Is Los Angeles small?

[Middle-Island]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

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!

-NYC hasn't been bailed out.

-For a city of failed industries, I see too many construction cranes.

-We haven't had too much rain, and certainly nothing like so-called "June gloom".

-No one crying over TV ratings. We'll take the record tourism instead for Broadway.

And it's summer. We'll also take a few days in the 90s. Our hills don't burn when that happens, either.

I'll check in on you in another few years.

~toodles~

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by losangelino

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.

No London really can't compete...look at Spotila's maps, its about 3x smaller than L.A.

Same with Mexico city...all of them are huge but LA plays in another category...

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

ok ok enough of the fighting and bitching.

[Metro007]

I really think L.A. has the largest continuous urban area of the world. I have calculated the continuous urban area of Tokyo for comparaison:



Most of the grey area north of Tokyo who seems being urban in fact has a lot of fields (more than 50% of the area). So i didn't count it.

The result is:

L.A. 5'820 km2
Tokyo 3'730 km2

It's only a first approximation. I think it shoud be done once again being more precise.

But according to this, the continuous urban area of L.A. is much more larger than Tokyo.

If we count the satellite cities around both cities, Tokyo would be more stretched. But that isn't continuous anymore...

It would be interesting for NYC, the only one who perhaps could be slightly larger than L.A. ?

Whatever: who was asking if L.A. was small?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

-NYC hasn't been bailed out.

~toodles~

Don't want to debate cities, but just to correct an inaccurate statement: by the feds, by the state and by the teacher's unions (see Albert Shanker).

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by Metro007

It would be interesting for NYC, the only one who perhaps could be slightly larger than L.A. ?

the Greater Los Angeles Area is by far the largest (in Area) metropolitan area in the US, maybe even in America.

[112597Jorge]

my results for the Greater Los Angeles Area including LA/OC County, Inland Empire, and Ventura county was:

9489316964.129 m²
9489.317 km²

can somebody convert 9489 km squared to miles squared

[112597Jorge]

got it it is 3,664 miles squared

did another trial this time i got 3863 squared miles

[Metro007]

Yes. But for Tokyo i tried to count only the continuous urban area. So for comparaison I would not count Ventura for example in LA. Only the continuous area.

[Metro007]

Sorry...i still wonder which city has the largest continuous urban area in the world. That's why i made it again being much more precise and using http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm

I've got for L.A.


For Tokyo:


And a first approximation for NY:
[/QUOTE]

The result:
NY = 5'371 km2 (but with some small green-areas who has to be cuted of)
L.A. = 5'145 km2
Tokyo = 4'122 km2

[Middle-Island]

Originally Posted by pesto

Don't want to debate cities, but just to correct an inaccurate statement: by the feds, by the state and by the teacher's unions (see Albert Shanker).

Neither, nor and not. NYC was loaned money in 1975, repaid, but never "bailed out".

Originally Posted by metro007

Sorry...i still wonder which city has the largest continuous urban area in the world. That's why i made it again being much more precise and using http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm


The result:
NY = 5'371 km2 (but with some small green-areas who has to be cuted of)
L.A. = 5'145 km2
Tokyo = 4'122 km2

That's a better overall prospective. Thanks for your work.

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by Metro007

Sorry...i still wonder which city has the largest continuous urban area in the world. That's why i made it again being much more precise and using http://www.freemaptools.com/area-calculator.htm

I've got for L.A.


For Tokyo:


And a first approximation for NY:

The result:
NY = 5'371 km2 (but with some small green-areas who has to be cuted of)
L.A. = 5'145 km2
Tokyo = 4'122 km2[/QUOTE]

you should of added yucaipa, simi valley, thousand oaks, aguora, hollywood hills east of the 405 since it is all developed, malibu, palos verdes, laguna beach, coto de caza, these are all continous, you could of added ventura, temecula, san jacinto, perris, murrieta, santa clarita, oxnard, sun city, and lake elsinore since they are pretty much continous, you dont have to drive more than a mile to reach each city. if you would of added tohose LA Area would have beaten Tokyo, and NYC easily.

[chicagogeorge]

LA is huge. 18 million (and growing quickly especially in the IE) covering thousands of square miles. Enough said.


Well not enough said. L.A's city proper will never be as dense as NYC or Chicago because of the way it's built, but in the real world most people live outside the city limits of a metro area, and LA's urbanized area leads the pack in the US.

[IMG][/IMG]


Here are some maps depicting growth patterns in various US metros. Blue means large positive gains, red means loss in population


New York




Los Angeles:







DC-Baltimore





Houston






Bay Area





http://www.datapointed.net/2011/04/m...0-2010-census/

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

you should of added yucaipa, simi valley, thousand oaks, aguora, hollywood hills east of the 405 since it is all developed, malibu, palos verdes, laguna beach, coto de caza, these are all continous, you could of added ventura, temecula, san jacinto, perris, murrieta, santa clarita, oxnard, sun city, and lake elsinore since they are pretty much continous, you dont have to drive more than a mile to reach each city. if you would of added tohose LA Area would have beaten Tokyo, and NYC easily.

