LA's Urban, Metro Area Comparison

[Mr.Hollywood]

i Thought This Would Be Nice to Put Up... Clearly SD's Metro Will Be Part of LA's

[LAsam]

Clearly, Camp Pendleton has ceased to exist as well.

[klamedia]

The world's megacities
http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/04/08/u...ex.html?hpt=C2

[milquetoast]

11,264 sq. km .... ... sorry, that's just fucked ...

.

Just ......................... here, to scale, without prejudice:

.

.

GOOGLE EARTH

[klamedia]

I'm with you "milq". But I thought that LA was at 17 or 18 mil? Why just 14? What are they counting? I never can get a consistent number for LA's pop. NY is always 21 or 19 or somewhere in between like this tally. But LA varies from 10 to 12 to 17 and sometimes 19 mil and now this one is at 14??? Also they consider Tokyo and LA as sprawling metropolises but they have some of the lowest land areas??? Whatever.....I guess.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

11,264 sq. km .... ... sorry, that's just fucked ...

.

Just ......................... here, to scale, without prejudice:

.

.

GOOGLE EARTH

When I was still in junior high and before moving to California (MANY moons ago), I recall my first flight to LA. When landing the pilot announced that you can sit Chicago inside the LA area 4 times and New York City inside LA twice. Having been to all three many times, I still believe him.

[klamedia]

Chicago:212 sq miles
NYC: 309 sq miles
LA: 469 sq miles

If that pilot was that bad at math you should thank Mother Mary that you got to your destination safely.

[koolkid]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

11,264 sq. km .... ... sorry, that's just fucked ...

.

Just ......................... here, to scale, without prejudice:

.

.

GOOGLE EARTH

This proves how overall, the LA metro is much more dense and compact (most likely due to being hemmed in by the surrounding geography)opposed to new york which sprawls farther out. NY is only extremely dense within the urban core but it clearly wanes out for the most part as you head far out. Also, the divides between the urban area and natural park land are much more clearer for LA than they are for new york giving the illusion that NY is smaller, at least in this example.

BTW, I wasn't expecting to see catalina to be THAT far from LA. About an hour, huh?

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Chicago:212 sq miles
NYC: 309 sq miles
LA: 469 sq miles

If that pilot was that bad at math you should thank Mother Mary that you got to your destination safely.

Welll if we take the imaginary lines out of the way for a moment and look at just the most densely packed areas (on the google maps) for both, I think that pilot was correct.

[milquetoast]

.

[Kenny]

Where is that?



Wow, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Manhattan almost fit snugly in the San Fernando valley.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by losangelino

Welll if we take the imaginary lines out of the way for a moment and look at just the most densely packed areas (on the google maps) for both, I think that pilot was correct.

If we take the imaginary lines out of the way (?) we see the NYC metro area covering a vast amount of land all along Long Island to the east and into Jersey to its west. The LA area is significantly impacted by those mountains that you see to its north and east and the ocean that you see to its west. Los Angeles remains the densest metro in the US.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Kenni

Where is that?



Wow, Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens, Bronx and Manhattan almost fit snugly in the San Fernando valley.

Um.....those 5 boroughs make up the 309 sq mile city of NY. San Fernando Valley as a whole (even the non-City of LA parts) totals 260 sq miles. 50 sq miles is quite significant and nowhere near being "snug". Further are we talking the significance of NYC fitting inside a section of the City of Los Angeles or just NYC fitting anywhere? Wow, NYC can fit inside of the Mojave Desert 80 times. Counting only the City Of LA portion of the SF Valley we get roughly 211 sq miles which is give or take the size of Chicago. Would your next assumption be , "wow NYC almost fits snugly within the City of Chicago"?

[klamedia]

Looking over some census tables and how MSA's and CSA's are tabulated.

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA MSA 12,874,797
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA MSA 19,069,796

When we include CSA's we get:

Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA CSA 17,786,419 covering an area of 4,850 sq. mi.

New York-Newark-Bridgeport, NY-NJ-CT-PA CSA 22,232,494
4 different states are included covering an area of 11,842 sq mi and a density of 2,838/sq. mi.

[Westsidelife]

^ The MSA, not the CSA, is 4,850 square miles.

