I tried to figure out what I would say but I just got confused.:nuts:

There is no opinion in this, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks are the largest and smallest of the top ten just to clarify.

MSA Square Miles, if any of these are incorrect, let me know:

Houston: 10,062
Dallas-Fort Worth: 9,249
Atlanta: 8,376
Chicago: 7,212
New York: 6,720
Miami: 6,137
Philadelphia: 5,118
Los Angeles: 4,850
Detroit: 3,913

* I can't find the information for Washington.

There is no opinion in this, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks are the largest and smallest of the top ten just to clarify.

MSA Square Miles, if any of these are incorrect, let me know:

Houston: 10,062
Dallas-Fort Worth: 9,249
Atlanta: 8,376
Chicago: 7,212
New York: 6,720
Miami: 6,137
Philadelphia: 5,118
Los Angeles: 4,850
Detroit: 3,913

* I can't find the information for Washington.

Wow from google maps LA looks way bigger than Houston.

Anyway, what about CSAs?

Im pretty sure New York is the biggest in the world in terms of area

Some of these include vast uninhabited areas. Seattle's CSA for example includes most of Mt. Rainier National Park and much of the Cascade mountain range, mostly complete wilderness. LA's includes the Mojave Desert. It's not because these areas contain sprawl, but because these areas are within counties that also contain developed areas, and a county is either in or out. So these numbers really don't say much about sprawl.

Exactly. Metro area measurements measure the influence of a central urban area on its surrounding region, and the general size of the economy of the urban area. This seems to have to be explain whenever we discuss these numbers. Western counties are generally significantly larger than most of their Eastern counterparts. Any metro area size measurements that include say including a largely empty San Bernardino County (larger than the combined areas of many states in New England) really shouldn't be taken with any seriousness. I think CSA are even more ridiculous.

kevin_wk, you're making the same mistake as was made in the last thread of people trying to use metro area sizes to measure sprawl. It just doesn't work that way for the vast majority of metropolitan areas. The only way to even begin to accurately measure a region's physical spread are urban areas measurements, and even then those can only reveal so much.

The square mileage of a metro is probably the most unimportant attribute.;)

Here are scale models of some American cities including mass transit and railways provided by www.beyonddc.com , which is an excellent reference:

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/newyork.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/losangeles.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/chicago.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/washington-baltimore.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/houston.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/dallas-fortworth.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/boston-providence.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/atlanta.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/philadelphia.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/sanfrancisco-sacramento2.jpg
http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/miami.jpg

They have way more cities, I just don't feel like posting them all right now.
Again, you can go here for the full list: http://beyonddc.com/features/compare.shtml

Wow, I can't believe all of the hop-scotch exurban development those metros have. Almost makes the Twin Cities with its one measly LRT line look dense and contained:

http://www.beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/minneapolis-saintpaul2.jpg

Neat maps. I'd never seen maps this clear of urbanized areas.

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/detroit.jpg

I had to laugh when I saw Detroit was listed as a "yes" for having rail transit. lol

Wow, I can't believe all of the hop-scotch exurban development those metros have. Almost makes the Twin Cities with its one measly LRT line look dense and contained:


Yeah, some of them seem really spread out, like the bay area and Boston. Obviously those maps don't show the populations, the area of the Twin Cities might look contained, but that same area in LA probably has over 10 million people and in NY/NJ/CT way over 10 million people.

You guys, you don't have to take these threads so seriously. On the sprawl thread I was just wondering which city appeared to have the most sprawl to you. And on this thread I was wondering which MSAs or CSAs have the biggest urbanized/suburbanized (basically non-rural) area. I'm basically asking which ones have the biggest built-up areas.

Neat maps.
Definitely. Thanks modestproposal.

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/sanfrancisco-sacramento2.jpg
Snubbed again!

You guys, you don't have to take these threads so seriously. On the sprawl thread I was just wondering which city appeared to have the most sprawl to you. And on this thread I was wondering which MSAs or CSAs have the biggest urbanized/suburbanized (basically non-rural) area. I'm basically asking which ones have the biggest built-up areas.

