Is Los Angeles small? - Page 5

112597Jorge · May 25th, 2012, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ..polkator..

A few days ago, I calculate the area of Los Angeles using this site: http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm

This is the map

The area was 5820 km2 or 2247 square miles.

Pretty huge.

its larger than that you forgot to include ventura and oxnard, also temecula, murrieta, and san jacinto deeper in the moreno valley

klamedia · May 26th, 2012, 01:09 AM

Isn't the New York City metropolitan area even larger?

112597Jorge · May 26th, 2012, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by klamedia

Isn't the New York City metropolitan area even larger?

No, its one thing to have a larger population which is New York, and its another thing to have the largest size in area which is Los Angeles.

..polkator.. · May 26th, 2012, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

No, its one thing to have a larger population which is New York, and its another thing to have the largest size in area which is Los Angeles.

New York is far bigger than LA.

112597Jorge · May 26th, 2012, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ..polkator..

New York is far bigger than LA.

you dont know what you are talking about, even the city of LA is larger than New York

..polkator.. · May 26th, 2012, 07:29 PM

LA is far denser than New York, so its obvious NY is bigger.

This area is almost the double of LA

Its not exact but I think its even bigger.

honest86 · May 26th, 2012, 07:48 PM

I am not sure what you mean by LA being denser than NY, when in almost every statistical way possible NY is much denser and more developed than LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

losangelino · May 26th, 2012, 09:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honest86

I am not sure what you mean by LA being denser than NY, when in almost every statistical way possible NY is much denser and more developed than LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

Only Manhattan. LA beats in the density arena when we speak of the "entire" city and not just one section as in the case of NYC. Manhattan isn't NYC.

..polkator.. · May 26th, 2012, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by honest86

I am not sure what you mean by LA being denser than NY, when in almost every statistical way possible NY is much denser and more developed than LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

I talk about NY as a metro, not as Manhattan or the 5 boroughs.

This is how most of LA looks

A wealthier part

While a third of NY look like this

Other third like this

And the suburbs or wealthier areas like this

So, if LA is denser than NY and NY is more populated its obvious that is far bigger NY. So yeah, I know what i am talking about

***LosAngelesSportsFan*** · May 26th, 2012, 09:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

you dont know what you are talking about, even the city of LA is larger than New York

Physical size = The NYC Metro area is far far larger than LA. the City of LA is bigger than NYC.

Population = NYC has a larger city population than LA (8.2 - 3.8 million). NYC metro has a slightly larger pop (22 - 18.5 million)

112597Jorge · May 26th, 2012, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ..polkator..

LA is far denser than New York, so its obvious NY is bigger.

This area is almost the double of LA

Its not exact but I think its even bigger.

which web site do you go to do that shading to show you the real size of LA Area.

112597Jorge · May 26th, 2012, 09:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ..polkator..

I talk about NY as a metro, not as Manhattan or the 5 boroughs.

This is how most of LA looks

A wealthier part

While a third of NY look like this

Other third like this

And the suburbs or wealthier areas like this

So, if LA is denser than NY and NY is more populated its obvious that is far bigger NY. So yeah, I know what i am talking about

LA, and Orange Counties are the ones that are denser than New York (los Angeles metropolitan Area), but including the Inland Empire, and Ventura its a diffrent story.

..polkator.. · May 26th, 2012, 10:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

which web site do you go to do that shading to show you the real size of LA Area.

http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm

klamedia · May 27th, 2012, 10:03 AM

Everyone should know these two things by this point if they are commenting on the LA forum:
The New York City metro area is far larger and more sprawling than the LA metro.
The LA metro/urbanized area is the densest in the country.

milquetoast · May 28th, 2012, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

which web site do you go to do that shading to show you the real size of LA Area.

The boundaries of the Los Angeles metropolitan are actually
very precise, and have definite, albeit unofficial borders.

Mostly because of our geography, with the mountains to our
North and the unforgiving desert to our East, it's very clear.
(No, Los Angeles was never a true desert. I live in one now.)

When compiling the data for our parameters, they take into
account politics mostly, but it's different here in the West.

You have the 5 County urban area with mostly square miles
of desert, and no one recognizes that almost all of the
population is situated in the coastal areas of those counties.
The "Los Angeles" area of those counties.

Then you have the alternating patterns of automobiles,
trains and such, which New York uses as an excuse to count all
the land from other states, giving the impression, false as it is,
that New York is a daily or constant destination for the
people in the states of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Connecticut
and so on.

If this were applied consistantly, then why isn't San Diego, well
within the state and area, counted as part of the metropolitan,
or at the very least the consolidated area, of Los Angeles?

Politics. And this means money.

The fact is, the Los Angeles area has more people in its relatively
confined area than New York does in its artificially bloated one.
This is the only way they maintain a sort of dominance, even though
they hold no primate distinction. Not over us anyway. They get the
numbers and hold onto the name, which is all they ever wanted.
Plus, they get the money needed in a larger area from Washington.

When I first started studying population counts of various cities,
Los Angeles was the largest "metro" area in 1996 with 9.2 million.
New York was second with the various states added in at 8.7 million.

I actually laughed at this because I knew it would change soon.

It didn't take long! (lol)

This is government apportionment policy and means nothing.

Elsongs · May 30th, 2012, 12:30 AM

What defines a metropolitan area, exactly?

I would say it has a lot to do with broadcast media reach. If your TV/radio stations pick up Los Angeles stations, you're part of the LA Metro area. If you have your own (i.e. San Diego has its own TV/radio market), then it's not part.

***LosAngelesSportsFan*** · May 30th, 2012, 01:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elsongs

What defines a metropolitan area, exactly?