Thanks for your comment. I really not want to add them because i want to respect the rules of only continuous urban areas. From the ones you mentioned i know Ventura and Malibu a little bit and it really isn't continuous. And i used google maps to calculate the whole area and zoomed in to see where stops the urban area. For LA it's extremely easy because the borders are very very clear (not as in NY and Tokyo).
Otherwise can you show us on google map the connection beetween LA and the ones you mentionned? We should have to see it. But even 1 mile is too far for being connected. I would never count connections of more 500 feet as being connected. Otherwise i should redo Tokyo and NY, what could change a lot the results...i think then NY will have much more as well ;-)

And take a look in the world-part of the forum where we discuss what's the largest city in the world...i always thought it would be LA. And it seems that LA is ca. a quarter larger than Tokyo. I think now LA and NY are about the same size and both are numbers one ;-)

[112597Jorge]

my calculations were 8125 km squared for the LA continous area not counting santa clarita, hemet, san jacinto, or valle vista.

sorry i couldnt paste the picture.

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

my calculations were 8125 km squared for the LA continous area not counting santa clarita, hemet, san jacinto, or valle vista.

sorry i couldnt paste the picture.

Seriously i can't believe it...probably you added a lot of areas with less than 50% of urbanized parts. Otherwise Tokyo and the big cities around Shangai and the Pearl River Delta would be larger. But that isn't anymore what i would call completely continuous...agree with me? ;-)

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

LA is huge. 18 million (and growing quickly especially in the IE) covering thousands of square miles. Enough said.

Well not enough said. L.A's city proper will never be as dense as NYC or Chicago because of the way it's built, but in the real world most people live outside the city limits of a metro area, and LA's urbanized area leads the pack in the US.

Yes i agree with that of course. But you are talking about the population density, right? My approach was to only look at the area who is completely covered by urban infrastructure such as roads, houses, highways, airports etc.

Chicago must be huge as well but i think the outer borders of the urban area have a lot of very low density areas where the part of the gardens would be larger than the build up area. My rule would be to count it only if the part of the urban area is bigger than the part of the green area, that means more than 50%. i think it's a quite good and logical approach.

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

Neither, nor and not. NYC was loaned money in 1975, repaid, but never "bailed out".


That's a better overall prospective. Thanks for your work.

Just plain wrong. The newspapers at the time said (and memoirs have substantiated) that NY was within hours of declaring bankruptcy, when the Teacher's Unions offerred them a deal: we bail you out and you don't mess with us ever. NY happily agreed.

As for the history of the state legislature berating NYC for gross mismanagement and then reluctantly sharing taxes, allowing new taxes, diverting funds and taking over city functions, read it yourself. These is free money just as real as "equity investments" of some sort and are never paid back, except politically.

[112597Jorge]

the reason i counted camarillo, simi valley, venturam and oxnard, is because it really is all continous, it does like an "s" shape, from calabasas you go straight to thousand oaks, then you go curving up into simi valley, then turn left into moorpark, which gets connected into camarillo, and connects to oxnard and ventura.

i also counted perris, lake elsinore, murrieta and temecula because from corona on the 15 fwy there is a strip of continous development all attached that leads to lake elsinore that leads to perris, temecula, murrieta, and moreno valley, also from moreno valley the outskirts of the city get connected to perris, which the outskirts of perris get connected to lake elsinore, which get connected to temecula, murrieta,and sun city, and they are all continous.

i also added yucaipa since redlands and yucaipa are sown together by streets and homes.

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by 112597Jorge

the reason i counted camarillo, simi valley, venturam and oxnard, is because it really is all continous, it does like an "s" shape, from calabasas you go straight to thousand oaks, then you go curving up into simi valley, then turn left into moorpark, which gets connected into camarillo, and connects to oxnard and ventura.

i also counted perris, lake elsinore, murrieta and temecula because from corona on the 15 fwy there is a strip of continous development all attached that leads to lake elsinore that leads to perris, temecula, murrieta, and moreno valley, also from moreno valley the outskirts of the city get connected to perris, which the outskirts of perris get connected to lake elsinore, which get connected to temecula, murrieta,and sun city, and they are all continous.

i also added yucaipa since redlands and yucaipa are sown together by streets and homes.

I looked at Yucaipa and yes: this one could be counted you're right. (according to google-maps). The other ones i won't. I's also to simplify the comparaisons. Otherwise the discussion won't stop since everybody will have to count some more cities around.

Ventura and Simi Valley and the other ones you mentioned are of course part of the "Metro"-area of the Greater L.A. But as i said i would not count them to the whole continuous area.

But even if we would have counted them as being part of the continuous area, first it would be very discutable and second it perhaps would add some 100 km2 (not more). I think we will never have an absolute perfect comparaison since every city is very different...

What would be interesting to know is if the area beetween Oceanside and San Clemente would be build up once day (along the coast). Then we could add the whole San Diego area to it. But as i've heard the ground belongs to the military? Is it right? If yes -> what a pity ;-)