I love Los Angeles. I mean.... I'm fairly new to the city (less than two months).... but I'm starting to love it. I mean there's such great weather, and so many crazy people, so I feel at home. But I usually question the city. I see it as a ***HUGE*** small town, and that's the feel I get from the city, a small town feel, which I love. What you people think about this? :)

I love Los Angeles. I mean.... I'm fairly new to the city (less than two months).... but I'm starting to love it. I mean there's such great weather, and so many crazy people, so I feel at home. But I usually question the city. I see it as a ***HUGE*** small town, and that's the feel I get from the city, a small town feel, which I love. What you people think about this? :)

hmmm...a huge small city thats also the second largest in the US?

Some parts of LA certainly feel like that. Even Pasadena & Santa Monica had quite a quaint feel. . . the only place that makes LA feels like it's a metropolis is behind the wheel.

For the majority of its history, Los Angeles has been in fact a really tiny town...

But now that's all changed, lol.

hmmm...a huge small city thats also the second largest in the US?

yep. :yes:

It feels like that because it isnt a high density city like New York or Chicago. Its a city made of suburbs.It does seem small so Im with you.

It doesn't feel like a giant city because it doesn't really look like one.

When I'm in Chicago, or NYC, it feels like I'm in a huge city because of the monster skylines and highrises all over the place.

LA just has a different feeling, but I like it, and I prefer it to Chicago or NYC.

No doubt about it, LA is frickin' huge and seems to go on and on FOREVER. Just take a drive down 10 towards Vegas or down 5 towards San Diego and LA just doesn't seem to stop.

It doesn't feel like a giant city because it doesn't really look like one.

When I'm in Chicago, or NYC, it feels like I'm in a huge city because of the monster skylines and highrises all over the place.

LA just has a different feeling, but I like it, and I prefer it to Chicago or NYC.

No doubt about it, LA is frickin' huge and seems to go on and on FOREVER. Just take a drive down 10 towards Vegas or down 5 towards San Diego and LA just doesn't seem to stop.
Trust me, live down here for a year or two, then go down to Texas or something, THEN you'll notice the difference. LA will feel like a huge city compared to anywhere up in Texas! Downtown also feels closed in too. Matter of fact, everywhere around here feels so industrialized. Even though it's big and stretched out, it still has too many people.

LA feels enormous and dense to those who see the city with their intellect as well as with their eyes. It doesnt matter what skyscraper-freaks say, I have been to Tokyo, NYC, and Chicago personally....and that still didnt detract from LAs density or mass.

Its of a completely different sort of mass, one thats defined by the hoards of people living here, not on the buildings. but LA is still a monstrosity of human activity....that's what I love about it. Its so diverse, so complex, so massive that it's really a universe of its own. It has its own center of gravity. Countless artists and writers alike try to reflect on it, the ones who truly understand it, respect it, characterize LA in the same way I empathize with a Shakespearean play. LA is a drama in every sense, a tragedy based on shattered dreams, and hopes faded, shrouded by a veil of its vainglorious past. It has a dark undertone, LA noir . It's the end of the world literally, and figuratively. yet still, it flourishes in hearts and minds of the millions who breathe life into it for today and tommorow, and in the artists, writers, and other thinkers who try to immortalize this failed jerulsalem in song and literature and who find inspiration, for ill or good, in the story of humanity that LA has come to tell the world through its being. Thats what Im proud of most when I speak of this metropolis. All of it.

LA feels enormous and dense to those who see the city with their intellect as well as with their eyes. It doesnt matter what skyscraper-freaks say, I have been to Tokyo, NYC, and Chicago personally....and that still didnt detract from LAs density or mass.


LA is big and dense, I'm not denying that, but it has more of a suburban feel than NY or CHI. It has no center. It's all over the place, spread out, disconnected.

It's still my favorite big city though and the one I'd pick to live in.

LA reminds me of Mexico City

LA is big and dense, I'm not denying that, but it has more of a suburban feel than NY or CHI. It has no center. It's all over the place, spread out, disconnected.

It's still my favorite big city though and the one I'd pick to live in.

I'll give you that....that LA feels disconnected and more suburban, but contrary to what youve said LA does have a core or "center". It's borders form an imaginary triangle that stretches from E. LA to Hollywood to Santa Monica and consumes only 190 square miles, yet contains 2/3rds the city's population.

And I'll counter the claim that LA feels smaller than Chicago, SF, or other traditionally dense cities after noting what I've said....that one sees LA intellectually as well as just visually. I know from experience that Chicago and SF feel more urban than LA, and I still doubt that an unbiased observer could not admit, that even after visually seeing that LA is relatively suburban, they would still feel that it's paradoxically enormous to the point of dwarfing the others at the same time. You just know, intellectually, that unlike the others this is a true mega-city, no matter how many skyscrapers and rowhouses Chicagos or SF's respective cores can hold over LA's count. That's all Im pointing out.

I'll give you that....that LA feels disconnected and more suburban, but contrary to what youve said LA does have a core or "center". It's borders form an imaginary triangle that stretches from E. LA to Hollywood to Santa Monica and consumes only 190 square miles, yet contains 2/3rds the city's population.

And I'll counter the claim that LA feels smaller than Chicago, SF, or other traditionally dense cities after noting what I've said....that one sees LA intellectually as well as just visually. I know from experience that Chicago and SF feel more urban than LA, and I still doubt that an unbiased observer could not admit, that even after visually seeing that LA is relatively suburban, they would still feel that it's paradoxically enormous to the point of dwarfing the others at the same time. You just know, intellectually, that unlike the others this is a true mega-city, no matter how many skyscrapers and rowhouses Chicagos or SF's respective cores can hold over LA's count. That's all Im pointing out.

I never said anything about San Fran. I've never been there. I was talking about Chicago and NY.

You keep saying "intellectually" as if I'm intellectually challenged. I guess I don't see what you do. LA goes on forever, but it never seems like it "dwarfs" Chicago or NYC because Chicago and NYC look more urban.

You say that LA has does have a center....an "imaginary triangle that stretches from E. LA to Hollywood to Santa Monica".

Exactly my point. It's an imaginary triangle. You can't see it. When you're flying over LA, it all looks the same. There are downtowns all over. Downtown LA, Century city, Long Beach, etc.

Chicago, or NY on the other hand, are different. Their centers are clearly defined, nothing imaginary about them. In NY, it's Manhattan-midtown to downtown, in Chicago, it's the loop.

I love how there are several downtowns in the LA area such as LA, Long Beach, etc. Very unique and cool

The LA basin was in fact the home of many, many different cities that melded together with the passage of time, some of you might not know that LA's boom time was brought up because of all the innmigration in the 1930's of people who were escaping from the dust bowl in the midwest, when they came to this area there was so much land available that dozens of little cities sprouted all over the LA basin, but to these folks the idea of a home was not a small house but a house with a huge yard with room enough to keep horses, chickens, sheeps etc.
places like monrovia, pasadena, glendale, palos verdes, santa monica were in fact ranchs that became urbanized by the new inmigrants, as time went by all the cities really became one big city but they all kept their own respctive mini cbd's, of course LA downtown was the largest as it is still now, but the LA basin was a constellation of small little communities who became one big metropolis, hence that small town felling so cherished by many angelenos, and disliked by others...
But I guess it is fair to sat that the city of LA proper has lost all its country charm

I never said anything about San Fran. I've never been there. I was talking about Chicago and NY.

You keep saying "intellectually" as if I'm intellectually challenged. I guess I don't see what you do. LA goes on forever, but it never seems like it "dwarfs" Chicago or NYC because Chicago and NYC look more urban.

You say that LA has does have a center....an "imaginary triangle that stretches from E. LA to Hollywood to Santa Monica".

Exactly my point. It's an imaginary triangle. You can't see it. When you're flying over LA, it all looks the same. There are downtowns all over. Downtown LA, Century city, Long Beach, etc.

Chicago, or NY on the other hand, are different. Their centers are clearly defined, nothing imaginary about them. In NY, it's Manhattan-midtown to downtown, in Chicago, it's the loop.


Take this analogy. Tokyo is a lopsided comparison, but compared to NY, you just KNOW tokyo is much, much more massive, even though the skyscrapers are much fewer, shorter, farther between and the city is overwhelmingly vertically challenged. That's because after spending some time there, getting to know tokyo as a metro, not just a massing of skyscrapers, one begins to realize INTELLECTUALLY that the "imaginary center" is still very evident despite the lack of natural boundaries, and that beyond this center lies continuous development that extends far beyond where NY metro ends, and far denser than outlying areas as well. Using your eyesight alone, you cannot see this truth at any individual point in tokyo, but the knowledge that what you DO see stretches to the extent that it does, (melding the intellect with the visceral) makes Tokyo's mass unmistakeable.

Granted, LA is no tokyo, but seeing a metropolis in this way, by challenging your immediate faculties, is more realistic. Judging a city by using limitations of immediate eyesight fails to capture the breadth of these metropolises - one has to go beyond the immediate to realize the extent to that which they do not see. Why judge a book by its cover? why judge a person on what's skin deep? To see things for their truths is far more impressive and honest.

The LA basin was in fact the home of many, many different cities that melded together with the passage of time, some of you might not know that LA's boom time was brought up because of all the innmigration in the 1930's of people who were escaping from the dust bowl in the midwest, when they came to this area there was so much land available that dozens of little cities sprouted all over the LA basin, but to these folks the idea of a home was not a small house but a house with a huge yard with room enough to keep horses, chickens, sheeps etc.
places like monrovia, pasadena, glendale, palos verdes, santa monica were in fact ranchs that became urbanized by the new inmigrants, as time went by all the cities really became one big city but they all kept their own respctive mini cbd's, of course LA downtown was the largest as it is still now, but the LA basin was a constellation of small little communities who became one big metropolis, hence that small town felling so cherished by many angelenos, and disliked by others...
But I guess it is fair to sat that the city of LA proper has lost all its country charm

Actually, the dust bowl occurred in the southern great plains not in the Midwest and if you read the book "The Grapes of Wrath" you will realize that the people that traveled to California were treated horribly and lived in even deeper poverty than in Oklahoma or Texas. They may have dreamed of California as paradise but paradise was not what they found.