I would say it has a lot to do with broadcast media reach. If your TV/radio stations pick up Los Angeles stations, you're part of the LA Metro area. If you have your own (i.e. San Diego has its own TV/radio market), then it's not part.

agreed. thats pretty much how ive looked at it for all my life as well

KayneMo · May 30th, 2012, 01:51 AM

If we're going strictly by how big the actual urban area is, then the LA urban area is 1,736 square miles big. Houston's urban area is 1,660 square miles. However, LA's urban area has a density of 7,000/sq mi, while Houston's urban area has a density of 2,980/sq mi.

I think measuring by the actual urban area is more efficient because the MSA or CSA can be a bit misleading. For example, Oklahoma City's metro area is 6,360 square miles. OKC's urban area, though, covers only 411 square miles with a density of 2,100/sq mi.

This is according to the 2010 Census.

BTW, New York City's urban area is 3,450 square miles with a density of 5,320/sq mi.

milquetoast · May 30th, 2012, 10:10 AM

"Urban" is an even more non-descript classification.
I wouldn't classify the sparse little bedroom communities
that exist throughout those 3450 square miles as "urban".

And the term Bos-Wash makes me embarrassed.

pesto · May 30th, 2012, 05:57 PM

Agree that the definition of NY (and other metro areas) is artificial and politically motivated. But, I'm not sure about using media to define the area; I can pick up Fresno on the other side of Bako and well into the Sactown suburbs. I can pick up SD in LA.

Really large metros are really collections of relatively independent 'hoods. A more useful exercise is to segment areas within metros by density. This then shows you what is actually happening: NY has a very dense area, mostly Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn; then LA has a large area denser than most of the rest of NY (this is a simplification).

Much of this "fairly dense" area in LA is effectively suburb, due to dependance on cars rather than walking. But each of these areas can be individually judged by how well they support an urban lifestyle, without worrying about other 'hoods that you visit only rarely, if ever. If you live in Greenwich Village you don't care about the walkability of the Jersey or LI suburbs and ditto for Ktown and Ontario.

May 26th, 2012, 01:09 AM	#82
klamedia Silver Lake Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 5,010 Likes (Received): 16	Isn't the New York City metropolitan area even larger? __________________ "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

May 27th, 2012, 10:03 AM	#94
klamedia Silver Lake Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Lost Angeles Posts: 5,010 Likes (Received): 16	Everyone should know these two things by this point if they are commenting on the LA forum: The New York City metro area is far larger and more sprawling than the LA metro. The LA metro/urbanized area is the densest in the country. __________________ "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

May 30th, 2012, 12:30 AM	#96
Elsongs "There It Is, Take It!" Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: City of Angels Posts: 1,001 Likes (Received): 0	What defines a metropolitan area, exactly? I would say it has a lot to do with broadcast media reach. If your TV/radio stations pick up Los Angeles stations, you're part of the LA Metro area. If you have your own (i.e. San Diego has its own TV/radio market), then it's not part. __________________ *"I prefer The Road Less Traveled -- There's less traffic there."*

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

May 26th, 2012, 07:29 PM	#86
..polkator.. Hecho En México. Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Monterrey ;) Posts: 4,617 Likes (Received): 235	LA is far denser than New York, so its obvious NY is bigger. This area is almost the double of LA Its not exact but I think its even bigger.

May 26th, 2012, 07:48 PM	#87
honest86 Registered User Join Date: Feb 2006 Location: New York City Posts: 413 Likes (Received): 2	I am not sure what you mean by LA being denser than NY, when in almost every statistical way possible NY is much denser and more developed than LA. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...lation_density

May 30th, 2012, 01:51 AM	#98
KayneMo Registered User Join Date: Oct 2011 Location: Oklahoma City/Norman Posts: 27 Likes (Received): 0	If we're going strictly by how big the actual urban area is, then the LA urban area is 1,736 square miles big. Houston's urban area is 1,660 square miles. However, LA's urban area has a density of 7,000/sq mi, while Houston's urban area has a density of 2,980/sq mi. I think measuring by the actual urban area is more efficient because the MSA or CSA can be a bit misleading. For example, Oklahoma City's metro area is 6,360 square miles. OKC's urban area, though, covers only 411 square miles with a density of 2,100/sq mi. This is according to the 2010 Census. BTW, New York City's urban area is 3,450 square miles with a density of 5,320/sq mi.

May 30th, 2012, 10:10 AM	#99
milquetoast L O S A N G E L E S Join Date: Jul 2007 Location: Henderson NV Posts: 5,288 Likes (Received): 24	"Urban" is an even more non-descript classification. I wouldn't classify the sparse little bedroom communities that exist throughout those 3450 square miles as "urban". And the term Bos-Wash makes me embarrassed.

May 30th, 2012, 05:57 PM	#100
pesto Registered User Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 3,148 Likes (Received): 26	Agree that the definition of NY (and other metro areas) is artificial and politically motivated. But, I'm not sure about using media to define the area; I can pick up Fresno on the other side of Bako and well into the Sactown suburbs. I can pick up SD in LA. Really large metros are really collections of relatively independent 'hoods. A more useful exercise is to segment areas within metros by density. This then shows you what is actually happening: NY has a very dense area, mostly Manhattan and parts of Brooklyn; then LA has a large area denser than most of the rest of NY (this is a simplification). Much of this "fairly dense" area in LA is effectively suburb, due to dependance on cars rather than walking. But each of these areas can be individually judged by how well they support an urban lifestyle, without worrying about other 'hoods that you visit only rarely, if ever. If you live in Greenwich Village you don't care about the walkability of the Jersey or LI suburbs and ditto for Ktown and Ontario.