take up 2.5 sq mi each. This was my point statistically LAs metro area is denser than NYCs but how do you know that alot of the land is used for the alot of the population.
Well Los Angeles has Griffith Park.
From Wiki:
The park covers 4,210 acres (17 km²) of land, making it one of the largest urban parks in North America...It has also been referred to as the Central Park of Los Angeles, but it is much larger and with a much more untamed, rugged character.
With over 4,210 acres of both natural chapparal-covered terrain and landscaped parkland and picnic areas, Griffith Park is the largest municipal park with urban wilderness area in the United States. Situated in the eastern Santa Monica Mountain range, the Park’s elevations range from 384 to 1,625 feet above see level. With an arid climate, the Park’s plant communities vary from coastal sage scrub, oak and walnut woodlands to riparian vegetation with trees in the Park’s deep canyons. The California native plants represented in Griffith Park include the California species of oak, walnut, lilac, mountain mahagony, sages, toyon, and sumac. Present, in small quantities, are the threatened species of manzanita and berberis.[/SIZE]
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.
how much travelling have YOU done in the north?
