What's more important: the city itself or the metropolitan area?

[chicagogeorge]

L.A. is a very big place. LA County itself is 5 times the area (and nearly twice the population) of Cook County.



Btw, I just didn't get that feeling of disconnect from LA only in OC (though they seemed to be the most snobby about it). When we went to Riverside, LA (city) seemed like a far off place. It actually is like 60 miles. That's almost the same distance from Chicago O'Hare airport to Milwaukee's Mitchell airport.

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by LtBk

Unfortunately most suburbs are auto-centric crap. There are few walkable and urban suburbs in the US.

finally somebody with some sense on this thread

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by hudkina

The shape of the city has nothing to do with what I'm talking about...




Yeah... It doesn't work that way. Only the parts of the city that are part of the city are actually part of the city...

if not the shape, than no. the average city is much more important. if ur talking about a sub urbanized trashed non-city like LA or Phoenix. That may be the case, but in a real city or urban area (like what we have on the east coast) the city is way more important.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by CNB30

if not the shape, than no. the average city is much more important. if ur talking about a sub urbanized trashed non-city like LA or Phoenix. That may be the case, but in a real city or urban area (like what we have on the east coast) the city is way more important.

anyone that compares LA to Phoenix is an idiot. sub urbanized trashed non-city? loser

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by CNB30

if not the shape, than no. the average city is much more important. if ur talking about a sub urbanized trashed non-city like LA or Phoenix. That may be the case, but in a real city or urban area (like what we have on the east coast) the city is way more important.

In one measurement of urbanity, metro LA is the most dense urbanized area in the US.

Census: LA is the nation's densest urban area, while New York ranks 5th

http://www.scpr.org/news/2012/03/26/...a-passing-nyc/

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. Urbanized areas in the U.S., taken together, had an overall population density of 2,534 people per square mile.

The New York-Newark area continues to be the nation's most populous urbanized area, with 18,351,295 residents. Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim is the second most populous (12,150,996), followed by the Chicago area (8,608,208). These areas have been the three most populous since the 1950 Census, when urbanized areas were first defined; however, at that time, Chicago was the second largest. Los Angeles became the second most populous urbanized area in 1960, and the order of the top three has not changed since.

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

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by CNB30

if not the shape, than no. the average city is much more important. if ur talking about a sub urbanized trashed non-city like LA or Phoenix. That may be the case, but in a real city or urban area (like what we have on the east coast) the city is way more important.

Is this the only type of response you can come up with? You have very few posts in your short time as a member, and the couple of them that I've come across have all been of this nature. Calling any city a "non-city" or "suburbanized trash" is just immature. Come on, add something to the threads besides nonsense.

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Even New York City outside Manhattan


Los Angeles is the best example of a multi nodal city. When we visit my wife's uncle in Orange County, we very rarely drive into LA. In fact the locals are quite opinionated of LA, and 99% of the comments I heard were basically don't need or want to go into LA.

Depends. Brooklyn, the nearby queens, and parts of the bronx are not,

but farther out, it becomes more auto centric with dirty high rises, and cookie cutter houses.




But its still better than ur average american suburb.

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by spencer114

Most cities are auto-centric too.

because they have been too influenced by the suburban car "culture"

[ftlauddude]

Originally Posted by -Corey-

in cities like San Diego, I think the city is more important than the metropolitan area, maybe this is because the city itself is around 50% of the total MSA population. And I believe, in this case, Miami would fit that description, in which the metropolitan area is more important than the city itself.

Huh?! Where did you get this? The city of Miami is only 400K+ and the metro area is 5.6M. If you meant to say Miami-Dade County then you're close to be right. No city in SoFL reaches the million mark; 'cause it's pretty much a conglomerate of different municipalities...

[blakeaustin]

The metro is always more important than an individual city. For as long as I can remember people live in the other cities, and for as long as I can remember people are important. Also just asking what's up with those suburbs, why is there like no yards or such small yards? Hopefully I'm not attacked and left for dead like after everything else I post, okay "Mr.Weenie" that means you. <3

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by blakeaustin

The metro is always more important than an individual city. For as long as I can remember people live in the other cities, and for as long as I can remember people are important. Also just asking what's up with those suburbs, why is there like no yards or such small yards? Hopefully I'm not attacked and left for dead like after everything else I post, okay "Mr.Weenie" that means you. <3

I assume you're talking to me...you haven't been attacked by me, but your immature posts have certainly been pointed out. The one above was a little more mature, minus the "weenie" comment. Just so you'll know, Weimie = Weimaraner - the world's best dog.

[CNB30]

I think this








image hosted on flickr


is more Important

Than This

[CNB30]

[chicagogeorge]

Originally Posted by CNB30

Than This

The problem is, that behind this......


image hosted on flickr



Is also this.....





Which is why we need a healthy city core as well as a healthy periphery.



Like it or not, most people in the city don't live in the CBD or the city, and never will. A larger and larger share of both population and gross domestic product is being generated in the suburbs of America's cities as cities become decentralized. One of the most centralized cities in the US is Chicago.

[CNB30]

Also, the reason for any ghetto is the fact that money was sucked out of the inner cities to go to some Mcdevelopment out in the country. I will always believe the city is more Important, because If you put the suburbs first, then you get overly spread out culture-less sprawl.

You do realize that most cities in the US are growing again, and that chart of your's even seems bias, Chicago grew in the 1990s .

[hudkina]

Those are trend lines. Chicago grew in the 90's, but overall it declined in population between 1950 and 2010.

Also, saying a suburb is a cultureless wasteland for the simple fact that it was never annexed by the central city is silly. There are plenty of suburbs that have more culture than many inner-city neighborhoods.

[CNB30]

Im not saying that because it has not been annexed by the city, Im saying that because that's what suburbs are, a culture less dump for people to run away from america's problems in their special gated fake "communities".

[weava]

Originally Posted by CNB30

Im not saying that because it has not been annexed by the city, Im saying that because that's what suburbs are, a culture less dump for people to run away from america's problems in their special gated fake "communities".

just because a culture is different than what you like, doesn't mean it is void of culture.

[jbkayaker12]

In the United States, majority of the people spending money here, keeping the economy going here, working here are...........

Originally Posted by CNB30

image hosted on flickr

........are residents here.




In other words, you OWE us suburbanites, a great deal!!

[Northsider]

Originally Posted by hudkina

Those are trend lines. Chicago grew in the 90's, but overall it declined in population between 1950 and 2010.

Also, saying a suburb is a cultureless wasteland for the simple fact that it was never annexed by the central city is silly. There are plenty of suburbs that have more culture than many inner-city neighborhoods.

Yup, Chicago's been declining since forever.

Also, people on this site seem to get hung up about suburbs as meaning sprawling car-oriented suburbs. Sure, there's a lot of those. But there are plenty of compact, transit friendly, and (yikes!) CULTURE heavy suburbs out there. Speaking of Chicago since I know it best, take Oak Park, Evanston, Berwyn (all dense and transit friendly), take Aurora (huge mexican population), take Arlington Heights (huge japanese population), take the SW subrubs (huge Filipino population), take all of the old suburbs along the train lines (relatively compact and each with its own pedestrian friendly downtown and TODs).

Hell, I'd argue that I'd find more diversity in some Chicago suburbs than I would in most Chicago neighborhoods. The 'suburbs-are-culturally-devoid-wastelands' arguments are archaic and need to just stop.