[milquetoast]

.

.

(Got to be careful! I was taking for granted that Google was displaying

everything at the same scale when zooming up. However, I had to pull

out a ruler and measure the 10 mile scale with it. Tokyo and Los Angeles

both had 10 miles equal to 5/8ths of an inch, where Chicago has it at 6/8ths

of an inch on my screen. Therefore, Chicago is smaller than

displayed by a factor of 1/10th. New York is smaller by a tenth too!

Wonder why that is ..... )

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Um.....those 5 boroughs make up the 309 sq mile city of NY. San Fernando Valley as a whole (even the non-City of LA parts) totals 260 sq miles. 50 sq miles is quite significant and nowhere near being "snug". Further are we talking the significance of NYC fitting inside a section of the City of Los Angeles or just NYC fitting anywhere? Wow, NYC can fit inside of the Mojave Desert 80 times. Counting only the City Of LA portion of the SF Valley we get roughly 211 sq miles which is give or take the size of Chicago. Would your next assumption be , "wow NYC almost fits snugly within the City of Chicago"?

I'm well aware of the numbers, what part of "almost" didn't you understand? Plus by me saying the San Fernando Valley I didn't refer to the part of the valley that's within the LA city limits but rather the whole geographical valley.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Westsidelife

^ The MSA, not the CSA, is 4,850 square miles.

I researched that over and over again. If you include the reported 33,000 sq miles that would include the reported CSA you are also including parts of Death Valley and the Mojave Desert. No one lives there and they only include that land area because of the huge size of both SB and Riverside counties. In contrast the NYC CSA crosses state boundaries with no regard to lines drawn on a map. I felt it would be misleading to report 33,000 sq miles where sizable parts are non-inhabitable by humans. This is what I found interesting about the MSA's and CSA's of LA and NY by comparison.

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by Kenni

I'm well aware of the numbers, what part of "almost" didn't you understand? Plus by me saying the San Fernando Valley I didn't refer to the part of the valley that's within the LA city limits but rather the whole geographical valley.

Why in the world would you refer to the entire geographical area when you were specifically talking about city boundaries???? You mentioned the 5 boroughs which means that you were referring to NYC. So what you are saying is that you were referring to NYC while NOT referring to the City Of Los Angeles which is like comparing testicles to mushrooms.
Strange at best.
And as I stated previously a difference of 50 square miles is not "almost". You couldn't fit NYC inside of the San Fernando Valley(City Of LA portion) if you stroked its hair and told it "I could get it in if you'd just take a deep breath and relax".

[milquetoast]

It's measured in that respect (CSA, Agglomeration, etc.) by the county boundaries.

Personally I would include San Diego because it will eventually be difficult to ignore our relationship with them as it is already recognized that Newark has it's relationship with New York.

40 Years ago it was known to be that way and "The Greater Los Angeles Area" included San Diego as New York includes Newark. We would have been the largest by now.

Those 5 counties intersect the Los Angeles Urbananized Area the way the "Tri State" configuration does New York, so it's actually more impressive that we accomplish our population standing while remaining true to the dense, cohesive nature of cities in general, without counting people in other states.

.

One thing I've learned is that I can't use satellite images to illustrate the size of urban metropolitan areas anymore because most cities are, actually, not as contiguous as we are!

We are, from space, an unbroken mass in a large alluvial plain. As if every square mile of that plain has been populated.

Even Tokyo, who seems to have an alluvial area more than twice the size of ours, doesn't have urban build-up like we do. Their urbanized core from the coast seems loosely splattered into their interior valleys, including vast tracts of farmland mixed in. Still, the largest damn thing I've ever seen!

.

However, I haven't seen any farmland in Los Angeles like I do in western Chicagoland or swampland like I do in New Jersey.

We get knocked all the time for having less park acreage per capita than anywhere else yet we also get knocked for "sprawl". The Los Angeles metro, from space, seems less sprawling than any of the big three in America, and certainly more dense than loosely defined Atlanta and Houston.

.

As for cities like Seoul and Hong Kong? From space, I found it difficult to define any realistic boundaries for comparison.

London was a special kind of urban mess with virtually no plan that I could make out, but had a more defineable boundary at least.

.