Is Los Angeles small?

[klamedia]

Agree with Pest. I don't think that TV signals should be the way to determine whether or not you're in a metro area. And as Milq said there does seem to be some shenanigans going on regarding the NYC and LA metro areas but I can't prove it.

[pesto]

Of course, it can't be proved, since it isn't something you would document. But if you were in NY at the time, it was quite a shock among people interested in social and urban issues to see the article that called LA larger than NY. There was outrage, disbelief, calls for changing NY's borders, etc.

The first line was to argue that SD was not part of LA. But when it was realized that this would only give NY a few years deferral, the NY metro was expanded (in two stages, I believe) to extend way out LI, all over Jersey and Conn, and into Pennsylvania.

Now the talk is that Philly is part of NY, so I suspect that new extensions are in the works.

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by KayneMo

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.

dont forget to include the Inland Empire and the Ventura/Oxnard which is also the Greater LA Area.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by pesto

Now the talk is that Philly is part of NY, so I suspect that new extensions are in the works.

Yeah, the other stuff is FCC related market stuff.
Uh, pest? What is this talk you ......... speak of?

[Middle-Island]

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

Not many others in this section obviously can read a chart..Oh well.

Interesting how overviews of Long Island's Gold coast 25 miles east of Manhattan are used as evidence NY is less dense vs. shots of DT Los Angeles and Hollywood.

Northern New Jersey is the densest part of the suburban metro, actually, and those localities are immediately west of the Hudson. A close component of the NY density, and certainly not determined by "TV signals". NJ also the densest state in the nation.

[milquetoast]

Long Island's "Gold Coast"! - Good one! (lol)

(See what happens when you reference New York continually? You get cancer.)

[Middle-Island]

I see your brain tumor has been in remission -not-

[milquetoast]

I see your pee pee hasn't responded to treatment.

[CITYofDREAMS]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

Not many others in this section obviously can read a chart..Oh well.

Interesting how overviews of Long Island's Gold coast 25 miles east of Manhattan are used as evidence NY is less dense vs. shots of DT Los Angeles and Hollywood.

Northern New Jersey is the densest part of the suburban metro, actually, and those localities are immediately west of the Hudson. A close component of the NY density, and certainly not determined by "TV signals". NJ also the densest state in the nation.

What about reading SOME facts? Here is one from US Census bureau...

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MONDAY, MARCH 26, 2012

Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports

The nation's urban population increased by 12.1 percent from 2000 to 2010, outpacing the nation's overall growth rate of 9.7 percent for the same period, according to the U.S. Census Bureau. The Census Bureau released the new list of urban areas today based on 2010 Census results.

Urban areas — defined as densely developed residential, commercial and other nonresidential areas -- now account for 80.7 percent of the U.S. population, up from 79.0 percent in 2000. Although the rural population -- the population in any areas outside of those classified as “urban” — grew by a modest amount from 2000 to 2010, it continued to decline as a percentage of the national population.

The Census Bureau identifies two types of urban areas: “urbanized areas” of 50,000 or more people and “urban clusters” of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people. There are 486 urbanized areas and 3,087 urban clusters nationwide.

The nation's most densely populated urbanized area is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif., with nearly 7,000 people per square mile. The San Francisco-Oakland, Calif., area is the second most densely populated at 6,266 people per square mile, followed by San Jose, Calif. (5,820 people per square mile) and Delano, Calif. (5,483 people per square mile). The New York-Newark, N.J., area is fifth, with an overall density of 5,319 people per square mile. (See sortable lists.)

Of the 10 most densely populated urbanized areas, nine are in the West, with seven of those in California...

http://www.census.gov/newsroom/relea...s/cb12-50.html

[Middle-Island]

^Um....The lead post is about the density of LA proper, isn't it? NY is far more dense with about 150 less square mileage.

The entire NY metro is twice as dense as the LA metro (also in the wikipedia chart). 53k -LA's 23k per square mile.

I've never disputed anything about "LA-Long Beach" statistics.

Now milquetoast can go on babbling about TV signals if he wants to.

Originally Posted by milquetoast

I see your pee pee hasn't responded to treatment.

I think it's enough to say that we've seen your pics.

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

^Um....The lead post is about the density of LA proper, isn't it? NY is far more dense with about 150 less square mileage.

The entire NY metro is twice as dense as the LA metro (also in the wikipedia chart). 53k -LA's 23k per square mile.

I've never disputed anything about "LA-Long Beach" statistics.

Los Angeles to Orange County is the most densely populated area in the US they are refering to, but the Greater Los Angeles Area which includes the Inland Empire and Ventura County is not, we were talking about the LA urbanized Area not including Inland Empire, you were refering to Greater Los Angeles which consists of 5 counties which of that is the largest Metro area in the US.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

Los Angeles to Orange County is the most densely populated area in the US they are refering to, but the Greater Los Angeles Area which includes the Inland Empire and Ventura County is not, we were talking about the LA urbanized Area not including Inland Empire, you were refering to Greater Los Angeles which consists of 5 counties which of that is the largest Metro area in the US.

No one from NYC will ever admit the truth that they have been eclipsed. Have the call Chicago to see how to handle it when they were bumped out of the number two spot. It happens! Get over it people of New York! LA is more massive.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

Now milquetoast can go on babbling about TV signals if he wants to.

Piddle, please! I have you wetting your panties everywhere else.
You don't want to be here, trust me. Just go away.

[Middle-Island]

Brooklyn and Queens alone have a greater population than the city of Los Angeles, with a fraction of the land area. Keep cherry picking, Lost Angelinos...Dense you are--just not in the ways you think.

Originally Posted by milquetoast

Piddle, please! I have you wetting your panties everywhere else.
You don't want to be here, trust me. Just go away.

How's it goin "pee pee" man? Just remember why you were banned from other sections.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

Brooklyn and Queens alone have a greater population than the city of Los Angeles, with a fraction of the land area. Keep cherry picking, Lost Angelinos...Dense you are--just not in the ways you think.



How's it goin "pee pee" man? Just remember why you were banned from other sections.

That is almost as ridiculous (but true) as saying that the county of LA is more populous than Manhattan, or Brooklyn and Queens (combined) but true..

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

How's it goin "pee pee" man? Just remember why you were banned from other sections.

I know you're still smarting from the paltry 6 million who watched your
biggest cultural offering the other night (Tonys) or the fact you have
a little Napoleon telling you how much you can drink or poop (Blooms)
or even having to deal with the smelly heat that has you wishing you
had back that Seattle type rain you've been slogging through the past
4 months, but the fact is Los Angeles doesn't have to be bailed out on
a semi-regular basis because our key industries have failed the nation.
You know, you guys should start to talk about that failure of yours.

Even in our current condition we're still proud of that fact.
(If I were from New York I wouldn't run around mentioning "pee pee".)

And even though I'm still in those areas "Milquetoast" is banned from,
remember, I was to take those threads over.

Which reminds me, from "Milquetoast" through you, Piddle, tell Egypt69

that I told him so about the Muslim Brotherhood - a year ago.

Now, wet your pants and continue to be jealous over our Hockey win

and our real shuttle!

[milquetoast]

Contact me on personal messages so people here don't have
to hear your parents crying over you. Thanks

[Metro007]

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.

Excellent map! A great idea.

Thats the way i see L.A. Because for me the municipality borders doesn't makes sense. When talking about the largest city i would interpret it as being the largest continuous urban area. And what is urban? Urban is for me everything who has been built by human such as airports, highways, houses of course, stadions etc.

There are different interpretations possible because some people will count suburbs where small houses have larger gardens, that means where the area covered by green stuff is larger than the built up area. And I won't count them. For me its a joke that for example Atlanta is supposed to be almost as large as L.A. by official numbers.

So from my point of view, i would only count the continuous urban area, where the green part of the area isn' larger than the urban part.

The result is that for me L.A., Tokyo and NY probably are the largest urban areas of the world.

In NY we have to consider that the urban area isn't that continuous because of the very large rivers and the bay.

I personnaly have never seen a huge one-urban area as big as L.A.

And i am not talking about megalopolises like Bosh-Wash who incldes a lot of non-urban parts.

And the population density has nothing to do with it. We have to talk about the urban density (built up area vs green areas). Only this comparaison would make sense when talking about an urban-area.

[losangelino]

Originally Posted by Metro007

Excellent map! A great idea.

Thats the way i see L.A. Because for me the municipality borders doesn't makes sense. When talking about the largest city i would interpret it as being the largest continuous urban area. And what is urban? Urban is for me everything who has been built by human such as airports, highways, houses of course, stadions etc.

There are different interpretations possible because some people will count suburbs where small houses have larger gardens, that means where the area covered by green stuff is larger than the built up area. And I won't count them. For me its a joke that for example Atlanta is supposed to be almost as large as L.A. by official numbers.

So from my point of view, i would only count the continuous urban area, where the green part of the area isn' larger than the urban part.

The result is that for me L.A., Tokyo and NY probably are the largest urban areas of the world.

In NY we have to consider that the urban area isn't that continuous because of the very large rivers and the bay.

I personnaly have never seen a huge one-urban area as big as L.A.

And i am not talking about megalopolises like Bosh-Wash who incldes a lot of non-urban parts.

And the population density has nothing to do with it. We have to talk about the urban density (built up area vs green areas). Only this comparaison would make sense when talking about an urban-area.

I've traveled around the world and would tend to agree but there are a few who do rival us. My experience is that Mexico City, Mumbai and London go on and on just like LA does. I do not consider NYC as one of the cities that does however.

[klamedia]

City vs city is soooo 2007.