Is Los Angeles small?

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by Metro007

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 ;-)

well I respect your opinion, but i truly believe they are continous and if it clearly was, LA will crush any competitor, and yes the land between san clemente and oceanside is military owned, that will never be developed.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by Metro007

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.

So the urbanized area? LA is still huge.

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.

Yes very low density sprawl pretty much everything outside Cook County, and even within Cook it sprawls. Chicagoland has no geographic limitations to slow down sprawl. Not much in the way of zoning either... LA has mountains and such that forces them to build lot sizes more compactly. Chicago will sprawl unabated north until it runs into Milwaukee (which we are almost there now) west past Rockford, and south into the corn fields....

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.

Then I'm not sure that is the criteria used to define an urbanized area.

[Middle-Island]

Originally Posted by pesto

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.

^I think this is enough unsubstantiated hearsay, if not revisionism. And you're shaking a finger considering the fiscal history, "mismanagement" and the state of the school system in your own state? And as you said this is all off-topic... But the facts should be known.

As the power of New York City's teachers union increased under his stewardship, so did Shanker's influence in other crucial arenas. During the city's fiscal crisis in 1975, which triggered a five-day strike over large class sizes, he was widely credited with helping save New York from bankruptcy. He agreed to ask the Teachers' Retirement System to bail out the city by buying $150 million of untested Municipal Assistance Corporation bonds — an investment that turned out to provide a tidy profit for the TRS.
http://www.uft.org/who-we-are/history/albert-shanker

This falls far short of being shadowy or corrupt on the part of Albert Shanker. Hey, I even tried digging up dirt on the guy, but came up empty on the internet.

Background: In 1975, New York City had to borrow two-thirds of its operating budget, $8 billion. President Gerald Ford rejected an appeal for help. The intermediate savior was the city's Teachers' Union, which invested $150 million of its pension funds, plus a refinance of $3 billion in debt.

In December 1975, after city leaders begin addressing the crisis, Ford signed the New York City Seasonal Financing Act, extending the City a line of credit of up to $2.3 billion [approximately $12.82B in 2008 dollars]. The U.S. Treasury earned about $40 million in interest. Later, President Jimmy Carter would sign the New York City Loan Guarantee Act of 1978; again, U.S. Treasury earned interest.
http://uspolitics.about.com/od/econo.../1975--NYC.htm

Besides, your argument with me is out of context. Concerning bailouts, I was referring to the following statement, which of course is patently false on all counts as insinuated toward NYC. I doubt you were defending this:

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.

lol..TARP also was paid back with profit to the taxpayer. In fact most of the money never was even used or needed.

[Middle-Island]

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, and more specifically, Los Angeles (-Long Beach) achieves rank as densest US urban area through its satellite cities. Small lot sizes, and further division of properties, some with multiple units. Google Earth bears this out over places like South Gate, Bell Gardens, and a few others. These areas look nothing like typical suburban subdivisions around the major US metros. The SF Bay area has some similarly dense looking suburbs. Strangely enough, subdivisons of single family homes within the LA city limits don't show this density.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

lol..TARP also was paid back with profit to the taxpayer. In fact most of the money never was even used or needed.

No one's talking about TARP. The secret emergency loans

made to banks in America totaled around 7.7 Trillion. (Bloomberg)

Considering 4 of the "Big 6" banks belong to New York, that is an

insurmountable debt that New York couldn't consider honoring.

Total worth of the "Big 6" on September 30, 2006 was 6.8 Trillion.

On September 20, 2011 it was 9.5 Trillion.

Do the math.

.

National banks are large institutions that hold assets representing people

all over the country. When these institutions failed, as they did in 2008,

they were rewarded with TARP monies but also secret Fed loans totaling 7.7 Trillion.

The TARP money was paid back, an estimated 350 Billion,

by the banks who restructured the assets held, which was still our money.

That money didn't go back to bank customers,

it went to Washington, who gave out the emergency loans to begin with.

New York has no capability of paying back its overwhelming share.

That money stayed with them. Over a Trillion.

That's why respect is lost.

.

I feel chemotherapy is in order! Back on topic.

.

IS LOS ANGELES SMALL?

.

Well, if you look

at our verticle infrastructural output on our geographical layout, any skyline

would appear smaller than where it currently does. The New York skyline,

though impressive, would appear somewhat more anemic in the Cahuenga Basin,

placed perfectly between Downtown and Century City with room to spare.

.