Actually, the dust bowl occurred in the southern great plains not in the Midwest and if you read the book "The Grapes of Wrath" you will realize that the people that traveled to California were treated horribly and lived in even deeper poverty than in Oklahoma or Texas. They may have dreamed of California as paradise but paradise was not what they found.

Yeah many of them moved to cities like Bakersfield, Fresno, and many small town through out the central valley (especially the southern portions of it). The central valley has changed a lot in the past 15 years, but some of those areas had more of a midwest feel than California. Today many of those areas have more of a feel of coastal California (Yuppiefied), but there are still a few of those old timers.

I think this is a great thread. So many people have discussed what they like about LA (and there is so much to like) without putting down any other place.

Keeping that theme and all the good things you've said about LA, and also keeping in mind how great SF is, can you Angelenos tell me: what makes LA work better for you than SF does; why do you like LA living more than you would SF living? Also, what makes the LA Area a better place for you than the Bay Area?

I think this is a great thread. So many people have discussed what they like about LA (and there is so much to like) without putting down any other place.

Keeping that theme and all the good things you've said about LA, and also keeping in mind how great SF is, can you Angelenos tell me: what makes LA work better for you than SF does; why do you like LA living more than you would SF living? Also, what makes the LA Area a better place for you than the Bay Area?

First of all Los Angeles is home for me so there maybe some bias. LA is expensive, but it is also a a lot cheaper than the bay area. I also think you get more for you money here, bigger apartment or house and much better homes. The city of SF has beautiful homes, but who can afford them. Also to maintain one of those Victorians is quite a bit of work, and takes a lot of your funds and time. I know a few people who own one, and they will tell you its expensive to heat, and maintain. If you are a suburban person, LA burbs just blows away the bay area. Really their are only a few burbs in SF that I say are comparable, but mostly they can't compete with LA.

I can just about live almost in any city and find something I like about it. I like SF, but not enough to pack up my bags and move there on LA. LA is bigger, and the vibe seems to be more exciting and big city. SF on the other hand feels like a big city at 1st, but after spending time there, you really do realize its small and has more of a quaint sleepy feel about it. Yes downtown, the tourist spots, and a few other neighborhoods are busy, but most areas of the city seem rather quiet IMO. Traffic in both metros are bad, so I can't say one is better than the other. I don't like the public transportation in the bay area either. There is way too many agencies, I think they should at least be combined to one, or at least have a uniform fare system. It's too expensive IMO, and makes it not worth using.

I also find that there is a bias and uppity attitude towards southern californians, and its made very clear to us when they find out you're from LA. It reflects in my relatives, and also with strangers. I'm a very real person and most everyone I know are real, I just don't get that from many bay area folks. I think that turns me off more than anything else about the area, yet LA gets accused of being fake, and snotty. Overall I wouldn't have it no other way, I that we have great cities like San Francisco, and San Diego in our state, but I have no great desire to live in either one. LA just has so much more choices, and things to see. So you don't have to go to visit the same places over & over & over again. I like the many choices we have over the bay area, and the weather isn't bad either in spite of the smog during the summer.

LA reminds me of Mexico City

well of course.... I think most people in LA are Mexicans. You just gotta go to the city center (Los Angeles St) and you'll see what I'm talking about. May be that's the reason why it's such a great city. It's way, but waaaaay more cosmpolitan than any city in the US, in other words, more cosmopolitan than NY itself. That being said, Los Angeles may be the most cosmopolitan city on Earth.

SF on the other hand feels like a big city at 1st, but after spending time there, you really do realize its small and has more of a quaint sleepy feel about it. Yes downtown, the tourist spots, and a few other neighborhoods are busy, but most areas of the city seem rather quiet IMO. .

Chris, I agree with you about that point. Very well stated.

SF is deceptive that way. If you do spend time there, it does appear far more like the smaller city it is than the one the image conjurs up.

well of course.... I think most people in LA are Mexicans. You just gotta go to the city center (Los Angeles St) and you'll see what I'm talking about. May be that's the reason why it's such a great city. It's way, but waaaaay more cosmpolitan than any city in the US, in other words, more cosmopolitan than NY itself. That being said, Los Angeles may be the most cosmopolitan city on Earth.

Well if LA is indeed mostly Mexican than I would hardly call that cosmopolitan. Any city that had mostly one ethnic group and/or culture lacks cosmopolitanism by my definition.

well, not most of the people. A plurality of the people are probably from spanish speaking countries. But the majority of people in LA come from non-spanish speaking countries.

That comparison is just like if you went to Lillte ethiopia in LA and tried to defined the entire city by saying that the whole area is pupulated by people from ethiopia!!
You have to look at the big picture and not just isolate one area of the city by its ethnic composition

Well, it has a lot of Mexicans in LA. But I think it's cosmopolitan claim mainly comes from having the largest population of so many immigrants outside of their native country like Japanese, Iranians, Thais, Armenians and more.

^ Of course I am aware that LA has an extreamly diverse population and is very cosmopolitan. I was merely pointing out the contradiction in el_artista's post.

LA is pretty much Mexico. Bar none. Yeah there's white people, black people, Asians, all that shit...but it's mostly Mexicans here.

It really depends upon which part of LA you go to. What about Hollywood? Silverlake? The San Fernando valley? Certain areas definitely have a large amount of hispanics, but you can find different areas with many other people.

Well if LA is indeed mostly Mexican than I would hardly call that cosmopolitan. Any city that had mostly one ethnic group and/or culture lacks cosmopolitanism by my definition.

LA has proportionately many mexicans in the city proper. I think that's what he's talking aobut.
The LA metro is as cosmopolitan as just about any in the world owing to the fact that not just one or two, but maybe a DOZEN OR MORE ethnic or religious groups have communities of critical mass - populations numbering in the HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS.

I estimate that worldwide, only NY can top LA in that respect - if even.

del.

You guys wanna know if L.A. feels like a metropolis!!!??

You guys need to come on a car ride around Los Angeles, because that's the only way to really feel the scope of L.A.

You guys GOTTA go down the Santa Monica freeway from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. while viewing north and you'll see just how megalopolitan L.A. is.

Better yet, take a drive down Wilshire boulevard, or take an extensive drive around West and West Central L.A., by the end of the day you'd be incredibly amazed at how big citylike L.A. feels.

Well if LA is indeed mostly Mexican than I would hardly call that cosmopolitan. Any city that had mostly one ethnic group and/or culture lacks cosmopolitanism by my definition.

Nah, Los Angeles have over million white and hispanic population, you can find in differnet people in any area.

Largest hispanic was in East LA, Westlake, South Central LA and Northeast SFV expect on end of East SFV like Sunland, Tuianjio, Slymar and Sun Valley.

Largest black population in South Central LA.

Largest white popultion in West LA, West/South SFV, Venice, Pacific Parlisade, Hollywood, North Hollywood, San Pedro, Van Nuys, Westchester and Resada.

Diverseful-Silverlake, Downtown, Mid-Wilshire, Echo Park and MacArthur.

You guys wanna know if L.A. feels like a metropolis!!!??

You guys need to come on a car ride around Los Angeles, because that's the only way to really feel the scope of L.A.

You guys GOTTA go down the Santa Monica freeway from Santa Monica to Downtown L.A. while viewing north and you'll see just how megalopolitan L.A. is.

Better yet, take a drive down Wilshire boulevard, or take an extensive drive around West and West Central L.A., by the end of the day you'd be incredibly amazed at how big citylike L.A. feels.

^We're all pretty aware of what sprawl looks like

^We're all pretty aware of what sprawl looks like


That area that he is talking about is massive not sprawl. That area has a density higher than your beloved Chicago. LA contains a solid area bigger than Chicago and that is denser than Chicago. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! Why can't you admit that simple fact because it is a fact.

LA sprawls because there are almost 20,000,000 of us trying to live down here. If you tried to fit 10,000,000 more people in Chicago land, I'm sure Chicago would seem more sprawled out too.

The only thing I can conclude is that you dislike big cities. LA is just too big for you. Fine. Stay off the LA forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Actually, L.A. is dense compared to Houston, Atlanta, or Dallas....
However, the city of Chicago is more dense than the city of L.A.
Cook County is more dense than Los Angeles County.

city of Los Angeles: 3.8 million
469 square miles
Persons per square mile, 7,876.8

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

city of Chicago: 2.9 million
227 square miles
Persons per square miles, 12,750

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html

Los Angeles Country: 10 million
4,061 square miles
Persons per square mile, 2,344.2

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html

Cook County: 5.4 million
946 square miles
Persons per square mile, 5,685.6

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17031.html

That area that he is talking about is massive not sprawl. That area has a density higher than your beloved Chicago. LA contains a solid area bigger than Chicago and that is denser than Chicago. JESUS FUCKING CHRIST! Why can't you admit that simple fact because it is a fact.

LA sprawls because there are almost 20,000,000 of us trying to live down here. If you tried to fit 10,000,000 more people in Chicago land, I'm sure Chicago would seem more sprawled out too.

The only thing I can conclude is that you dislike big cities. LA is just too big for you. Fine. Stay off the LA forum!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your issues on desnity, though argued with the ill-informed, are 100% correct. There is no question that LA is considered, by far, the densest city in the country. It achieves this honor through something social scientists and mental health professionals gingerly refer to as the silverlake factor.

Your issues on desnity, though argued with the ill-informed, are 100% correct. There is no question that LA is considered, by far, the densest city in the country. It achieves this honor through something social scientists and mental health professionals gingerly refer to as the silverlake factor.

Yes, during my days as a graduate student, I also studied the "Silverlake Factor". It is indeed fascinating

:rofl:

ARGH!!!!

Yes those stats are true when measure like that, but those numbers include mountain ranges that run through LA county! Give me a break, do you know how steep those mountains are? We can't maintain our 20k-30 k density on those!

This is my point.

http://beyonddc.com/nonweb/_UAdensities/02-losangeles.jpg

Only one other US city has so much dark brown and dark red in it. Those numbers have been up here before.