If you're asking that question then, why would you ask about MSA/CSA then, which don't measure built area, at all, in most all cases? This should have been titled, then, which cities have the largest urban areas. I'm just confused what MSA/CSA have anything to do with this.

If you're asking that question then, why would you ask about MSA/CSA then, which don't measure built area, at all, in most all cases? This should have been titled, then, which cities have the largest urban areas. I'm just confused what MSA/CSA have anything to do with this.

Well I am basically asking which MSAs or CSAs have the most urbanized areas. Not which cities have the most urbanized areas.

So, which urbanized areas fill the greatest percentage of the metropolitan counties?

Wow, I can't believe all of the hop-scotch exurban development those metros have. Almost makes the Twin Cities with its one measly LRT line look dense and contained:


With DC it's not really hop-scotch exurban development, there are cities that are in the Washington Metro Area that were there before Washington was. In the Northwest side of our metro area is the town of Frederick, which was founded a good 100 years before Washington. It really was its own separate city for most of its history until Washington gobbled it up in the 1900s. Frederick has become a mini metro area within DC. The same story is true for Annapolis and other cities just outside Washington's urbanized area.

Yeah, some of them seem really spread out, like the bay area and Boston. Obviously those maps don't show the populations, the area of the Twin Cities might look contained, but that same area in LA probably has over 10 million people and in NY/NJ/CT way over 10 million people.

The Bay Area has an average population density of 6000+ per square mile. We've only developed 1100 square miles out of 7000 total. However, because we live on narrow slivers of land bordered by either water or undeveloped hills(or both).

I must admit though, very few places feel and look as big as this area-from the standpoint of being spread out-we totally are. The 50-mile drive from SF to San Jose is completely built out and totally developed quite densely compared to other places.

New York is definitely #1.

So, which urbanized areas fill the greatest percentage of the metropolitan counties?

I guess so.

So, which urbanized areas fill the greatest percentage of the metropolitan counties?

This does not make any sense

. As of July 2006 the city of Atlanta has a population of 483,108 and a metropolitan population of 5,138,223.

How many small counties are there in the metro area?

And what does the number or percentage of counties mater anyway.

All of those counties added up could not even populate one county in Chicagoland.

As of 2000, the population of Cook Co was 5,376,741, making it the second largest county by population in the United States

This does not make any sense

. As of July 2006 the city of Atlanta has a population of 483,108 and a metropolitan population of 5,138,223.

How many small counties are there in the metro area?

And what does the number or percentage of counties mater anyway.

All of those counties added up could not even populate one county in Chicagoland.

As of 2000, the population of Cook Co was 5,376,741, making it the second largest county by population in the United States

I was asking a question of Kevin as I still don't know what he's looking for. I didn't say anything other than that so why are you attacking me? I see you're just as imperceptive, here, as you are at SSP.

BTW, I think you didn't even understand my question, anyway, which was the percentage of each county that is urbanized, which still would be a hard stat to find, anyway. My only point was that both of his posts concerning whatever issue he's trying to figure out had the word "think" in them. This isn't an issue of opinion, this is an issue of fact, and trying to figure out sprawl based on the physical size of metropolitan areas is ridiculous. MSA/CSA are measures, again, of regional influence and economy size, and has nothing to do with physical spread/urban sprawl.

The 50-mile drive from SF to San Jose is completely built out and totally developed quite densely compared to other places.
That is, assuming you take 101.

Ok on this thread I am asking which Metropolitan areas have the most urbanized/suburbanized areas. On the other thread I am asking what metro area seems to have the most sprawl to you. Understand?

Well, then, take the size of the metros and compare them with the sizes of their respective urban areas. I've posted both figures for you, the urbanized area square mileage in the other thread, and the metro area square mileage in this thread.

Ok on this thread I am asking which Metropolitan areas have the most urbanized/suburbanized areas.

