Is Los Angeles small?

Thundergod · June 28th, 2011, 11:29 AM

I was on Wikipedia and I found the arial dimension of Los Angeles with ca. 498 mi². Then I looked for comparison only at Houston's dimensions and I was shocked. Houston (ca. 602 mi²) is bigger than Los Angeles in the area?
How is it possible?
I thought Los Angeles is a great city in the area.

Sorry for my bad english

milquetoast · June 28th, 2011, 12:14 PM

DinoVabec · June 28th, 2011, 12:48 PM

Thundergod · June 28th, 2011, 02:06 PM

That's the area not the single city

DinoVabec · June 28th, 2011, 02:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundergod

I was on Wikipedia and I found the arial dimension of Los Angeles with ca. 498 mi². Then I looked for comparison only at Houston's dimensions and I was shocked. Houston (ca. 602 mi²) is bigger than Los Angeles in the area?
How is it possible?
I thought Los Angeles is a great city in the area.

Sorry for my bad english

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundergod

That's the area not the single city

pesto · June 28th, 2011, 05:18 PM

To be a little less cryptic: yes, LA is a very large city in area. Houston is also very large. This tends to be true of southern and western cities.

In any event, LA City is only a small part of the LA metro area, which includes many large and small cities, with mountains, deserts and valleys interspersed.

klamedia · June 28th, 2011, 06:15 PM

The city of LA is not that big. Actually the land area is only 469 sq miles, I've been preaching this since I've been on SSC. By comparison, Chicago is 4 times the size of San Francisco and NYC is 6 times the size! NYC is roughly 50% larger in area than Chicago and LA is roughly 50% larger than NYC in land area. Greater London is roughly 50% larger than LA in land area as well. In fact compared to its municipal colleagues of the East, NYC is a sprawling mess, similar to what is said about LA. While NYC is 302 sq miles you could imagine what Boston, Baltimore and DC thought which are all under 100 sq miles. Only Phili peaks above that with around 130 sq miles.
So in actuality LA is a medium sized city by modern standards. Greater London clocks in at around 700 sq miles!

The stupidity of Angelenos enters the room when they begin to refer to the entire metro area as LA the city. Burbank becomes LA. Pasadena becomes LA. Long Beach becomes LA. This skews boundaries and makes it seem as if distances are much greater than what they are. In fact most people living in LA don't have a clue what is LA and what is not. From experience folks in Reseda and Van Nuys think that they are living in their own incorporated cities. Perhaps it's not a big deal but I think it's really sad.

milquetoast · June 29th, 2011, 09:02 AM

By that measure Jacksonville Florida is larger than Greater London Klams

.

The point is that this means little.

klamedia · June 29th, 2011, 06:49 PM

I don't know what exactly you are having a problem with "milq".

pesto · June 30th, 2011, 07:23 PM

I do have to admit that many in the LA metro are confused about where exactly they live and that his is kind of sad. But I have had even very long term residents of NY tell me that "New York" is only Manhattan and that Queens is a different city. This is partly ignorance and partly wish-fulfillment, I suppose.

Not so much in SF and other physically compact cities, where the dividing lines tend to be better understood.

***Kenny*** · July 1st, 2011, 01:23 AM

Are these numbers right?

HOUSTON
Area
- City 601.3 sq mi (1,558 km2)
- Land 579.4 sq mi (1,501 km2)
- Water 22.3 sq mi (57.7 km2)

LOS ANGELES
Area
- City 502.693 sq mi (1,301.970 km2)
- Land 468.670 sq mi (1,213.850 km2)
- Water 34.023 sq mi (88.119 km2) 6.77%

CHICAGO
Area
- City 234.0 sq mi (606.1 km2)
- Land 227.2 sq mi (588.4 km2)
- Water 6.9 sq mi (17.9 km2) 3.0%

New York City
Area
- City 468.9 sq mi (1,214.4 km2)
- Land 304.8 sq mi (789.4 km2)
- Water 165.6 sq mi (428.8 km2)

San Francisco
Area[9]
- City and county 231.889 sq mi (600.590 km2)
- Land 46.873 sq mi (121.400 km2)
- Water 185.016 sq mi (479.19 km2) 79.79%

Houston is not that much bigger than LA.

klamedia · July 1st, 2011, 04:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kenni

Are these numbers right?

HOUSTON
Area
- City 601.3 sq mi (1,558 km2)
- Land 579.4 sq mi (1,501 km2)
- Water 22.3 sq mi (57.7 km2)

LOS ANGELES
Area
- City 502.693 sq mi (1,301.970 km2)
- Land 468.670 sq mi (1,213.850 km2)
- Water 34.023 sq mi (88.119 km2) 6.77%

CHICAGO
Area
- City 234.0 sq mi (606.1 km2)
- Land 227.2 sq mi (588.4 km2)
- Water 6.9 sq mi (17.9 km2) 3.0%

New York City
Area
- City 468.9 sq mi (1,214.4 km2)
- Land 304.8 sq mi (789.4 km2)
- Water 165.6 sq mi (428.8 km2)

San Francisco
Area[9]
- City and county 231.889 sq mi (600.590 km2)
- Land 46.873 sq mi (121.400 km2)
- Water 185.016 sq mi (479.19 km2) 79.79%

Houston is not that much bigger than LA.

