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.
Pasadena: 5,800 sq/mile
Covina: 6,855
San Fernando: 3,822
Inglewood: 12,323
Glendale: 6,361
West Hollywood: 19,000
Irvine: 3,023
Santa Ana: 13,012
Long Beach: 9,149
So no, not all of them seem to be more than Nassau county. It averages to about the same.
Pasadena and Covina are in the San Gabriel Valley, not in the San Fernando Valley
Inglewood, West Hollywood, and Long Beach are independent cities within Los Angeles County
Irvine and Santa Ana are in Orange County
Only Glendale (only marginally) and San Fernando are in the San Fernando Valley, but neither are part of the City of Los Angeles.
San Fernando Valley Statistics and Facts (http://library.csun.edu/mfinley/valley.html - broken link)
Quote:
City links for cities at least partially in the San Fernando Valley
City of Los Angeles. Many communities within the San Fernando Valley are part of the City of Los Angeles. (Examples include: Arleta, Canoga Park, Chatsworth, Encino, Granada Hills, Lake View Terrace, Mission Hills, North Hollywood, North Hills, Northridge, Pacoima, Panorama City, Porter Ranch, Reseda, Sherman Oaks, Studio City, Sun Valley, Sunland, Sylmar, Tarzana, Toluca Lake, Tujunga, Van Nuys, Valley Village, West Hills, Winnetka, and Woodland Hills.)
City of Burbank including History of Burbank (http://www.ci.burbank.ca.us/citymanager/history.htm - broken link)
Most of the SFV isn't considered a separate city from the City of LA (even though each community has a separate mailing address that isn't Los Angeles), but rather considered communities within Los Angeles (mostly correlates with Area Code 818).
Just had to correct that, since I live here. I think what that poster meant was that there was more uniform density throughout most of the LA metro area, rather than the old model of going from dense at the core to lesser density at further distance. However, this is a function of geography (since there are mountains here that prevent development) more than a need to want to build densely. This, in part, explains the sprawly, lack of an urban core, West Coast cities.
These statistics are somewhat dated, but you get the point.
To answer the OP (according to City-Data)
My Zip Code in North Hollywood, CA (LA City Community in the San Fernando Valley 91606) = 13,813/square mile (//www.city-data.com/zips/91606.html)
My parent's zip code in Northridge/North Hills, CA = 10,342/square mile (//www.city-data.com/zips/91343.html). Keep in mind, this is an extremely residential area (along with North Hollywood).
My Zip Code in Berkeley, CA (94704) = 6,681/square mile (//www.city-data.com/zips/94704.html), but this doesn't take into account the transient student population that is there for most of the year. However, according to this site, Berkeley has a density of 9,692/sq. mile (permanent population only)
Last edited by Lifeshadower; 12-31-2009 at 10:51 AM..
My postal address city is Canonsburg, PA, but I actually live in North Strabane township. Pop. density of the township is about 367 people per sq. mile. I am about 30 miles from Pittsburgh.
The township is a mixture of suburban with some rural spots. But it can get pretty rural relatively quick just a few miles away.
Pittsburgh itself is a relatively dense city but its suburbs sprawl just like everywhere else.
I personally like the spread out feeling of my township, but that's me.
I was shocked because its not nearly that dense but then I remembered there's a huge co-op (the second largest in the World) with 25,000 residents, even in this co-op the buildings are spaced out and there's tons of grass, trees, & parks. The co-op still threw the density way off though lol. Its not that dense here, its suburban (even the co-op is fairly suburban).
ah ok so please forgive me but Wiki is not that all reliable! By the way the city of Miami under Mayor Manny Diaz did a independent report commisioned by a private consulting firm and they are now challenging the US Census saying they have under reported Miami's population for a while now. This consulting firm estimates that Miami has a population of roughly 480,000 people or higher.
I tend to agree because anybody who has ever been to Miami proper it looks like a very populated city and not one of 362,000 plus like the last Census did and thinks it does.
Under reporting by the Census has always been a issue for major cities especially with high immigrant populations.
I'd guess that there's lots of people who will not respond to the Census because they are not in the country legally and would face deportation. In Miami proper, that could mean tens of thousands undercounted. So, you are correct. As for Wikipedia, again, my intention was just to find Southern cities more dense than Norfolk as cityboi challenged. Frankly, there are many other communities in MiamiDade County that are also more dense but I didn't bother listing all of them.
But, in the end, your point is well taken and correct.
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.