Actually, L.A. is dense compared to Houston, Atlanta, or Dallas....
However, the city of Chicago is more dense than the city of L.A.
Cook County is more dense than Los Angeles County.

city of Los Angeles: 3.8 million
469 square miles
Persons per square mile, 7,876.8

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

city of Chicago: 2.9 million
227 square miles
Persons per square miles, 12,750

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html

Los Angeles Country: 10 million
4,061 square miles
Persons per square mile, 2,344.2

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/06037.html

Cook County: 5.4 million
946 square miles
Persons per square mile, 5,685.6

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17031.html

First off lets just say that half the land in L.A. County is mountainous and uninhabitable, that would make the habitable portion about 2000 sq, miles. Only then will it equal Cook County's population density at about 5,500 people per square mile. But what if we said that half, no, make it a quarter of Cook County's area is forest preserves, parks, and industrtial parks where people do not live (which is about right). Then Cook County's population density is 7500 people per square mile. The city of Chicago has huge industial park areas, vast wastelands. I'm not subtacting this from the total area just because people do not live there. If you want to look at each city by individual communities, and figure out which one has the greater amount of dense neighborhoods we can also do that.
in L.A., according to this website
http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/cities/ci93.htm

Pico Union, Wilshire Center and KoreaTown have very high densities of about 40,000 people per sqaure mile. Westlake has 34,000 people per square mile and is about 2.5 square miles in size.These three areas are about 1 to 1.7 square miles in size each. Most other neighborhoods range from 12,000 to less than 3,000 people per square mile. I think I saw three or four communities that were 15 or 17 thousand people per square mile but thats it! Boyle Heights, Panorama City, South Los Angeles, Jefferson Park, and Watts. Silverlake has about 14,250 people per square mile, and it's about 3 square miles in size.


Chicago:
http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm
The most dense neigborhood in Chicago the Near North Side has over 48,500 people per square mile, and is about 1.5 square miles in size, Edgewater 36,000 people per square mile, and is 1.6 square miles in size, Rogers Park 35,000 people per square mile, and is 1.8 square miles, Albany Park (my hood), over 30,000 people per square mile, and is 1.9 square miles in size, Lakeview, over 30,000 per square mile, and is 3.1 square miles in size.

Avondale (2.0 square miles) Belmont Cragain(3.9 square miles), Hermosa (1.2 square miles), Lincoln Park (3.2 square miles), Logan Sqaure (3.6 square miles), and Lincoln Sqaure( 2.6 square miles) all have over 20,000 people per square mile
There are another 20 communites that have over 15,000 people per square mile, and another 26 communities that have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile square mile.

L.A. doe not come close!

First off lets just say that half the land in L.A. County is mountainous and uninhabitable, that would make the habitable portion about 2000 sq, miles. Only then will it equal Cook County's population density at about 5,500 people per square mile. But what if we said that half, no, make it a quarter of Cook County's area is forest preserves, parks, and industrtial parks where people do not live (which is about right). Then Cook County's population density is 7500 people per square mile. The city of Chicago has huge industial park areas, vast wastelands. I'm not subtacting this from the total area just because people do not live there. If you want to look at each city by individual communities, and figure out which one has the greater amount of dense neighborhoods we can also do that.
in L.A., according to this website
http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/cities/ci93.htm

Pico Union, Wilshire Center and KoreaTown have very high densities of about 40,000 people per sqaure mile. Westlake has 34,000 people per square mile and is about 2.5 square miles in size.These three areas are about 1 to 1.7 square miles in size each. Most other neighborhoods range from 12,000 to less than 3,000 people per square mile. I think I saw three or four communities that were 15 or 17 thousand people per square mile but thats it! Boyle Heights, Panorama City, South Los Angeles, Jefferson Park, and Watts. Silverlake has about 14,250 people per square mile, and it's about 3 square miles in size.


Chicago:
http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm
The most dense neigborhood in Chicago the Near North Side has over 48,500 people per square mile, and is about 1.5 square miles in size, Edgewater 36,000 people per square mile, and is 1.6 square miles in size, Rogers Park 35,000 people per square mile, and is 1.8 square miles, Albany Park (my hood), over 30,000 people per square mile, and is 1.9 square miles in size, Lakeview, over 30,000 per square mile, and is 3.1 square miles in size.

Avondale (2.0 square miles) Belmont Cragain(3.9 square miles), Hermosa (1.2 square miles), Lincoln Park (3.2 square miles), Logan Sqaure (3.6 square miles), and Lincoln Sqaure( 2.6 square miles) all have over 20,000 people per square mile
There are another 20 communites that have over 15,000 people per square mile, and another 26 communities that have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile square mile.

L.A. doe not come close!

Good for Chicago
people lives like canned sardines, that's so trendy, one more thing to envy Chicago for.

^
I was just correcting the misinformed.

Good for Chicago
people lives like canned sardines, that's so trendy, one more thing to envy Chicago for.

yeah. density is so overrated.
so is sarcasm.

^
I was just correcting the misinformed.
thanks for the density info. that was very interesting. I think ive seen a Census map (the one that shows the ariel of the county with different shades of red) that showed some parts of LA hit 98,000. I cant seem to find it right now, but if i do i will post it. maybe thats pertinent to this coversation , maybe not im not sure, so maybe you can shed some light on this for me.

LA is denser than Chicago over a greater amount of continuous land mass, and to a great degree. and LA proper's core (LA minus the valley) is just as dense as Chicago. LA's peak population density is even a little higher than Chicagos peak pop density. That has been shown in many previous threads already. Do we really NEED to go through this again?

http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/cities/ci93.htm

Pico Union, Wilshire Center and KoreaTown have very high densities of about 40,000 people per sqaure mile. Westlake has 34,000 people per square mile and is about 2.5 square miles in size.These three areas are about 1 to 1.7 square miles in size each. Most other neighborhoods range from 12,000 to less than 3,000 people per square mile. I think I saw three or four communities that were 15 or 17 thousand people per square mile but thats it! Boyle Heights, Panorama City, South Los Angeles, Jefferson Park, and Watts. Silverlake has about 14,250 people per square mile, and it's about 3 square miles in size.


Chicago:
http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm
The most dense neigborhood in Chicago the Near North Side has over 48,500 people per square mile, and is about 1.5 square miles in size, Edgewater 36,000 people per square mile, and is 1.6 square miles in size, Rogers Park 35,000 people per square mile, and is 1.8 square miles, Albany Park (my hood), over 30,000 people per square mile, and is 1.9 square miles in size, Lakeview, over 30,000 per square mile, and is 3.1 square miles in size.

Avondale (2.0 square miles) Belmont Cragain(3.9 square miles), Hermosa (1.2 square miles), Lincoln Park (3.2 square miles), Logan Sqaure (3.6 square miles), and Lincoln Sqaure( 2.6 square miles) all have over 20,000 people per square mile
There are another 20 communites that have over 15,000 people per square mile, and another 26 communities that have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile square mile.

L.A. doe not come close!
I guess you didn't see this? Go to the links provided.

chicagogeorge, youre going by the number of communities.

do this. take a point in downtown LA, draw a 10 mile radius around it and you already have and area that exceeds the total land area of chicago proper by some 100 square miles and still manages to be denser than the city of chicago - yes, 315 square miles at over 12,000ppsm.

do this. take a point in downtown LA, draw a 10 mile radius around it and you already have and area that exceeds the total land area of chicago proper by some 100 square miles and still manages to be denser than the city of chicago - yes, 315 square miles at over 12,000ppsm.
lol, 12,000 people a square mile X 315 square miles gives you a population larger than what the city of LA actually is.

If you you do the same thing for downtown Chicago, the ten mile population radius thing, the population numbers are about the same as LA's but remember downtown Chicago is on a lake so half that area is water. Downtown LA is not on a lake.

the thing is, I never meant for the 10 mile radius measurement to be city-restricted. And you can slice chicago and environs any way you like, we dont have to play the radius game, and even then, the 10 mile radius surrounding downtown LA is denser. MUCH denser.

a 5 mile radius is even more lopsided in favor of LA

I know you dont want to believe it, but as many people in LA, live in as dense a place as all of the people in chicago do. In general, excepting the Valley, LA is actually a denser city than Chicago. And immediately outside LA proper, this density continues unabated for an extensive stretch unmatched anywhere outside NY. We can go above 4 million with sustained pop densities above Chicago CITY'S.

cool beans and you are wrong.

Shall I post the City of LA's website population and population density statistics? It divides the city up into neighborhoods and geographical regions of your choice. Are you going to dispute those figures too?

I never did dispute those figures qwerty. did you read anything I posted at all? I can post these data too and you can refute mine first, as thats what you seem to be doing.

Im focusing on LA and its immediate neighbors. the 10 and 5 mile radius figures were taken from downtown LA - an area bordering East LA (its own municipality) and other hoods which can easily match the densest of Chicago's inner city hoods. study my comments before going all balls on me bub. LA is a different beast than you seem to be accustomed to.

city of Los Angeles: 3.8 million
469 square miles
Persons per square mile, 7,876.8

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/06/0644000.html

city of Chicago: 2.9 million
227 square miles
Persons per square miles, 12,750

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/1714000.html

Fact: The city of Chicago is more dense than the city of L.A.
Fact: Most suburban areas of L.A. are more dense than most suburban areas of Chicago outside Cook County.
Cook County: 5.4 million
946 square miles
Persons per square mile, 5,685.6

http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/17/17031.html

youre taking population and dividing by the number of square miles under the jurisdiction of a political entity. It doesnt necessarily mean all 4 million angelinos utilize all 465 square miles of that jurisdictional land mass. In fact, in particular with LA, that is very far from fact. You can also do that for LA metro - and include san bernardino county. get the point?

I dont know if youve ever heard of this concept called "urbanized area density"? It accounts for important facts, such as the one that states that nearly 50% of LA county is in a national forest of alpine trees and 10,000 foot tall peaks - things that dont seem to occur in cook county or chicago.

generally speaking, much of the city of LA is just as dense as the city of chicago, period.

and arbitrary political boundaries aside, LA is way denser than chicago, over a much greater, and continuous area of land, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.

