Will Los Angels Ever Become The Most Populated City In The U.s. (Los Angeles: real estate, how much)
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.
"THIS IS BETWEEN NYC AND LA SO WHAT THE HELL DOES CHICAGO HAVE TO DO WITH IT"
Hahaha wow.
You're the joke.
If LA will have more things than pollution and traffic if it EVER catches up to NYC, what will it be? Name five things if you can.
What is Chicago? Chicago is more of a city than LA. It has the second largest downtown after Midtown Manhattan. The "movie capital of the world" doesn't even have a football team. Kobe Bryant may be popular, but no one is better known than Michael Jordan.
If you know any of New York's nicknames, one is Capital of the world. Who's the "re-re" now?
FIVE:
T.V.
CELEBS
DIVERSITY
COLLEGES
IVY LEAGUES
VISITATION
CLIMATE
FUN
THEME PARKS
MOUNTAINS
BEACHES
FORREST
CAMPING
DANCING
ALL BETTER THAN NEW YORK AND ESPECIALLY CHICAGO
[mod cut; personal attack and rambling]
Last edited by SandyCo; 05-09-2007 at 08:57 PM..
Reason: personal attack
Recently In Studies Shown Los Angeles Has Rising Pass The 4,000,000 Population Mark Which A Little Over 37,000 New Residents Moved Into Los Angeles............................my Prediction Is That In About
10-15 Years Los Angeles Will Become More Populated Than New York Once The Mega Project Is Finished And Condominums Are Finished...............also Because This Is The Movie Capital Of The World , And Is Now The Sports Capital In The Nation Which Now Has Pushed Phoenix Into Second.............
Don't Forget This Is My Prediction Put What You Feel ....................
And Thanks For Reading
There is no way. You forget that NYC is also growing as well, maybe not at the rate of Los Angeles. The metropolitan area, though, may surpass the nyc metro in the next 20 to 40 years. THAT is an actually prediction possibility rooted in actual numbers, what with Riverside/SB being among the fastest growing parts on the national level.
In regards to Chicago, LA has 4 million, Chicago has 2.8 million. Let's not kid ourselves with "what ifs" and pretending that illegal immigrants aren't actual people. Chicago has 1.2 million less people than LA and that's that!
The City of L.A is capable of surpassing NYC's Population sometime in the future if they continue building upwards,but even more sooner if you include The Greater L.A Region.
There is no way. You forget that NYC is also growing as well, maybe not at the rate of Los Angeles. The metropolitan area, though, may surpass the nyc metro in the next 20 to 40 years. THAT is an actually prediction possibility rooted in actual numbers, what with Riverside/SB being among the fastest growing parts on the national level.
In regards to Chicago, LA has 4 million, Chicago has 2.8 million. Let's not kid ourselves with "what ifs" and pretending that illegal immigrants aren't actual people. Chicago has 1.2 million less people than LA and that's that!
I know they're actual people but they're not counted......okay still "less" thats the point i am making....... you are making a debate about immigration [mod cut; personal attack]
Last edited by SandyCo; 05-09-2007 at 08:58 PM..
Reason: personal attack
PLEASE READ YOUR STATS. BECAUSE FROM WHAT I SEE YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT WE MADE IT PASS THE 4 MILLION JUST ACCEPT THE FACT AND WHAT MAKES IT WORST FOR YOU IS THAT YOU ARE A CALIFORNIAN, THE MOST POPULATED STATE IN THE NATION...........
Yes, but look at the stats,
with that growth rate, LA proper will not pass NYC proper's population for several years. NYC proper has over 8 million people (census.gov).
The rate of growth does not add up to LA passing NYC proper for some time.
Just like all the Houston people claiming that Houston proper will exceed Chicago proper's population soon, and they are much closer in population, this will also not happen for decades. You can go to census.gov for the official numbers, and you will see the growth rates of the proper cities.
Having said that, then we look to the Metropolitan statistical areas, that's a different story. LA MSA could very well overtake NYC Metro as long as they keep the definitions the same...the problem is that the govt. keeps redefining the boundries, or they liberalize the boundries of where MSA's start and end.
But again, LA proper, even if in 2007 it exceeded 4 million people, NYC has 8 million...after watching growth patterns of city proper populations and using extrapolations, I have yet to see a major proper city gain that many people over time.
An example is Las Vegas, which was the fastest growing city in America. It took 25 years for its metropolitan area to just gain up to 1.5+ million people. So for LA to gain 4 million people when even the fastest growing area of the country took decades to do, it's not going to happen anytime soon unless they start learning to build upwards fast like Shanghai is in China.
And 2ndly, who says I'm from California?
And 3rdly, I do like LA and California better than the East Coast, but I have to be objective in this one...now do I want LA to catch NYC, personally probably not b/c I dont think 8 million people confined within the LA proper city limits could be handled very well infrastructurally...traffic is already bad as it is, but I do feel LA has a very important role as a world class city and representative of the United States.
"THIS IS BETWEEN NYC AND LA SO WHAT THE HELL DOES CHICAGO HAVE TO DO WITH IT"
Hahaha wow.
You're the joke.
If LA will have more things than pollution and traffic if it EVER catches up to NYC, what will it be? Name five things if you can.
What is Chicago? Chicago is more of a city than LA. It has the second largest downtown after Midtown Manhattan. The "movie capital of the world" doesn't even have a football team. Kobe Bryant may be popular, but no one is better known than Michael Jordan.
If you know any of New York's nicknames, one is Capital of the world. Who's the "re-re" now?
You tell people to put what they feel in their posts, but when they do you go and critisize everything someone says. "Shut up." "Re-re." How old are you? Whatever age, you need to take some time to mature. Just because someone doesn't agree with you doesn't mean that they're wrong.
I'm done. You're a waste of time.
I agree with you Chicagoland as an objective point of view: Chicago has more of an Urban core than Los Angeles. Los Angeles represents the "grand daddy" of America's subelt cities..or otherwise known as the "New American City" where there is much more inclination to build outward than upward. Atlanta, Dallas/Ft. Worth, Houston, Phoenix, Las Vegas, and LA all fit these roles. LA, Dallas, and Phoenix especially. There is nothing wrong with this concept. Studies have shown that the cost per sq. foot or the cost of doing business is much more efficient in low-mid rise buildings than high rises. Hence most of America's corporate headquarter relocations have gone to the sunbelt cities with the exception of Chicago. Last year Chicago was number 1, DFW was number 2. However, you sacrifice the urban core that way. The northern cities do maintain the urban core more than the sun belt cities: Ie Chicago, NY, Boston, DC, even Seattle, and some could argue SF.
As for population, it's more a/b bragging rights, but I agree, Chicago has the 2nd largest skyline behind NYC, Houston 3rd, LA 5th, Dallas 6th. Population wise, LA is closer to Chicago than NYC. And it will not catch NYC for decades, if it will at all unless they start annexing a bunch of neighboring suburbs. The MSA may catch NYC though, depending on how the census govt. officials define LA MSA.
with that growth rate, LA proper will not pass NYC proper's population for several years. NYC proper has over 8 million people (census.gov).
The rate of growth does not add up to LA passing NYC proper for some time.
Just like all the Houston people claiming that Houston proper will exceed Chicago proper's population soon, and they are much closer in population, this will also not happen for decades. You can go to census.gov for the official numbers, and you will see the growth rates of the proper cities.
Having said that, then we look to the Metropolitan statistical areas, that's a different story. LA MSA could very well overtake NYC Metro as long as they keep the definitions the same...the problem is that the govt. keeps redefining the boundries, or they liberalize the boundries of where MSA's start and end.
But again, LA proper, even if in 2007 it exceeded 4 million people, NYC has 8 million...after watching growth patterns of city proper populations and using extrapolations, I have yet to see a major proper city gain that many people over time.
An example is Las Vegas, which was the fastest growing city in America. It took 25 years for its metropolitan area to just gain up to 1.5+ million people. So for LA to gain 4 million people when even the fastest growing area of the country took decades to do, it's not going to happen anytime soon unless they start learning to build upwards fast like Shanghai is in China.
And 2ndly, who says I'm from California?
And 3rdly, I do like LA and California better than the East Coast, but I have to be objective in this one...now do I want LA to catch NYC, personally probably not b/c I dont think 8 million people confined within the LA proper city limits could be handled very well infrastructurally...traffic is already bad as it is, but I do feel LA has a very important role as a world class city and representative of the United States.
to cut this short i said "will they ever become more populated" and who did say you were from california, and where not las vegas we are l.a. and the state of california alone population is the fastest growing in the u.s. so think about that.
I am actually being objective. Your thread's title "will La ever surpass NY in population". My opinion and most urban economists will say, not for a very long long time. You look at the census.gov stats, and it would take decades and decades.
Las Vegas is an example, b/c they are fastest growing metropolitan statistical area over the last 30 years.
My point is cities just dont gain 4 million people in a short time. Yes Cali is fastest growing, and the MSA of LA is growing, but it's in the suburbs, not LA proper. But my understanding is you're trying to compare LA proper to NYC proper.
And as I have said on other multiple threads a/b Houston catching Chicago, it's not going to happen in my lifetime. You have to base it on facts, and growth. LA is no Shanghai, which owns 50% of the world's cranes now due to construction.
Now dont get me wrong, I like LA better than Chicago. Personally, Chicago is way too cold, and LA has more diversity. But being objective in this, Chicago does have a bigger urban core. That is fact, most people will agree with that.
Personally of the big 3, I rate LA #1, Chicago #2, NYC #3. Several will put NYC #1. But in terms of city stats, and the title of this thread, and watching world growth patterns of proper city limits, I strongly do not feel LA will be catching NYC anytime soon, nor is it necessary.
LA is part of the so called "New American cities"...the sunbelt cities...and by the way I happen to like the sunbelt cities more so than the older northern cities...they tend to be more convenient, more strip malls/capita, better laid out freeway networks, etc. So my vote is for LA, DFW, Houston, Atlanta, Phoenix, but having said that, Chicagoland does make points a/b the urban core issue, Chicago does have more of an urban core than LA. It's fact, not fiction. They've done studies calculating the amount of floors, office space, density.
But there is no favoritism in this. I'm just merely stating the facts. LA proper has roughly around 4 million people. In the last 3 decades, there is no U.S. City that just magically adds 4 million people (assuming NYC is not growing anymore) to its population. It just doesnt happen. Only Asian cities are expanding at a rapid enough pace, but then again, they do not have the suburb concept as we do in America. Yes, LA MSA is growing, but most of the growth is in the suburbs, not the proper population.
I have had to edit or delete many posts on this threads for personal attacks. Please refrain from personal comments about other posters. Further posts will be deleted and infractions issued. Also, please limit the discussion to L.A.'s population. Good points were made in the last couple of posts! Thank you.
I have had to edit or delete many posts on this threads for personal attacks. Please refrain from personal comments about other posters. Further posts will be deleted and infractions issued. Also, please limit the discussion to L.A.'s population. Good points were made in the last couple of posts! Thank you.
okay thanks
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.