If you're talking about city proper, it's a tad over 4 million,

discounting the usual undercounting. If you're talking about MSA,

then it's Los Angeles/Long Beach/Santa Ana at 12,872,808. But, we're going to add

Riverside/San Bernardino/Ontario and bring up the true total to about 17 million.

As a CSA we'll add satellites like the others do but still remain within the state

for a total of 20,787,491 and 39842.2 square miles. San Diego is included

because commuter patterns support it and Camp Pendleton does not provide

the barrier that state boundaries or the Hudson river obviously offer up.

So, not small.

.

How about our economy? Not small there either.

Leading manufacturer, leading trader .... Our culture? Leading indigenous culture.

Hollywood is also the world's most unique export, with almost no competition.

Also, it's not derivative like the European cultures dominating the Eastern cities

like New York, Boston or Washington or Philadelphia or New York.

.

Our topography in Southern California insures that we have the

opportunity to do a variety of activities, and the weather gives us a chance

to take advantage of the beaches and mountains throughout the year.

So, again, not small.

.

If you look below you'll see that Google agrees with us.

.

.

REALLY?

[pesto]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

^I think this is enough unsubstantiated hearsay, if not revisionism. And you're shaking a finger considering the fiscal history, "mismanagement" and the state of the school system in your own state? And as you said this is all off-topic... But the facts should be known.



This falls far short of being shadowy or corrupt on the part of Albert Shanker. Hey, I even tried digging up dirt on the guy, but came up empty on the internet.



Besides, your argument with me is out of context. Concerning bailouts, I was referring to the following statement, which of course is patently false on all counts as insinuated toward NYC. I doubt you were defending this:



lol..TARP also was paid back with profit to the taxpayer. In fact most of the money never was even used or needed.

Now you've gotten silly. One closing remark: once you get out of kindergarten, saying that the other side has problems too, doesn't constitute a bona fide argument for your position.

[Middle-Island]

^For the record, you offered *no* documentation to back up your off-topic charges. Just a childish retreating ad hominem, yourself.

-------------
And the idea that the actual municipality itself or the average working people of New York owe the nation over 7 trillion dollars for anything is too patently absurd, if that's the insinuation. Not that I've seen a single other person actually blame the city itself (Bloomberg, citizens) for the financial crisis, so it doesn't really deserve any serious consideration, does it? Get it from the FED and bankers themselves...or those "business-friendly" politicians you supported who've allowed a nation with too big to fail industries. Sorry if they're headquartered here, but that's where the grand share of Fortune 500 are.

Finally, NYS taxpayers as a whole have paid out tons more federal taxes to poorer states than it ever gets back, for decades. When there's something other than these incoherent avocado-stained diatribes, you can post it in the proper forum. This particular conversation is obviously over.

[klamedia]

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.

[IMG][IMG]http://i48.************/w2d4c7.jpg[/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/

What a slide for the rest of the cities.

[klamedia]

Demographia http://www.demographia.com/db-hyperdense.htm

Hyper Densities in
European and North American Cities
(Over 50,000 per Square Mile or
19,300 per Square Kilometer)

Highlight: 73% of hyper-dense areas are in New York, Paris, Barcelona and Madrid

AREA, POPULATION AND DENSITY OF HYPER-DENSE AREAS
Location City Square Miles Population Population per Square Mile Square Kilometers Population per Square Kilometer Year
United States New York 51.85 4,300,168 82,937 134.29 32,022 2000
Europe Paris 29.16 1,981,384 67,946 75.53 26,234 1999
Europe Barcelona 11.85 1,033,103 87,195 30.69 33,666 1991
Europe Madrid 14.48 953,773 65,874 37.50 25,434 1991
Europe Milano 5.51 351,686 63,782 14.28 24,626 1991
Europe Roma 6.14 336,326 54,809 15.89 21,162 1991
Europe Valencia 4.28 279,217 65,208 11.09 25,177 1991
Europe Napoli 3.17 230,935 72,764 8.22 28,094 1991
Europe Torino 3.45 220,918 64,116 8.92 24,755 1991
Europe Zaragoza 2.74 216,919 79,300 7.08 30,618 1991
Europe Marseille 3.21 178,264 55,451 8.33 21,410 1990
Europe Wien 3.09 174,978 56,668 8.00 21,879 1991
Canada Toronto 1.83 126,074 69,034 4.73 26,654 2001
Europe Lisboa 1.90 116,070 61,242 4.91 23,646 1991
United States Los Angeles 1.74 115,796 66,549 4.51 25,695 2000
United States Chicago 1.33 85,587 64,351 3.44 24,846 1990
Europe Lyon 1.25 82,076 65,658 3.24 25,350 1990
Europe Genova 1.12 73,322 65,371 2.90 25,240 1991
United States San Francisco 1.04 72,348 69,565 2.69 26,859 1990
Europe Palermo 1.03 70,589 68,822 2.66 26,572 1991
Europe Amsterdam 1.20 67,447 56,259 3.11 21,722 1990
Europe Munchen 1.03 64,556 62,458 2.68 24,115 1991
Canada Montreal 0.62 40,737 65,310 1.62 25,216 2001
Europe London 0.74 37,796 50,985 1.92 19,685 1991
Europe Toulouse 0.37 24,468 67,020 0.95 25,876 1990
Canada Vancouver 0.37 23,132 62,880 0.95 24,278 2001
Europe Brussels 0.42 21,640 50,953 1.10 19,673 1996
United States Boston 0.28 18,638 66,564 0.73 25,700 1990
Europe Nice 0.18 14,676 81,212 0.47 31,356 1990
United States Washington 0.18 10,210 56,722 0.47 21,900 1990
Europe Stuttgart 0.17 8,816 53,318 0.43 20,586 1991
United States Baltimore 0.03 5,446 181,533 0.08 70,090 1990

(From the same site that "Chicagogeorge" pulled his stats from)
This may be hard to read but in response to George's statement that LA will never be denser than NYC nor Chicago in its core, only the NYC portion of that statement is correct. If you look at LA on the chart it ranks directly above Chicago as having a very dense 1.74 mile tract (somewhere in the city) that boasts roughly 66, 500 ppsq mile. Chicago has a 1.33 sq mile tract that has 64,350 ppsq mile. I only expect LA's core to continue to densify and begin to reflect Toronto's highest density tract.

[klamedia]

Follow this PDF and pour over its exhaustive urban area rankings (^ Demographia World Urban Areas (World Agglomerations): 8th Annual Edition, April 2012)
........LA is not terribly large.
Ranks at #17 with an area of 6,299 sq km.

By comparison:

NY urbanized area is cited at 11,642 sq km and ranks at #7
and
Tokyo/Yokohama ranks #1 in pop w/ an area of 8,547 sq km.

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by klamedia

(From the same site that "Chicagogeorge" pulled his stats from)
This may be hard to read but in response to George's statement that LA will never be denser than NYC nor Chicago in its core, only the NYC portion of that statement is correct. If you look at LA on the chart it ranks directly above Chicago as having a very dense 1.74 mile tract (somewhere in the city) that boasts roughly 66, 500 ppsq mile. Chicago has a 1.33 sq mile tract that has 64,350 ppsq mile. I only expect LA's core to continue to densify and begin to reflect Toronto's highest density tract.

I was speaking specifically for the city (limits) of LA when measured to NYC or Chicago. Not one small census tract. Btw, is that from the 2010 census?

Here is something interesting

According to the 2010 census has 567,860 people in 24.2 square miles of the city of Chicago, with a population density of 23,465 people per square mile. This is 21% of the city's population in 10.7% of the city's land area. This is slightly more dense than Queens (21K) but still a little bit less dense than New York City as a whole (27K).

[Metro007]

Originally Posted by klamedia

Follow this PDF and pour over its exhaustive urban area rankings (^ Demographia World Urban Areas (World Agglomerations): 8th Annual Edition, April 2012)
........LA is not terribly large.
Ranks at #17 with an area of 6,299 sq km.

By comparison:

NY urbanized area is cited at 11,642 sq km and ranks at #7
and
Tokyo/Yokohama ranks #1 in pop w/ an area of 8,547 sq km.

This rankings are well known since a long time....

But it's because of such (sorry useless) rankings that we tried to measure it out on a more precise way. I gives not a good idea of the reality, that means what is really "urban". In NY, Chicago and Tokyo they counted some very low dense habited areas with a few houses per sq mile as being urban. L.A. is COMPLETELY urban on about 6000 sq km and stops then almost completely. And the others are completely urban only on 3000-5000 sq km but have a lot of theses areas who aren't at all build up and includes a lot of gardens, forests etc.

I think we could show this pretty well on the maps we made previously. You should not believe at these numbers you mentioned because you have to put a lot of interpretation in them.

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

This particular conversation is obviously over.

And that's where the grand share
of the blame lies too.
These were your industries.

Just your share of the 7.7 Trillion.
We know you have it socked away in
stadium and tower construction and
other municiple infrastructure, every-
thing from hospitals to museums to
pothole filling.
We'll wait.

Now, does the fact that his latest post,
(albeit weak), was allowed to stand mean
that we have to continue to school this
individual, or do we move on to the topic
of the thread itself?

Typing the words "New York" gives me gas.

[losangelino]

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.

and Palos Verdes is certainly part of the urban area. How that was excluded is beyond me. It is extremely packed over there.

[milquetoast]

PALOS VERDES PENINSULA

image hosted on flickr

Above Palos Verdes Peninsula, Los Angeles County, California by cocoi_m, on Flickr

[112597Jorge]

Originally Posted by losangelino

and Palos Verdes is certainly part of the urban area. How that was excluded is beyond me. It is extremely packed over there.

that is very true, i forgot to list that part since i was arguing that these other area are considered contigous.

[Middle-Island]

Originally Posted by milquetoast

And that's where the grand share
of the blame lies too.
These were your industries.

Just your share of the 7.7 Trillion.
We know you have it socked away in
stadium and tower construction and
other municiple infrastructure, every-
thing from hospitals to museums to
pothole filling.
We'll wait.

Now, does the fact that his latest post,
(albeit weak), was allowed to stand mean
that we have to continue to school this
individual, or do we move on to the topic
of the thread itself?

Typing the words "New York" gives me gas.

I thought I'd give this a look after two months for shts and giggls....Considering your fun little come-on in the palm thread.

People of your free-wheeling market ilk did orchestrate the financial collapse, after all. Too bad the money landed here, I suppose, while people burned their cars in the desert for insurance money, no less.

Cool, angular 70-story Revel recently opened in Atlantic City. Do keep us updated on that big blue 68-story bomb mired in lawsuits at the top of the strip.

You did escape to Henderson at some point, didn't you?

L O S A N G E L E S...yeah, right!

[milquetoast]

Originally Posted by Middle-Island

L O S A N G E L E S...yeah, right !

.

WSJ

.

Los Angeles yeah RIGHT!

.

This is where my heart resides and most people have a place

in their heart for the place they grew up. Born and raised.

.

I'm not familiar with Atlantic City casino construction,

because the eagle does not hunt flies, but one look at

Revel tells me you are not familiar with Las Vegas in the

way we go about resort destinations that globally compete.

.

As for your hole, the money did not "land" there.

That city failed America and was rewarded for it.

Las Vegas failed because it was the one city to benefit

the most from the real estate boom, but it wasn't the

fault of Las Vegas itself. Home mortgage loans signed over

to people who should have been renting ended up being

bundled and sold as securities that lost their value when

people couldn't make their mortgage payments.

And we know of who's "ilk" created that mess, don't we?

.

So, one city is rewarded for failing by Washington, and

the other city gets the picture, but we adapt. We create

and recreate on our own. We aren't a bailed out failure.

.

The Fountainebleau, at 3 Billion, 3900 rooms and 68 stories

is a mammoth by any stretch of the imagination, designed

to be a resort destination anchoring the north end of The Strip.

.

CITY CENTER CONSTRUCTION, 17 MILLION SQUARE FEET, 2009

.

But you can come visit me when New Jersey OR New York can

come up with an answer for this, and I'll just spank you again.

.

Which is fun!

By the way, Revel is much smaller at 48 stories, not 70, and is having trouble of its own.

.

.

Come back soon! This article was 3 hours old when I got to it! (lol)

.

Now that school is over, back on topic.

[Middle-Island]

Actually, you derailed the topic with this--

Corrected:

“Saved by the bailout, bankers lobbied against government regulations, a job made easier by the Fed, which never disclosed the details of the rescue to lawmakers even as Congress doled out more money and debated new rules aimed at preventing the next collapse,” Bloomberg reported.

Fed Chairman Ben Bernanke had argued back in 2008 when the crisis hit that revealing borrower details would create a stigma that would have led to more banks collapsing. And the Fed fought to keep the details of the loans, which totaled $7.77 trillion, secret long after.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business...mberg-reports/

This is about too big to fail, and you free marketers who believed business could do no wrong. This is the result.

In closing, it just goes to prove NY's role as a city, as a people in this was nil... Regardless of anyone's petty little notions, and attempt to stoke childish city vs. city rivalry. The brokerages/major banks are based here because this happens to be the financial capital. Sour grapes?

And at least the Revel opened as scheduled. Not sitting dormant, uncompleted, in bankrupcy since '09 and roiled in lawsuits involving fraud.

Now the bell has been rung. Someone needs to report to the principal's office for playing with it, earlier.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

alright guys, take this to PM if you want to continue this shit fest... back on topic here