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.
But I cannot agree with your notion that the NYC area does not have a lot more leafy, very-low-density suburbs than Los Angeles does - mainly because LA really doesn't have many, and that is something it is criticized for by some people. And that's why when using standard density NYC measures as a lower-density metro when it really shouldn't. It's just a fact that Southern California (and the West in general) has smaller lot sizes than the rest of the country. Maybe not substantially smaller than in the New York metro, but even a 1/4 acre more adds up fast when you account for the size of these suburbs.
Not trying to be impolite to drivecarephilly, but I'm rather surprised at his posts being that he's from the NYC area that he ignores the lot size difference and describes the density difference mainly from marshland. It's like he hasn't seen the NYC metro area. I posted some numbers on lot size before. I posted this a while ago:
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Some stats:
For the NYC metro (includes city and suburbs within NY state) median lot size is 0.23 acres; 15% of housing units had one acre or more, 29% less than 1/8 acre. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 37% of all housing units.
For the Boston metro, median lot size is 0.40 acres; 26% of housing units had one acre or more, 15% less than 1/8 acre. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 52% of housing units.
For the Pittsburgh metro, median lot size is 0.34 acres; 23% of housing units had one acre or more, 20% less than 1/8 acre. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 81% of housing units.
For the Denver metro, median lot size is 0.20 acres; 7% of housing units had one acre or more, 20% less than 1/8 acre. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 71% of housing units.
For the DC metro, median lot size is 0.32 acres; 17% of housing units had one acre or more, 18% less than 1/8 acre. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 68% of housing units.
So yes, Pittsburgh has a slightly larger lot size than DC. The likely reason you may have thought Pittsburgh feels like it has smaller lots is the smaller lots are more common among older homes, when you lived there. Boston "wins" in having the biggest lots, though at the other extreme it has a relatively high amount of multi-family + small lot single-unit homes.
Just went through Los Angeles, the housing survey separates the number (I think) by county.
For Los Angeles County, median lot size is 0.15 acre; 30% of housing units were on less than 1/8 acre, 7% were on an acre or more. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 56% of all housing units. For Orange County, median lot size is 0.14 acre; 35% of housing units were on less than 1/8 acre, 2% were on an acre or more. This only includes housing units that are not in multi-unit buildings (not sure if attached), which is 56% of all housing units.
Obviously, Los Angeles County is denser than Orange County but the difference is probably from denser multi-family (less townhouse-style) and only a small part of Los Angeles is "core". But Orange County is equivalent to an outer suburb, its housing is built much denser than outer NYC suburbs.
Irvine is 100% sprawl. There is not even one block that is remotely walker friendly.
You essentially can't get more sprawly than 100% sprawl. The fact that Irvine tends to be multigenerational Chinese families packed into newer subdivisions doesn't suddenly make it "not sprawl".
Munchitup didn't say anything about pedestrian friendliness, though. He was commenting about residential density. Irvine has a lower person per household than the California average, and lower than either Long Island county. So, the family size arguement doesn't work
Irvine is 100% sprawl. There is not even one block that is remotely walker friendly.
You essentially can't get more sprawly than 100% sprawl. The fact that Irvine tends to be multigenerational Chinese families packed into newer subdivisions doesn't suddenly make it "not sprawl".
You can't just blindly compare across municipal boundaries, which have no comparative relevance across jurisdictions. Greenwich, CT, to take an example, has very low density, yet the majority of people live in a transit-oriented, walkable environment. It's just that 90% of the town boundaries (CT has large town boundaries) are barely inhabited except for huge multiacre estates.
But if someone were choosing between Greenwich and Irvine, and valued urbanity, walkability and transit, it would be insane to choose Irvine. Greenwich has walkability and transit not present anywhere in Orange County. Just saying "well Greenwich is sprawl because Connecticut has large municipal boundaries, and land preservation laws" is completely absurd.
And neighboring Stamford is much denser still, with local walkability and transit better than almost anywhere in even LA County. Yet even Stamford doesn't come close to Irvine's unweighted density.
The fact that the NYC area becomes less dense when you eliminate Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn geographies, but keep the sprawl, shows the ridiculousness of relying on unweighted density to rank sprawl.
I've been talking purely about density. I know that Irvine is 100 percent suburban - it's an awful place. But you can get lower density than Irvine. Irvine is surprisingly dense in places, but it is not walkable or remotely "urban" anywhere.
As far as the cities, I was purely going off of the two cities that Drive Care Philly was talking about. Obviously there are endless numbers of cities between the two metros that could be compared.
And if you re-read my posts, you will see I was comparing census tracts, which are fairly impartial. I am not sure what you are talking about comparing against municipal boundaries - when comparing them city limits vs. city limits, Edison is more dense. I agree weighted density is the better metric - when using WD, NYC is more dense than LA, and Irvine is more dense than Edison / Metuchen.
EDIT: Stamford, CT has better transit and is denser than almost anywhere in LA County? I seriously doubt that. What does it have, commuter rail to NYC and a local bus system? As far as density, the city has three tracts over 20k ppsm and one over 10k ppsm - there are dozens and dozens of tracts in LA County with 2-3x the density of those areas (I will say the downtown area of Stamford looks very walkable). But other than the walkability part, it seems like some heavy hyperbole.
Greenwich, CT, to take an example, has very low density, yet the majority of people live in a transit-oriented, walkable environment.
This doesn't sound remotely believable.
Quote:
It's just that 90% of the town boundaries (CT has large town boundaries) are
barely inhabited except for huge multiacre estates.
And you're asking us to ignore this because 10% of it is pedestrian friendly?
Quote:
But if someone were choosing between Greenwich and Irvine, and valued urbanity,
walkability and transit, it would be insane to choose Irvine. Greenwich has
walkability and transit not present anywhere in Orange County.
This is irrelevant. Besides, a few patches of walkability does not absolve an area from being sprawled. Los Angeles is notoriously crucified for this exact same reason.
Quote:
And neighboring Stamford is much denser still, with local walkability and
transit better than almost anywhere in even LA County.
Not trying to be impolite to drivecarephilly, but I'm rather surprised at his posts being that he's from the NYC area that he ignores the lot size difference and describes the density difference mainly from marshland. It's like he hasn't seen the NYC metro area. I posted some numbers on lot size before. I posted this a while ago:
1)I'm aware of the lot size difference but it doesn't get extreme enough to make much of a difference until you get so far out from Manhattan that've you already covered the entire population of the LA urban area and then some.
2)I didn't say the difference is mainly from marshland - i said if you excluded the non-urban areas from metro NYC that are erroneously included in the urban area count LA loses the density advantage.
I don't think you're being impolite but it's like you're trying to tell me that urban San Antonio is more dense than urban Dallas. And I'm going - San Antonio is a smaller city, so of course there are going to be fewer exurbs that get included in the urban area count - but the first 3.6 million people in urban Dallas are living a lot more densely than all of the 1.8 million people in San Antonio so why am I supposed to be impressed that San Antonio looks denser on paper?
Also, FWIW, i grew up in the NY area but left for a reason. I'm hardly a NY booster and I'm far from an LA hater. But this is just one of those specious arguments that's supposed to make Angelenos feel better or something. Great, your sprawl in Orange County is denser than the sprawl in Suffolk County . . . congratulations?
First, why are posters focusing so much on NYC on this thread?
Except the ring between 20-40 miles, NY is less dense than LA; NY is mostly more dense just because the core is much denser.
Sort of - at the ring of 20-40 miles NY is 1813ppsm while LA is 1861ppsm. A difference of 2.6%.
More precisely, if we're looking at cross-sections, then 0-10 miles NY is 254% more dense than LA.
10-20 miles NY is 5% more dense than LA.
20-30 miles NY is 24% more dense than LA.
30-40 miles LA is 23% more dense than NY.
40-50 miles LA is 19% more dense than NY.
50-60 miles NY is 14% more dense than LA.
60-70 miles NY is 317% more dense than LA.
At no point in the aggregate is LA ever more dense than NY.
In other words - LA is more dense than NY between 30 and 50 miles from downtown - and this is where NY densities decline by 2/3 while LA densities decline by a mere 1/2. Then again, by the time you're 30 miles from Midtown Manhattan the population is 15,035,480. The entire population of LA, Orange, and San Diego Counties is 15,924,150.
***The land area is different between the two cities in each ring because of the oceans.
It's not so much that this study makes us feel better because it puts us over NYC in density - LA really feels little competition with NYC, and I think it goes the other way too.
Studies like this make us feel good because they smash the trite stereotype that LA is one of the lowest density, most sprawling suburban cities in the world. It isn't, and Los Angeles is as much of a "real city" as there is in this country.
trite stereotype that LA is one of the lowest density, most sprawling suburban cities in the world.
I'm not sure it actually does that, other than to change it 'one of the highest density, most sprawling suburban cities in the world'.
0-10 miles NY is 254% more dense than LA.
10-20 miles NY is 5% more dense than LA.
20-30 miles NY is 24% more dense than LA.
30-40 miles LA is 23% more dense than NY.
10 to 20+ miles from the central business district is sprawl.
A fair question would be if LA (or anywhere else in the US) was as dense as NYC at each of these ranges, and the population kept getting sucked in at an equal rate, how much smaller of an area would it entail?
In other words, Denver [155 sq miles] + New Orleans [350 sq miles] + St Louis [66 sq miles] would fit into Manhattan [34 sq miles]. How much space would the LA metro area take up?
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.
San Antonio is a smaller city, so of course there are going to be fewer exurbs that get included in the urban area count - but the first 3.6 million people in urban Dallas are living a lot more densely than all of the 1.8 million people in San Antonio so why am I supposed to be impressed that San Antonio looks denser on paper? 