Houston is 25% larger than LA.

***desertpunk*** · July 1st, 2011, 06:14 AM

Los Angeles (469 sq. mi.) is much smaller than Anchorage (1,697 sq. mi.). Poor little Los Angeles.

.

tanzirian · July 1st, 2011, 06:26 AM

Unless I am mistaken, those numbers are just municipal figures. Utterly meaningless in case of LA where only 1/6 of the urban population lives in LA municipality.

Houston may be spread out but it's not that dense - lots of trees and homes on big lots. Any airplane ride above these cities...and I have flown over both...especially at night...makes it rather obvious that greater LA is more massive.

If we're ranking cities by land within municipal boundaries, however, then I believe the champion is Juneau, Alaska.

losangelino · July 1st, 2011, 07:44 AM

To even compare the two seems silly. There is no comparison. There are only a few megacities on the planet and LA is one of them. Houston is not.

Thundergod · July 1st, 2011, 10:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by desertpunk

Los Angeles (469 sq. mi.) is much smaller than Anchorage (1,697 sq. mi.). Poor little Los Angeles.
.

What

***desertpunk*** · July 1st, 2011, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thundergod

What

Just a snide remark about physical size.

klamedia · July 1st, 2011, 06:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanzirian

Unless I am mistaken, those numbers are just municipal figures. Utterly meaningless in case of LA where only 1/6 of the urban population lives in LA municipality.

Houston may be spread out but it's not that dense - lots of trees and homes on big lots. Any airplane ride above these cities...and I have flown over both...especially at night...makes it rather obvious that greater LA is more massive.

If we're ranking cities by land within municipal boundaries, however, then I believe the champion is Juneau, Alaska.

Again. You can't compare LA's urban area to other places municipal boundaries which is what I think you are hinting at. I'm not sure what #'s you are using but the Urban Area has about 12 million people while the city alone has 4 million. Isn't that like 1/3? Pardon my math. If you were using the CSA #'s then yeah 18 mil out of 4 mil is closer to 1/6. But then you would have to do that for every other city vs CSA. NYC- 22 mil vs 8 mil in the city. Not that much difference than LA. And then SF. 800,000 vs 7.4 mil. Is that 1/8?

***Kenny*** · July 1st, 2011, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tanzirian

Unless I am mistaken, those numbers are just municipal figures. Utterly meaningless in case of LA where only 1/6 of the urban population lives in LA municipality.

Houston may be spread out but it's not that dense - lots of trees and homes on big lots. Any airplane ride above these cities...and I have flown over both...especially at night...makes it rather obvious that greater LA is more massive.

If we're ranking cities by land within municipal boundaries, however, then I believe the champion is Juneau, Alaska.

Yup, now we're talking about two completely different things. Both good topics.

lkiller123 · July 2nd, 2011, 12:34 AM

In comparison, the LA Metro Area (the place where most Angeleno refers to as LA) is 4850.3 sq. mi, extremely massive.

June 28th, 2011, 11:29 AM	#1
Thundergod Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Uelzen/Germany Posts: 168 Likes (Received): 0	Is Los Angeles small? I was on Wikipedia and I found the arial dimension of Los Angeles with ca. 498 mi². Then I looked for comparison only at Houston's dimensions and I was shocked. Houston (ca. 602 mi²) is bigger than Los Angeles in the area? How is it possible? I thought Los Angeles is a great city in the area. Sorry for my bad english __________________ ---- USA play Madonna's music again! ----

June 28th, 2011, 12:48 PM	#3
DinoVabec Worldwide Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: In the clouds Posts: 5,783 Likes (Received): 94	__________________ Visit world of architecture on Facebook, Twitter, Google+, Pinterest New York - Miami - Chicago - Las Vegas - San Francisco - Los Angeles There are two rules for success: 1. Never tell everything you know. -Roger H. Lincoln

June 28th, 2011, 02:06 PM	#4
Thundergod Registered User Join Date: Mar 2010 Location: Uelzen/Germany Posts: 168 Likes (Received): 0	That's the area not the single city __________________ ---- USA play Madonna's music again! ----

June 28th, 2011, 06:15 PM	#7
klamedia Silver Lake Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 5,010 Likes (Received): 16	The city of LA is not that big. Actually the land area is only 469 sq miles, I've been preaching this since I've been on SSC. By comparison, Chicago is 4 times the size of San Francisco and NYC is 6 times the size! NYC is roughly 50% larger in area than Chicago and LA is roughly 50% larger than NYC in land area. Greater London is roughly 50% larger than LA in land area as well. In fact compared to its municipal colleagues of the East, NYC is a sprawling mess, similar to what is said about LA. While NYC is 302 sq miles you could imagine what Boston, Baltimore and DC thought which are all under 100 sq miles. Only Phili peaks above that with around 130 sq miles. So in actuality LA is a medium sized city by modern standards. Greater London clocks in at around 700 sq miles! The stupidity of Angelenos enters the room when they begin to refer to the entire metro area as LA the city. Burbank becomes LA. Pasadena becomes LA. Long Beach becomes LA. This skews boundaries and makes it seem as if distances are much greater than what they are. In fact most people living in LA don't have a clue what is LA and what is not. From experience folks in Reseda and Van Nuys think that they are living in their own incorporated cities. Perhaps it's not a big deal but I think it's really sad. __________________ "Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X "I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup Last edited by klamedia; July 1st, 2011 at 04:44 AM.

June 29th, 2011, 06:49 PM	#9
klamedia Silver Lake Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 5,010 Likes (Received): 16	I don't know what exactly you are having a problem with "milq". __________________ "Self defense is not violence" - Malcolm X "I love Los Angeles. I love Hollywood. They're so beautiful. Everything's plastic, but I love plastic. I want to be plastic." - Andy Warhol Minimum parking standards are fertility drugs for cars. - Donald Shoup

June 28th, 2011, 12:14 PM	#2
milquetoast L O S A N G E L E S Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Henderson NV Posts: 5,288 Likes (Received): 24

June 28th, 2011, 05:18 PM	#6
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,148 Likes (Received): 26	To be a little less cryptic: yes, LA is a very large city in area. Houston is also very large. This tends to be true of southern and western cities. In any event, LA City is only a small part of the LA metro area, which includes many large and small cities, with mountains, deserts and valleys interspersed.

June 29th, 2011, 09:02 AM	#8
milquetoast L O S A N G E L E S Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Henderson NV Posts: 5,288 Likes (Received): 24	By that measure Jacksonville Florida is larger than Greater London Klams . The point is that this means little.

June 30th, 2011, 07:23 PM	#10
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,148 Likes (Received): 26	I do have to admit that many in the LA metro are confused about where exactly they live and that his is kind of sad. But I have had even very long term residents of NY tell me that "New York" is only Manhattan and that Queens is a different city. This is partly ignorance and partly wish-fulfillment, I suppose. Not so much in SF and other physically compact cities, where the dividing lines tend to be better understood.

July 1st, 2011, 01:23 AM	#11
*Kenny* SSC Super Moderator Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Los Angeles \| San Salvador Posts: 18,184 Likes (Received): 471	Are these numbers right? HOUSTON Area - City 601.3 sq mi (1,558 km2) - Land 579.4 sq mi (1,501 km2) - Water 22.3 sq mi (57.7 km2) LOS ANGELES Area - City 502.693 sq mi (1,301.970 km2) - Land 468.670 sq mi (1,213.850 km2) - Water 34.023 sq mi (88.119 km2) 6.77% CHICAGO Area - City 234.0 sq mi (606.1 km2) - Land 227.2 sq mi (588.4 km2) - Water 6.9 sq mi (17.9 km2) 3.0% New York City Area - City 468.9 sq mi (1,214.4 km2) - Land 304.8 sq mi (789.4 km2) - Water 165.6 sq mi (428.8 km2) San Francisco Area[9] - City and county 231.889 sq mi (600.590 km2) - Land 46.873 sq mi (121.400 km2) - Water 185.016 sq mi (479.19 km2) 79.79% Houston is not that much bigger than LA.

July 1st, 2011, 06:14 AM	#13
*desertpunk* Whiskey Tango Foxtrot Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: ELP ~ ABQ Posts: 29,633 Likes (Received): 1360	Los Angeles (469 sq. mi.) is much smaller than Anchorage (1,697 sq. mi.). Poor little Los Angeles. . __________________ We are floating in space...

July 1st, 2011, 06:26 AM	#14
tanzirian Registered User Join Date: Jul 2005 Posts: 5,313 Likes (Received): 14	Unless I am mistaken, those numbers are just municipal figures. Utterly meaningless in case of LA where only 1/6 of the urban population lives in LA municipality. Houston may be spread out but it's not that dense - lots of trees and homes on big lots. Any airplane ride above these cities...and I have flown over both...especially at night...makes it rather obvious that greater LA is more massive. If we're ranking cities by land within municipal boundaries, however, then I believe the champion is Juneau, Alaska.

July 1st, 2011, 07:44 AM	#15
losangelino Registered User Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 342 Likes (Received): 0	To even compare the two seems silly. There is no comparison. There are only a few megacities on the planet and LA is one of them. Houston is not.

July 2nd, 2011, 12:34 AM	#20
lkiller123 oh yeah Join Date: Nov 2010 Location: Hong Kong/Los Angeles Posts: 854 Likes (Received): 10	In comparison, the LA Metro Area (the place where most Angeleno refers to as LA) is 4850.3 sq. mi, extremely massive. __________________ flickr

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode