hey there:)so when will reach Los angeles the 20 million mark in inhabitans ? I mean in urban area . yet the urban area of LA must be 14 million , but when it claims over 20 ?

i think it can take the 20 million mark before 2030 ...

uh no. everbody knows la will fall into the pacific after the big one in 2011 :nuts:

the 9.2 Sumatra earthquake in 2004 moved the land by about 10cm.

It may never get there. Cities don't necessarily grow quickly forever. As LA gets bigger it will also become even more expensive which could lead to more out migration and cause growth to slow.

At the current growth rate, it won't take too long to reach 20 million. But Somnifor makes a good point. Right now, there is not enough density to handle all of these people and many will have to live further and further out as the city becomes more and more expensive to live in. The city has not taken a good approach to building up land, and unless it starts doing so, we will begin to see a reversal in trends because just by traffic, you know that this can't keep up with current infrastructure.

I think it will reach it quite fast. If you look at the stunning growth a lot of cities have experienced in the Inland Empire. San Diego and Inland Empire may eventually grow into one urbanized area (if not so already).

the 9.2 Sumatra earthquake in 2004 moved the land by about 10cm.

it's great you understand humor ... :lol:

I think it will reach it quite fast. If you look at the stunning growth a lot of cities have experienced in the Inland Empire. San Diego and Inland Empire may eventually grow into one urbanized area (if not so already).

I really don't know how long that can last though. The traffic out there is just going to get worse and worse to a point where people will just have to stop and either move out or not buy houses further out.

Hopefully a cap can be put on development that prevents anything new outside of a certain boundary, but you know that's not going to happen, even though it should.

Commuting from parts of the Inland Empire to San Diego might be even faster than to Los Angeles or Orange County. Especially around Temecula, which is closer to SD than LA.

LA is only 2.5 million people away from the 20-million-mark! Or are you talking about the MSA and not the CSA?

I think the question that is more important is the year LA gets bigger than New York.

By the way, what about the population growth north of the San Gabriel Mountains (Palmdale/Lancaster/Apple Valley/Hesperia). I thought they grow pretty quick, however it's a hell of a commute to LA or SB/RIV from there. Especially with the rising gas prices (however it's still a far cry from European gas prices), people might not accept driving 40 - 60 miles for a job anymore. I love driving, but I like to keep my commute short. Commuting is such a waste of time...

I think this will never happen. America is a dying country and will eventually fizzle out or be taken over. All the growth in this world is in places like Canada, China, India, Japan and Brazil. Also, it would not make sense for that many people to live in a geographically sensitive region. Did we not learn from Katrina?

philla, are you kidding? Los Angeles is not a geographically sensitive region. We have everything in place for earthquakes so it will not be anything like Katrina when the "big one" hits.

And if America is a dying country, then why are you still living here? There are definitely problems, and we can fix these. We just need to balance the budget, work on a sustainable urban form, regain our manufacturing base, and become a creditor nation once again (ridding ourselves of our great national debt).

But let's not let this drift into a subject about the US economic and urban problems.

The other factor that could slow LA's growth is demographic change in Mexico.

Two factors have driven a large amount of the immigration to the US. Mexico had a giant baby boom in the second half of the 20th century and as a result people were entering the job market faster than jobs were being created. Also the country has been rapidly urbanizing, some of the surplus rural poor have headed for American cities rather than Mexican ones. The baby boom is now over and urbanization is closer to the end than the beginning. It is likely that in the near future there will be significantly fewer Mexicans showing up in LA to look for work.

"And if America is a dying country, then why are you still living here? There are definitely problems, and we can fix these. We just need to balance the budget, work on a sustainable urban form, regain our manufacturing base, and become a creditor nation once again (ridding ourselves of our great national debt)."

I wish I shared your optimism what mood elevator are you on? I would love to move to another country. It's not that easy though. America needs to free itself of the noose called the "automobile". We don't need oil. We need to be car free,change some zoning laws and make the gas 11 dollars a gallon. That should help our cities grow with residents. We also need to start relying on our own resources. No more Bananas from Brazil. In 10-15 years the US will be finished if we keep chugging the way that we are.

"Politicians may claim America is on the upswing, but in fact, it’s in freefall.

People are working longer and harder and aren’t staying afloat. This year, 1.6 million families will have filed for bankruptcy, an all-time high.

Among the ten wealthiest nations, despite a record 2.1 million people in our prisons, the US has the highest violent crime rate. If our children are our future, prospects are bleak indeed.

Despite spending more per capita on education than any of the 25 leading industrialized nations, the National Assessment of Educational Progress reports that fewer than 20 percent of US 17-year-olds read at a "competent" level.

The question is, “Why is America in freefall and what should we do about it?”"

