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.
Back to this fallacy again huh? It's been proven time and time again that overcrowding has little to do with the very high densities reached in LA's core areas (30-90k ppsm).
That's definitely not true. LA has both higher household sizes, and smaller unit sizes, than most (perhaps all?) major U.S. metros. So household size plays a major role in the surprisingly high density in LA.
That's how the central neighborhoods in LA can achieve the same rough density as the central areas of SF, despite having a semi-suburban, more auto-oriented feel.
That's definitely not true. LA has both higher household sizes, and smaller unit sizes, than most (perhaps all?) major U.S. metros. So household size plays a major role in the surprisingly high density in LA.
Higher, but not that much higher. I made this graph of weighted housing density, Los Angeles is no longer quite as high as its density numbers suggests, but it's still roughly tied with Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Higher, but not that much higher. I made this graph of weighted housing density, Los Angeles is no longer quite as high as its density numbers suggests, but it's still roughly tied with Philadelphia and San Francisco.
Doesn't that graph show a different stat? I'm reading it as weighted density of households not weighted size of households and definitely not anything to do with size of units.
Doesn't that graph show a different stat? I'm reading it as weighted density of households not weighted size of households and definitely not anything to do with size of units.
Yes it's weighted density of households. In the graph, households with single people and households with a married couple and kids would all count equally. So it removes any effect of household size on density, though it doesn't show household size.
As for Los Angeles having a smaller unit size, I'd surprised if housing units in LA are smaller than NYC though maybe not for the metro overall. See figures C and D on page 17 for NYC housing unit size and people per housing unit.
And the Bronx, and Queens, and a huge proportion of NJ.
The vast majority of people living in high density in the NYC area do not live in Manhattan. Manhattan is only a small part of the high density core.
Brooklyn, BTW, has the same population as Chicago but in less than 1/3 the land area. Brooklyn is basically three times as dense as Chicago. And the Bronx is even denser than Brooklyn. Most of the Bronx is essentially an extension of Manhattan, at least in terms of built-form.
Yeah LA is suburban compared to NYC. Not sure what this proves, considering every North American city is suburban compared to NYC.
The difference? Los Angeles is comprised of garden style apartments and single family houses vs TRUE urban = buildings
That type of housing stock is even more prominent in Miami, yet you think that city is super urban.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cityKing
Hey Everybody looks at how DENSE and URBAN Los Angeles is :
Just like New York! Except we are including all metros as our urban areas too.
?????????
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.