Its not that difficult... New York

I was asking a question of Kevin as I still don't know what he's looking for. I didn't say anything other than that so why are you attacking me? I see you're just as imperceptive, here, as you are at SSP.

BTW, I think you didn't even understand my question, anyway, which was the percentage of each county that is urbanized, which still would be a hard stat to find, anyway. My only point was that both of his posts concerning whatever issue he's trying to figure out had the word "think" in them. This isn't an issue of opinion, this is an issue of fact, and trying to figure out sprawl based on the physical size of metropolitan areas is ridiculous. MSA/CSA are measures, again, of regional influence and economy size, and has nothing to do with physical spread/urban sprawl.

It's a central theme of his to put down other cities when comparing them to Chicago, for no reason.

Its not that difficult... New York

Well I was asking about more than one.

It's a central theme of his to put down other cities when comparing them to Chicago, for no reason.

WHAT? When did I put another city down?!!

I guess I am basically asking which metro areas have the most urbanized areas and which metro areas are the biggest. But just forget it. I guess it is too hard for you guys to get what I'm asking. Just close the thread.:lock:

He wasn't referring to you.

Anyway, are you talking about metros that are the most developed?

Well I was asking about more than one.



oh ya my bad :nuts:

I would say then:

1. New York
2. LA
3. Chicago
4. Houston
5. Boston
6. Atlanta
7. Washington / B'more

The Atlanta development map is close to accurate. Still, I'd say that it's about five years old. There are some areas around the developed areas that have since developed.

The map is much better than the pathetic excuse for a developed area shown in the Rand McNalley road atlas. I'd say that Rand McNalley is a good twenty to twenty five years late with their early 80s representation of what Atlanta used to be, while nearly every other metropolitan areas' built-up area has been updated much more recently. I honestly believe that Rand McNalley has some vendetta against metro Atlanta.

This does not make any sense

. As of July 2006 the city of Atlanta has a population of 483,108 and a metropolitan population of 5,138,223.

How many small counties are there in the metro area?

And what does the number or percentage of counties mater anyway.

All of those counties added up could not even populate one county in Chicagoland.

As of 2000, the population of Cook Co was 5,376,741, making it the second largest county by population in the United States


There are a total of like 28 counties in metro Atlanta as of the recent update. Eight of those counties were additions since the new census, but they are overwhelmingly rural and contribute no more than 200,000 total to the metro population. Before the last update, Atlanta contained twenty counties, and fourteen of them are developed in a metropolitan stance. About 4.6 million of the 5.3 million consists of population within the developed (urban, suburban, partial-suburban) counties.

The most populated counties are:

Fulton: around 950,000
Gwinnett: around 775,000
Dekalb: around 700,000
Cobb: around 675,000

Keep in mind that Georgia's counties are very small compared to most other states in terms of land area. This was because back in the horse-drawn carriage days, state officials wanted everyone to be within a one-day horse-drawn carriage travel trip, at max. Thus, the counties were laid rather small in land area when thinking about land area. Cook County is a much larger county in land area than any metro Atlanta county. Almost five times as large in land area than Fulton County, metro Atlanta's largest county in land area.

Anyway, are you talking about metros that are the most developed?

Pretty much.

Here is the percentage of the metropolitan population that live within an urban area as of 2000. For example, Los Angeles had a metropolitan population of 12,365,627 and 12,292,060 of those people lived in urban areas. In comparison, Atlanta had a metropolitan population of 4,247,981 but only 3,657,854 of those people lived in urban areas.

1. Los Angeles - 99.4%
2. Miami - 99.3%
3. San Francisco - 98.7%
4. New York - 97.9%
5. Chicago - 97.1%
6. Philadelphia - 94.1%
7. Boston - 93.8%
8. Detroit - 93.5%
9. Dallas - 91.3%
10. Houston - 91.2%
11. Washington - 90.7%
12. Atlanta - 86.1%

Thank you for that list, Hud. I was too lazy to compile it. lol

There is no opinion in this, so it doesn't matter what anyone thinks are the largest and smallest of the top ten just to clarify.