I love Los Angeles. I mean.... I'm fairly new to the city (less than two months).... but I'm starting to love it. I mean there's such great weather, and so many crazy people, so I feel at home. But I usually question the city. I see it as a ***HUGE*** small town, and that's the feel I get from the city, a small town feel, which I love. What you people think about this? :)

I guess it's beacause of the earthquakes. No matter what, people in LA are rich.

Top housing markets

Orange County (Anaheim/Santa Ana) CA $643,600
Los Angeles Area CA $452,400
New York/N. NewJersey/Long Island NY/NJ/CT $405,400
Chicago IL $270,400

http://money.cnn.com/pf/features/lists/q3housing04/

LA is pretty much Mexico. Bar none. Yeah there's white people, black people, Asians, all that shit...but it's mostly Mexicans here.

Los Angeles County, California

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 48.7%
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 9.8%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.8%
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 11.9%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) 0.3%
Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) 23.5%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 4.9%
White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 31.1%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 44.6%

Orange County, California

White persons, percent, 2000 (a) 64.8%
Black or African American persons, percent, 2000 (a) 1.7%
American Indian and Alaska Native persons, percent, 2000 (a) 0.7%
Asian persons, percent, 2000 (a) 13.6%
Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander, percent, 2000 (a) 0.3%
Persons reporting some other race, percent, 2000 (a) 14.8%
Persons reporting two or more races, percent, 2000 4.1%
White persons, not of Hispanic/Latino origin, percent, 2000 51.3%
Persons of Hispanic or Latino origin, percent, 2000 (b) 30.8%

http://www.census.gov/

youre taking population and dividing by the number of square miles under the jurisdiction of a political entity. It doesnt necessarily mean all 4 million angelinos utilize all 465 square miles of that jurisdictional land mass. In fact, in particular with LA, that is very far from fact. You can also do that for LA metro - and include san bernardino county. get the point?

I dont know if youve ever heard of this concept called "urbanized area density"? It accounts for important facts, such as the one that states that nearly 50% of LA county is in a national forest of alpine trees and 10,000 foot tall peaks - things that dont seem to occur in cook county or chicago.

generally speaking, much of the city of LA is just as dense as the city of chicago, period.

and arbitrary political boundaries aside, LA is way denser than chicago, over a much greater, and continuous area of land, period. No ifs, ands, or buts about it.
Actually I have heard of urbanized density. This is why I posted the links which compared Chicago neighborhoods to L.A. neighboroods. In comparison, by far Chicago neighborhoods were more than twice as dense than most L.A. neigborhoods. Here is the break down of land use in Chicago and Cook county.

Area Name: Residential Service/ Commercial Institutional
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chicago (Cook) 108.79 22.09 13.65
Suburban Cook 306.43 52.95 36.01
Cook County Total 415.22 75.04 49.67

Trans, Comm,
Area Name Industrial & Util Agricultural
-------------------------------------------------------------
City of Chicago (Cook) 24.67 23.43 0.13
Suburban Cook 51.12 27.67 55.11
Cook County Total 75.80 51.10 55.24

http://www.nipc.org/test/lu-sum.htm

Using you're formula about claculating densities excluding unihabitable land with in certain political boundries, then Chicago's denisty is over 26,000 people per square mile in the residential sections of the city. Cook county would be over 13,000 people per square mile.


The average Chicago city neighborhood is twice as dense as the average L.A. city neighborhood.
http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/cities/ci93.htm

Pico Union, Wilshire Center and KoreaTown have very high densities of about 40,000 people per sqaure mile. Westlake has 34,000 people per square mile and is about 2.5 square miles in size.These three areas are about 1 to 1.7 square miles in size each. Most other neighborhoods range from 12,000 to less than 3,000 people per square mile. I think I saw three or four communities that were 15 or 17 thousand people per square mile but thats it! Boyle Heights, Panorama City, South Los Angeles, Jefferson Park, and Watts. Silverlake has about 14,250 people per square mile. All of these communities are from 1 to 3 square miles in size.Notice when you compare Chicago communities with similar square miles to L.A. communities, you will find Chicago's much more dense. Just click on the links and compare each community with similar size and see who has the higher density.
Chicago:
http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm
The most dense neigborhood in Chicago the Near North Side has over 48,500 people per square mile, and is about 1.5 square miles in size, Edgewater 36,000 people per square mile, and is 1.6 square miles in size, Rogers Park 35,000 people per square mile, and is 1.8 square miles, Albany Park (my hood), over 30,000 people per square mile, and is 1.9 square miles in size, Lakeview, over 30,000 per square mile, and is 3.1 square miles in size.

Avondale (2.0 square miles) Belmont Cragain(3.9 square miles), Hermosa (1.2 square miles), Lincoln Park (3.2 square miles), Logan Sqaure (3.6 square miles), and Lincoln Sqaure( 2.6 square miles) all have over 20,000 people per square mile
There are another 20 communites that have over 15,000 people per square mile, and another 26 communities that have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile square mile.