^^ Gas is that expensive in the Netherlands. Changes nothing though.

I think this will never happen. America is a dying country and will eventually fizzle out or be taken over. All the growth in this world is in places like Canada, China, India, Japan and Brazil. Also, it would not make sense for that many people to live in a geographically sensitive region. Did we not learn from Katrina?

USA dying? It's apart from Israel the only developed country that has a high enough birth rate to keep it's population growing!

"Gas is that expensive in the Netherlands. Changes nothing though."

Yes it does. You guys have incredible rail systems so people that drive will regardless. People in the US are forced to drive since we don't have the rail infrastructure of Europe. We need to create light rail all throughout US cities like LA. Every main drag should have light rail going down the middle. The US severely lacks transportation options. Cars were originally intended for Sunday drives not 180 mile round trip power commutes. Portland is the only city that thinks as rabidly as me. Cities that dont already have light rail or subways have a major disadvantage.

To get back to Los Angeles, it's pretty dense already for an area that is completely suburban in nature, but are there any plans to make neighborhoods more dense by constructing condo's and apartment complexes to deal with the population growth? I mean, Greater LA is becoming just too large in area. I think it's larger than Tokyo metro already, if not one of the largest urban area's in size across the world.

I think this will never happen. America is a dying country and will eventually fizzle out or be taken over. All the growth in this world is in places like Canada, China, India, Japan and Brazil. Also, it would not make sense for that many people to live in a geographically sensitive region. Did we not learn from Katrina?

You're exaggerating quite a bit. The USA has been through many worse eras (World Wars, Civil Wars, Great Depression) and has bounced back. Markets will always go up and down. As far as growth, many of the countries you listed have to grow a whole lot to reach the economy of the USA. I don't believe we will always be the biggest economy but we will for a while unless Europe totally unites/ we hit rock bottom, or the the world truly globalizes.

That being said...........Doesn't Los Angeles have major water issues??

Based on the current population growth for the metro area. It will reach 20 mil in 2070. Based on the population forcast for the US and urbanization it will reach 20 mil by 2045.
Based on the population forcast based on economic growth for urban areas in the US, it will never reacht 20 mil.

"Gas is that expensive in the Netherlands. Changes nothing though."

Yes it does. You guys have incredible rail systems so people that drive will regardless. People in the US are forced to drive since we don't have the rail infrastructure of Europe. We need to create light rail all throughout US cities like LA. Every main drag should have light rail going down the middle. The US severely lacks transportation options. Cars were originally intended for Sunday drives not 180 mile round trip power commutes. Portland is the only city that thinks as rabidly as me. Cities that dont already have light rail or subways have a major disadvantage.


The Netherlands has a good (not great) railsystem. But with gas beein $10 a gallon, it is still cheaper and much faster than traveling with public transportation.

The LA area is about 10-12 years away from 20 million.

Metro is 17.8 million now, growth between 2000-6 is on pace to be about 10% per decade, so the math is straightforward, assuming the inland areas keep growing, LA will be at 20 million around the time of the 2020 census. If the Inland Empire slows (which it may be doing, thanks to the housing crisis) it may be 2025 before the area hits that landmark.

LA is only 2.5 million people away from the 20-million-mark! Or are you talking about the MSA and not the CSA?

I think the question that is more important is the year LA gets bigger than New York. hey chris , i am not talking about csa i am talking about msa its quite like urban area in europe i am thinking , on msa la must be on 14 million on csa la must be on 18 million ...

In the case of Los Angeles, the MSA is irrelevant. It does not define the proper metro area. Same goes with San Francisco, while the MSA is good for the East and Midwest, it does fail in some cases in the West.

There are huge water problems in LA, but there is also a large source of water that is going untapped; it's called the LA River. Using some creative methods (like percolation and other methods that naturally clean water) we can use that water in toilets and washing machines and such and save ourselves a ton of water.

Is the most population Mexican?

Maybe, maybe not. The population growth of the LA area (according to the Census, so it's probably wrong) fell off rapidly between 2000-07 because of the cost of living. Now Southern California is one of the most hit areas when it comes to the housing crash. I think that the LA area will eventually mature in population growth and eventually stagnate...like most of the East Coast metro areas.

greater LA prolly in 2011 :dunno:

To get back to Los Angeles, it's pretty dense already for an area that is completely suburban in nature, but are there any plans to make neighborhoods more dense by constructing condo's and apartment complexes to deal with the population growth? I mean, Greater LA is becoming just too large in area. I think it's larger than Tokyo metro already, if not one of the largest urban area's in size across the world.

Local or federal zoning laws make it impossible to rezone low density I think.

In the case of Los Angeles, the MSA is irrelevant. It does not define the proper metro area. Same goes with San Francisco, while the MSA is good for the East and Midwest, it does fail in some cases in the West.

Isn't the LA Urban area made of two MSA's? (LA + SB/RIV)

Isn't the LA Urban area made of two MSA's? (LA + SB/RIV)
no most of the urban area lies within the LA MSA alone - the inland empire is considered a seperate urban area and a seperate MSA even though there's continuous development. the LA CSA is made up of 3 MSA's

The Netherlands has a good (not great) railsystem. But with gas beein $10 a gallon, it is still cheaper and much faster than traveling with public transportation.

Sorry, but that's not true. I do everything by public transport, and that saves me a couple hundred euro a month. It's absolutely cheaper. About speed: it largely depends which one is faster, on short distances the car almost always wins, but on 50km+ distances it's either a tie, or public transport is faster (hi, gridlocks).

Having said that, I do agree with Chris that high gas prices alone have nearly no effect on car use. By offering good public transport you can pull people into those trains, but taxes are close to worthless when it comes to pushing them out of their cars. It simply doesn't work that way.

Having said that, I do agree with Chris that high gas prices alone have nearly no effect on car use. By offering good public transport you can pull people into those trains, but taxes are close to worthless when it comes to pushing them out of their cars. It simply doesn't work that way.

I don't buy that at all. Just look at the US. Gas prices have gone up a couple of dollars per gallon and car usage is down across the board is transit ridership is up.

Now let's see if it will spur urban development and inhibit fringe development.

^^ I think I said it earlier, but it's usually only that people initially scare of the high gas prices, and drive less, but in the end, it will get to earlier levels again. However, you have also to take into account that the summer season is upon is, which generally has much fewer traffic on the roads. So I wouldn't just buy any newspaper article that says traffic is finally decreasing in the next 2,5 months.

Sorry, but that's not true. I do everything by public transport, and that saves me a couple hundred euro a month. It's absolutely cheaper. About speed: it largely depends which one is faster, on short distances the car almost always wins, but on 50km+ distances it's either a tie, or public transport is faster (hi, gridlocks).

Having said that, I do agree with Chris that high gas prices alone have nearly no effect on car use. By offering good public transport you can pull people into those trains, but taxes are close to worthless when it comes to pushing them out of their cars. It simply doesn't work that way.

I do not want to get too much off topic and maybe it is better to start a new topic for this, but I am going to give you an example of what I mean.

You want to go from area code 2925 CX to 2718 SW

By car it would take 40min and cost you around 4 Euros gasoline and in total 5.82, taking the devaluation and costs of a car (insurance, buying the car, depreciation and so on).
With public transportation it would take you 90min and 6.52 Euros.


If you also take the economical cost, in this case your hourly wage, which is on average (modal) around 15 Euros an hour. Then the cost by car are 15.82 euro and by public transportation 29.02.


Yes, if you would live near a train station, and your destination is near a train station, there is a big chance that it is faster and cheaper, but most of the people do not live near a train station.

I personally use to travel with car and train. I would drive with the car to the train station and then take the train. The cost would be similar, but I would have a chance to work on my laptop or read a book in the train. But the government privatized the parking and it went from 2 Euros a day to 14 Euros a day, which is a huge price increase

Back on topic.


So what is the difference between LA Metro and Urban LA?

^^ Metro LA is composed of counties, which are often completely empty, like eastern Riverside and San Bernardino counties. That way, Greater LA would stretch all the way to Arizona and Nevada.

I do not want to get too much off topic and maybe it is better to start a new topic for this, but I am going to give you an example of what I mean.

I really don't need to go into as much details on this as you do: my job is real estate agent. Being able to move fast from house A to B is part of my work.
I can do so comfortably by public transport, and my monthly travel costs (professional and private) are about 150 euro. That's not even doing it the frugal way, I always go first class and don't mind taking the occasional taxi every now and then.

No matter how you put it, I can not, in any way, drive a car for that amount of money.

My guess would be around 2015-2020.. its not hard for a city of almost 18 million to get there... and its not just Mexican immigrants that are stopping by.

Can I submit a nostalgia post? ;-)

November, 2019 (Blade Runner)

My guess would be around 2015-2020.. its not hard for a city of almost 18 million to get there... and its not just Mexican immigrants that are stopping by.


yeah, 18 million on land of the size of a european country (34000 square miles) ... csa sucks

^^ You're right... clearly all of the population is in the extremely desolate desert areas...

it doesnt matter that half of the area is almost empty. csa still sucks. if europeans would use this method, half of europe would be one big city ...

^^ Yeah, but the CSA of LA that isn't in the build-up area is mostly completely empty, so populationwise, it doesn't matter that much. Sizewise, it's way too large ofcourse.