MSA Square Miles, if any of these are incorrect, let me know:

Houston: 10,062
Dallas-Fort Worth: 9,249
Atlanta: 8,376
Chicago: 7,212
New York: 6,720
Miami: 6,137
Philadelphia: 5,118
Los Angeles: 4,850
Detroit: 3,913

* I can't find the information for Washington.

That's so wrong.

At least one of those maps are outdated. The Bay Area one doesn't include the BART extension out to Millbrae.

That's so wrong.

So show us something that is right?

That's so wrong.

That's really kind of why I asked if something was incorrect to correct it, don't you think? This list isn't something actually available, so I'm not sure how accurate the information is.

Here are the Big 12 ranked by square mileage as of 2000:

1. Dallas - 5,161,544 - 8,989.64 sq. mi. - 574.2 ppsm
2. Houston - 4,715,407 - 8,928.23 sq. mi. - 528.1 ppsm
3. Atlanta - 4,247,981 - 8,376.49 sq. mi. - 507.1 ppsm
4. Chicago - 9,098,316 - 7,212.02 sq. mi. - 1,261.5 ppsm
5. New York - 18,323,002 - 6,725.87 sq. mi. - 2,724.3 ppsm
6. Washington - 4,796,182 - 5,627.12 sq. mi. - 842.3 ppsm
7. Miami - 5,007,564 - 5,125.57 sq. mi. - 977.0 ppsm
8. Los Angeles - 12,365,627 - 4,850.27 sq. mi. - 2,549.5 ppsm
9. Philadelphia - 5,687,147 - 4,629.64 sq. mi. - 1,228.4 ppsm
10. Detroit - 4,452,557 - 3,914.07 sq. mi. - 1,137.6 ppsm
11. Boston - 4,391,344 - 3,506.80 sq. mi. 1,252.2 ppsm
12. San Francisco - 4,123,740 - 2,473.08 sq. mi. - 1,667.5 ppsm

The largest (Dallas) is almost 4x the size of the smallest (San Francisco).

Granted, San Francisco and San Jose shouldn't have been separated into two urbanized areas and the true metro is probably twice the size.

LMich, I was going to edit my post, but I forgot to do it. Anyway, Texas counties are also big as hell. I would use urbanized areas instead of what you posted. Also, I just can't believe LA is that small. Look how big the counties are (that are included in its MSA):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Map_of_California_hightlighting_the_LA_Metro_Area.PNG

San Bernardino is 20,052 sq. miles itself. Even Los Angeles County is 4,752 square miles.

The Los Angeles MSA includes only Los Angeles County (4,060.87 sq.mi.) and Orange County (789.40 sq.mi.)

The CSA includes San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura Counties, but I only listed metropolitan areas.

Here are the Big 12 ranked by square mileage as of 2000:

1. Dallas - 5,161,544 - 8,989.64 sq. mi. - 574.2 ppsm
2. Houston - 4,715,407 - 8,928.23 sq. mi. - 528.1 ppsm
3. Atlanta - 4,247,981 - 8,376.49 sq. mi. - 507.1 ppsm
4. Chicago - 9,098,316 - 7,212.02 sq. mi. - 1,261.5 ppsm
5. New York - 18,323,002 - 6,725.87 sq. mi. - 2,724.3 ppsm
6. Washington - 4,796,182 - 5,627.12 sq. mi. - 842.3 ppsm
7. Miami - 5,007,564 - 5,125.57 sq. mi. - 977.0 ppsm
8. Los Angeles - 12,365,627 - 4,850.27 sq. mi. - 2,549.5 ppsm
9. Philadelphia - 5,687,147 - 4,629.64 sq. mi. - 1,228.4 ppsm
10. Detroit - 4,452,557 - 3,914.07 sq. mi. - 1,137.6 ppsm
11. Boston - 4,391,344 - 3,506.80 sq. mi. 1,252.2 ppsm
12. San Francisco - 4,123,740 - 2,473.08 sq. mi. - 1,667.5 ppsm


Am I missing something here?

How is this

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/dallas-fortworth.jpg

bigger than this?


http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/newyork.jpg

^^ That is why I would rather you urbanized areas, because this:

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/houston2.jpg

Is not bigger (in area) to this:

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/atlanta.jpg

The Los Angeles MSA includes only Los Angeles County (4,060.87 sq.mi.) and Orange County (789.40 sq.mi.)

The CSA includes San Bernardino, Riverside, and Ventura Counties, but I only listed metropolitan areas.

Oh well. Wiki was wrong then.

LMich, I was going to edit my post, but I forgot to do it. Anyway, Texas counties are also big as hell. I would use urbanized areas instead of what you posted. Also, I just can't believe LA is that small. Look how big the counties are (that are included in its MSA):

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/9c/Map_of_California_hightlighting_the_LA_Metro_Area.PNG

San Bernardino is 20,052 sq. miles itself. Even Los Angeles County is 4,752 square miles.

About 80% of that is totally barren desert.

Yeah I know. San Bernardino is a barren wasteland (the majority of it).

That's why you can't compare Eastern and Western counties. In NY, the counties are small enough that the populated ones closely approximate the metro area size. In California, even much of Los Angeles county (the main part of LA) is totally empty.

Exactly. I have been saying that all along. Urbanized areas are so much better. In parts of Harris County (Houston), cows are walking and eating grass, and you can still see the Houston skyline.

^ you're kidding right?...wait...nevermind lol!

. Miami - 5,007,564 - 5,125.57 sq. mi. - 977.0 ppsm

hudkina the 5,125.57 square miles includes a lot of the Everglades & water conservation areas.The urbanized area is around 1100 miles or about 1/5th of that total.

I'm not kidding. It's true (especially in South and Northeast Harris County).

As I said before, I KNOW THAT THE ACTUAL SIZE OF AN MSA IS THE LEAST SIGNIFICANT ATTRIBUTE, but someone asked what the size of each metropolitan area was. I posted the square mileage of the twelve most populated MSAs. The fact that the Dallas MSA is nearly 9,000 square miles doesn't mean anything when over 90% of the people live in the urbanized areas within the MSA.

Yeah, I don't see why everyone jumping on Hudkina. It was Kevin kid that asked the ridiculous question in the first place, and really asked it twice (see other thread). Hud just provided the answer, and he knows better than most how silly the fact of the physical size of a metropolitan area is in the USA considering the varying size of counties.

For anyone interested in UA's (Urban Areas), you can go to the other thread with the ambiguous question of sprawl, or you can read below what I'm going to copy over:

*The number indicates the population rank of each Urbanized Area. Please note that San Francisco-Oakland is seperated by the Census from San Jose.

Size in Square Miles:

New York: 3,352.6 (1)
Chicago: 2,122.8 (3)
Atlanta: 1,962.5 (11)
Philadelphia: 1,799.5 (4)
Boston: 1,736.2 (7)
Los Angeles: 1,667.9 (2)
Dallas-Fort Worth: 1,407.0 (6)
Houston: 1,295.3 (10)
Detroit: 1,261.4 (9)
Washington: 1,156.8 (8)
Miami: 1,116.1 (5)
Seattle: 953.6 (14)
Phoenix: 798.9 (13)
San Diego: 782.2 (15)
San Francisco-Oakland: 526.6 (12)

Density per Square Miles:

Los Angeles: 7,068.3
San Francisco-Oakland: 6,130.4
New York City: 5,309.3
Miami: 4,407.4
Chicago: 3,913.6
Phoenix: 3,638.3
San Diego: 3,418.7
Washington: 3,400.8
Detroit: 3,094.4
Houston: 2,951.1
Dallas-Fort Worth: 2,946.4
Philadelphia: 2,861.4
Seattle: 2,844.1
Boston: 2,322.6
Atlanta: 1,783.3

^^ thanks for the info, your talking about kevin_kw right?

It was Kevin kid that asked the ridiculous question in the first place, and really asked it twice (see other thread).
:ohno: For the love of God, somebody just close the 2 threads!

:ohno: For the love of God, somebody just close the 2 threads!


relax, its not a bad thread and not a ridiculous question by any means. I dont know what Lmich is talking about

Yeah I know. San Bernardino is a barren wasteland (the majority of it).

Yes, the majority of it is, but there are developed areas, such as San Bernardino, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, the High Desert (Apple Valley, Victorville, Hesperia), as well as others.

relax, its not a bad thread and not a ridiculous question by any means. I dont know what Lmich is talking about

It would have been a decent question if he knew what he was asking (and I still don't think he knows), and if he didn't keep equating urbanized areas and metropolitan areas. The first thread was bad enough (i.e. asking someones opinion on what they thought was the most sprawled area. It's not an opinion.), all this does is further confuse people as witnessed by some of the replies with people still equating an economic and influence measurement (i.e. MSA/CSA) with a measure of physical build/spread (i.e. UA).

Yes, the majority of it is, but there are developed areas, such as San Bernardino, Fontana, Rancho Cucamonga, the High Desert (Apple Valley, Victorville, Hesperia), as well as others.

That's why I said the majority.

relax, its not a bad thread and not a ridiculous question by any means. I dont know what Lmich is talking about

Thank you!

It would have been a decent question if he knew what he was asking (and I still don't think he knows)
Oh I know what I am asking. It's you who doesn't.

(i.e. asking someones opinion on what they thought was the most sprawled area. It's not an opinion.)

Not everything has to be about facts. I just wanted to know what city seemed to be the sprawliest to you.

There is no way in hell L.A. is denser than New York or Chicago, where did you get those numbers from???

There is no way in hell L.A. is denser than New York or Chicago, where did you get those numbers from???

:ohno:

Does anyone ever read anything?

Does anyone ever read anything?

You know better than to ask that in a non-rhetorical format, Lmich. No one here knows, reads, or understands anything that anyone else has stated, dictated or explained.

It is funny how people on this forum react to certain things. Sometimes I think they don't even know what they are arguing about.

There is no way in hell L.A. is denser than New York or Chicago, where did you get those numbers from???

the L.A metro area is denser than both Chicago and NY.

We all know that already, if we are talking about city then NY is way denser than L.A, but metro area is different

Density is a simple mathematical equation..! How far you you have to look up and for how long .! I would bet on NY... :nuts:

The density of all of the major urbanized areas has already been posted, here, and New York is not number one.

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/boston-providence.jpg

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/newyork.jpg

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/philadelphia.jpg

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/washington-baltimore.jpg

But isn't New York City the densest city?

http://beyonddc.com/features/compare/maps/newyork.jpg


Holy hell...you don't even know where New York ends and Hartford begins. :nuts:

The top of the right side is literally Hartford.

There is no way in hell L.A. is denser than New York or Chicago, where did you get those numbers from???

Good lord.

Numbers from Wikipedia

The CITY of New York has a density of 26,720/sq mi. The METRO of New York has a density of 3,270/sq mi.

The CITY of Chicago has a density of 12,604/sq mi. The METRO of Chicago has a density of 874/sq mi.

The CITY of Los Angeles has a density of 8,567/sq mi. The METRO of Los Angeles has a density of 2,665/sq mi.

Numbers from Wikipedia

The CITY of New York has a density of 26,720/sq mi. The METRO of New York has a density of 3,270/sq mi.

The CITY of Chicago has a density of 12,604/sq mi. The METRO of Chicago has a density of 874/sq mi.

The CITY of Los Angeles has a density of 8,567/sq mi. The METRO of Los Angeles has a density of 2,665/sq mi.

I find metro areas to be quite arbitrary. Yes, I know what the definition of it is but the only way to judge density is to be in a city and experience it. Judging cities as a whole I'd say it's a toss up between SF and NYC. Judging by geographic areas, Manhattan.

In the United States, there are three ways of measuring a "city":

Municipality, Urbanized Area, and Metropolitan Area.

The Municipality of New York has a higher overall density than the Municipality of Los Angeles.
The Metropolitan Area of New York has a higher overall density than the Metropolitan Area of Los Angeles.

However the Urbanized Area of Los Angeles has a higher overall density than the Urbanized Area of New York.

The Los Angeles UA has a population of 11,789,487 in an area of 1,667.49 sq. mi., giving it an overall density of 7,070.2 ppsm. In comparison, the New York UA has a population of 17,799,861 in an area of 3,351.72, giving it an overall density of 5,310.7 ppsm.

The reason is that the geography of the Los Angeles area limits the amount of low density sprawl. New York may have a extremely dense core, but the large amounts of low density sprawl surrounding the city that is included with the Urbanized Area gives the total area an overall lower density.

If you were to compare an area of New York's core that is the same size as the Los Angeles UA you would come up with a higher density, but because the numbers are based only on contiguous block groups and blocks with a density of 500 ppsm or higher Los Angeles is "denser".

In the United States, there are three ways of measuring a "city":

Municipality, Urbanized Area, and Metropolitan Area.

The Municipality of New York has a higher overall density than the Municipality of Los Angeles.
The Metropolitan Area of New York has a higher overall density than the Metropolitan Area of Los Angeles.

However the Urbanized Area of Los Angeles has a higher overall density than the Urbanized Area of New York.

The Los Angeles UA has a population of 11,789,487 in an area of 1,667.49 sq. mi., giving it an overall density of 7,070.2 ppsm. In comparison, the New York UA has a population of 17,799,861 in an area of 3,351.72, giving it an overall density of 5,310.7 ppsm.

The reason is that the geography of the Los Angeles area limits the amount of low density sprawl. New York may have a extremely dense core, but the large amounts of low density sprawl surrounding the city that is included with the Urbanized Area gives the total area an overall lower density.

If you were to compare an area of New York's core that is the same size as the Los Angeles UA you would come up with a higher density, but because the numbers are based only on contiguous block groups and blocks with a density of 500 ppsm or higher Los Angeles is "denser".



:applause: :applause: :applause: :applause:

That is a very good explanation, Hopefully people can understand the difference once and for all

Numbers from Wikipedia

The CITY of New York has a density of 26,720/sq mi. The METRO of New York has a density of 3,270/sq mi.

The CITY of Chicago has a density of 12,604/sq mi. The METRO of Chicago has a density of 874/sq mi.

The CITY of Los Angeles has a density of 8,567/sq mi. The METRO of Los Angeles has a density of 2,665/sq mi.

Incorrect.

New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island MSA
Population: 18,818,536 (2006)
Area: 6,720 sq. mi.
Density: 2,800/sq. mi.

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana MSA
Population: 12,950,129 (2006)
Area: 4,850 sq. mi.
Density: 2,670/sq. mi.

Chicago-Naperville-Joliet MSA
Population: 9,505,748 (2006)
Area: 7,212 sq. mi.
Density: 1,318/sq. mi.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_Statistical_Area

2004 Rank by Popluation of Urbanized/ Metro area
1. New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT 17,779,861
2. Los Angles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 11,789,486
3. Chicago=IL-IN 8,307,904
4. Philadelphia-PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,149,647
5. Miami 4,957,857
6. Dallas-Forth Worth-Arlington 4,132,645
7. Boston-MA-NH-RI 4,085,758
8. Washington D.C.-VA-MD 3,933,001
9. Detroit 3,903,711
10. Houston 3,822,509

2004 Rank by Land Area/ Urbanized area
1. New York 3,353 sq mi
2. Chicago 2,124 sq mi
3. Atlanta 1,963 sq mi
4. Philadelphia 1,799 sq mi
5. Boston 1,736 sq mi
6. Los Angles 1.665 sq mi
7. Dallas 1,407 sq mi
8. Houston 1,295 sq mi
9. Detroit 1,261 sq mi
10. Washington D.C. 1,116 sq mi

2004 Rank by Population Density/ most people living in one square mile
( I Lost The Numbers, Sorry )
1. Los Angles
2. San Francisco
3. San Jose
4. New York
5. New Orleans
6. Honolulu
7. Las Vagas
8. Miami
9. Fresno
10 Denver

I love taking about this stuff. My keyboard as broken when the thread was opened a I've been dying to put this info up here.

Look at DEMOGRAPHIA.com & the US census bureau website

2004 Rank by Population Density/ most people living in one square mile
( I Lost The Numbers, Sorry )
1. Los Angles
2. San Francisco
3. San Jose
4. New York
5. New Orleans
6. Honolulu
7. Las Vagas
8. Miami
9. Fresno
10 Denver


I live in the densest part of San Jose and can say this list is bullshiet. ha!

2004 Rank by Popluation of Urbanized/ Metro area
1. New York-Newark NY-NJ-CT 17,779,861
2. Los Angles-Long Beach-Santa Ana 11,789,486
3. Chicago=IL-IN 8,307,904
4. Philadelphia-PA-NJ-DE-MD 5,149,647
5. Miami 4,957,857
6. Dallas-Forth Worth-Arlington 4,132,645
7. Boston-MA-NH-RI 4,085,758
8. Washington D.C.-VA-MD 3,933,001
9. Detroit 3,903,711
10. Houston 3,822,509

2004 Rank by Land Area/ Urbanized area
1. New York 3,353 sq mi
2. Chicago 2,124 sq mi
3. Atlanta 1,963 sq mi
4. Philadelphia 1,799 sq mi
5. Boston 1,736 sq mi
6. Los Angles 1.665 sq mi
7. Dallas 1,407 sq mi
8. Houston 1,295 sq mi
9. Detroit 1,261 sq mi
10. Washington D.C. 1,116 sq mi

2004 Rank by Population Density/ most people living in one square mile
( I Lost The Numbers, Sorry )
1. Los Angles
2. San Francisco
3. San Jose
4. New York
5. New Orleans
6. Honolulu
7. Las Vagas
8. Miami
9. Fresno
10 Denver

I love taking about this stuff. My keyboard as broken when the thread was opened a I've been dying to put this info up here.

Look at DEMOGRAPHIA.com & the US census bureau website
I wonder what happens when the "urbanized" area of Washington touches the "urbanized" area of Baltimore. I honestly don't understand how they havn't already. Either way, 30,000 jobs are being transplanted smack dab in between that should definitely close the gap. BRAC alone is supposed to bring 90,000 people directly between the two cities.

"I wonder what happens when the "urbanized" area of Washington touches the "urbanized" area of Baltimore."

Same thing as when urban Toronto met urban Hamilton, or when New York touched Philadelphia. The draw a line between them based on commute patterns and what not, and keep them separate, even though it's one piece. In Canada, one a metro area is defined, it can never be 'swallowed' by another one, it will always be separate.

"I wonder what happens when the "urbanized" area of Washington touches the "urbanized" area of Baltimore."

Same thing as when urban Toronto met urban Hamilton, or when New York touched Philadelphia. The draw a line between them based on commute patterns and what not, and keep them separate, even though it's one piece. In Canada, one a metro area is defined, it can never be 'swallowed' by another one, it will always be separate.

I don't think it's that simple because these two cities are much closer and have many times more intercity commuting than the cities you just mentioned. We're talking about cities that are only 27 miles apart. There is such a huge housing price disparity between Washington and Baltimore that you have hundreds of thousands of commuters from Baltimore to Washington. However, I live in Washington and at one point both of my parents worked in Baltimore.