In terms of counties, Lets say L.A. county is 50% uninhabitable, that would leave roughly 2000 sq. miles of living space for 10 million people, thus giving it a density of 5000 people per sqaure mile. Even if you did not subtract any land in Cook County (even though roughly 6% is not urbanized and another 10 % is made up of forest preserves,parks...) it still has a higher density rate than L.A. county

Half of the south side of Chicago is industrial sites, people do not live there. Should I take out 75 square miles from the city's total land area and then calculate it's new density?

then you can do the same for LA. LA is SPRAWLING in industrial usage. you see, relative to Chicago, LA's baseline is way higher in terms of unused land. Does Chicago have a 5,000 foot peak WITHIN city limits? A mountain range?

The average Chicago city neighborhood is twice as dense as the average L.A. city neighborhood.
http://www.losangelesalmanac.com/topics/cities/ci93.htm


[quote]
Chicago:
http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm
, over 30,000 people per square mile, and is 1.9 square miles in size, Lakeview, over 30,000 per square mile, and is 3.1 square miles in size.
Avondale (2.0 square miles) Belmont Cragain(3.9 square miles), Hermosa (1.2 square miles), Lincoln Park (3.2 square miles), Logan Sqaure (3.6 square miles), and Lincoln Sqaure( 2.6 square miles) all have over 20,000 people per square mile

30,000/square mile over these few square miles of neighborhoods is impressive. But a 3 mile radius drawn from Wilshire center gives us 28 square miles with a density of 23,000/sq mile - far more than lincoln park, logan square, and others added together....and even then, its higher by 3,000 ppsm. And you dont have to pick apart LA hoods to get this density level. additionally, LA is unusual because unlilke chicago, our densest hoods continue beyond city limits. so you see, itemizing individual neighborhoods will get you a myopic view of respective real world densities.

There are another 20 communites that have over 15,000 people per square mile, and another 26 communities that have a population density of over 10,000 people per square mile square mile.

Im more interested to see if you could refute my claim that BOTH a 5 and 10 mile radius drawn from DT LA yields population densities far exceeding those of Chicago proper...or any part of Chicagoland for that matter. A 5 mile radius from LA's core gives us 79 CONTINUOUS square miles of density EXCEEDING 17,000 ppsm. Nothing in Chicagoland comes close. Furthermore, a 10 mile radius gives 314 square miles of CONTINUOUS density - exceeding the entire city of Chicago's density by almost 100 sq miles - thats OVER 314 SQUARE MILES CONTINUOUSLY NEAR 13,000ppsm!! Your talking about Chicago proper. Im focused on which "city" has the denser core urban area. Because urban neighborhoods arent walled at political borders.


In terms of counties, Lets say L.A. county is 50% uninhabitable, that would leave roughly 2000 sq. miles of living space for 10 million people, thus giving it a density of 5000 people per sqaure mile. Even if you did not subtract any land in Cook County (even though roughly 6% is not urbanized and another 10 % is made up of forest preserves,parks...) it still has a higher density rate than L.A. county

Then why does the very same source you cited (wendell cox) place LA as #1 densest metro in the US by UA? My statement that LA county is 50% uninhabitable is only an amateur ballpark guess. And guess what? UA accounts for BOTH uninhabitABLE land as well as uninhabitED land. You forgot to account for the latter.

As a city planner, LA is the model of what NOT to do in terms of infrastructure. In terms of marketing, one of the best marketed city in the world. Im not sure what makes this city: the media, the US government, or its sunny climate. If its the latter, emigrate to australia, and u can pick any city and u'd get beaches like you'd never seen b4!

>For a city of its size in an area where its dry and deserts around it, Australia should build something like this....all we need is a Hoover Dam....

I agree - except for the part of Australia building an LA of its own. If they did this, Australia would be a gargantuon Singapore because just about all of australia's population would fit in LA, a metro of 18 million.

And the services that make LA tick as a city are world trade, healthcare, legal services, engineering, media, research, manufacturing, HORDES of small business, and a bit of everything else in between. Finance plays the auxiliary, rather than primary role, relative to NY/Chicago, but like australia, all facets of LA business have very strong financial ties with the pacific rim. For instance, the percentage of mainstream real estate development being financed by asian or asian-american banks is staggering for an american city.

As a city planner, LA is the model of what NOT to do in terms of infrastructure. In terms of marketing, one of the best marketed city in the world. Im not sure what makes this city: the media, the US government, or its sunny climate. If its the latter, emigrate to australia, and u can pick any city and u'd get beaches like you'd never seen b4!

>For a city of its size in an area where its dry and deserts around it, Australia should build something like this....all we need is a Hoover Dam....

It's called Hollywood ;)

I was in LA for a visit during march break. LA does seem like a huge small town, but a beautiful place nonetheless. It seemed as if only one kilometre out of the somewhat small downtown core I was surrounded by suburbia. I heard so many bad things about LA but from my visit many of them were proved to be myths. One thing that I didn't like was the fact that cars ruled the city (in exception to a few some areas) and street life was resticted to those areas). It also seemed to me as if ethnic minorities were huddled into little communites of their own, very strange to see. LA seems a world away from Toronto, but LA - very nice, California - Beautiful. Surprisingly LA makes NYC look like a dirt bin to me. I wouldn't live anywhere else but here though.

"Surprisingly LA makes NYC look like a dirt bin to me."

HA!! :lol: