Is Los Angeles small?

[milquetoast]

Thundergod, you were wrong. L. A. is not a great city in the area.

[redbaron_012]

Relative to the Universe I guess but other wise what are you thinking ?

[Goran_II]

Originally Posted by redbaron_012

Relative to the Universe I guess but other wise what are you thinking ?

LOL Fancy seeing u here in an LA forum. Shh better not let invincible know im back otherwise im history yet again...

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by lkiller123

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

More assumptions. Who is "most"? I guess because "most" NY'ers consider Manhattan NYC (and tourists alike) by referencing it as "the city" and the rest as "outer boroughs" then NY is really only 3 1/2 by 13 miles and is completely surrounded by water. Fuck assumptions. People are stupid. Most people in the Valley think that Van Nuys is a city so I guess Van Nuys is a city.

[invincible]

Originally Posted by Goran_II

LOL Fancy seeing u here in an LA forum. Shh better not let invincible know im back otherwise im history yet again...

Gotta try harder than that, manila_playa87.

[NorthWesternGuy]

Los Angeles is not a small city. Houston is the ridiculously huge one, period.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by NorthWesternGuy

Los Angeles is not a small city. Houston is the ridiculously huge one, period.

Houston is a lot of space. In that sense then someone mentioned Anchorage. If you want to focus on boundaries alone.

Huge one in what sense?

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by klamedia

.. then NY is really only 3 1/2 by 13 miles and is completely surrounded by water.

Actually 2 by 12 1/4, or the size of Palos Verdes Peninsula.

.

See, this is why I don't like this header of Los Angeles being small.

We comment on it and it shows up on the SSC list for everyone to see. Then you have some guy come in and try to suggest that Houston is ridiculous in its size.

"Is Los Angeles small?" I so laugh!

[anak_mm]

i think some cities that are surrounded by LA ..could easily just have been part of the city of LA
LA(light orange) has a weird shape with holes


Houston is a bigger city politically

although the LA Metro Area is 4,850.3 sq. mi. .. & Greater LA is 33,954 sq mi (about 4x the size of the state of NJ)

i've met a lot people who thinks beverly hills, west hollywood or sometimes even disneyland are in the city of LA

[klamedia]

Originally Posted by NorthWesternGuy

Los Angeles is not a small city. Houston is the ridiculously huge one, period.

I would say that Chicago, NYC and LA are all mid-sized cities ranging from 212 sq miles to 469 sq miles. SF, Boston, DC, Philly and Baltimore represent small cities with SF being VERY small for its population. Houston could be somewhere in the large-midsized cities while Jacksonville and Anchorage are clearly in the very large cities.
The problem with just looking at municipal boundaries is that you don't get a sense of how much within the city boundary is functional for living. For instance most of NYC's 302 sq miles is used and used very well I might add. Though there are large swaths of LA's 469 sq miles that are taken up by mountains that bisect the city, a long thin strip of freeway to strategically claim the LA Port and then the massive port itself which is part of the municipal sq miles.
So LA is neither small nor is it large.

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by anak_mm

i think some cities that are surrounded by LA ..could easily just have been part of the city of LA
LA(light orange) has a weird shape with holes


Houston is a bigger city politically

although the LA Metro Area is 4,850.3 sq. mi. .. & Greater LA is 33,954 sq mi (about 4x the size of the state of NJ)

i've met a lot people who thinks beverly hills, west hollywood or sometimes even disneyland are in the city of LA

We've discussed this before, that's an acceptable generalization when telling someone where you're from. Can you imagine me trying to explain to someone in Hartford CT where Downey California is? once I say LA, their eyes widen., "Ah! ok".

In regards to all those cities around LA, I'd incorporate them all to LA; not the big successful ones though. The tiny ones are just wasting $$ in local salaries. Just my opinion.

[klamedia]

Couldn't you just say "Downey, a suburb of LA?"

[croyboy]

or you could say "LA" and be done with it, cuz that's all that's gonna matter from that conversation if your introducing yourself to someone from somewhere that's not here.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by anak_mm

Houston is a bigger city politically

..and NOW I can also add that Houston is bigger politically!

[Kenny]

Originally Posted by croyboy

or you could say "LA" and be done with it, cuz that's all that's gonna matter from that conversation if your introducing yourself to someone from somewhere that's not here.

That was my point. Klams likes to fight with me.

[croyboy]

all i'm saying is that unless you're at the 'little suburbs of major cities convention', it's a very unlikely chance that other people need to know you're from downey or pomona or glendale etc.. almost noone is gonna know what you're talking about or even care. it will probably just annoy them. same goes for when i hear a non-local introduce themselves to me:

me: where you from?
friend: ewing.
me: (?!)
friend: it's near trenton, new jersey
me: (f***in' assh***)... oh! ok... what were we talking about before all that bull****?

[losangelino]

Not to mention, most of these "cities" in and around greater LA utilize the same radio and TV stations, mass transit, etc. To pretend that these places are somehow separate from the whole when we are intermingling all day long in every possible way seems strange. I am in agreement with the person who says we should simply absorb all of it and be done with it. The people cannot afford these places, the Bells, etc. who pretend to be self sufficient but place a major toll on the infrastructure yet waste money with these extra police chiefs and politicians.

[anak_mm]

& just look at LA Angels.....of Anaheim

[Paddington]

Houston and Phoenix are very big in land area. Oklahoma City and Jacksonville are also huge in size, bigger than most American "big cities".

In Ohio Columbus, Cincinnati, and Cleveland are all now similar in size metro wise (2 million each). But Columbus proper is 200+ square miles compared to Cincinnati and Cleveland which are about 80 each. Columbus also seems to be growing since it has undeveloped suburban lands which are turned into developments (to offset any potential losses in the urban core). Hence, Columbus looks a lot better on paper in terms of income, demographics, economics, etc. because it includes a lot of prosperous suburban settlements. Much of Cleveland and Cincinnati are old ghettos (which Columbus also has plenty of, but which gets diluted out in the statistics).

[anak_mm]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...cities_by_area

minus the ones with the asterisks(city-counties) LA would be 4th