Not since the population was north of 700k -- speaking of populations:

L.A. city population: 3,990,456
Detroit city population: 672,662
Difference: 3.31 million

Detroit MSA: 4.29 million spread out over 3,888.4 sq mi
L.A. city: 4 million, over 468 sq. mi

L.A. city nearly contains the entire population Detroit MSA, yet uses 12% of the land to do so. Yup, they sure seem similar in nearly every respect.

Do you care to make anymore obvious points that the rest of us obviously already understand?

Although, I'll point out, since you want to be dense, that Metro Detroit has twice the population density that Metro LA does.

Only when you include areas where nobody actually lives.

Here's the reality:

Los Angeles:
2010 Urban Area population: 12,150,996
Land Area: 1,736 square miles
Population density: 6,999.3 people per square mile

Detroit:
2010 Urban Area Population: 3,734,090
Land Area: 3,463 square miles
Population Density: 2,792.5 people per square mile

It should be noted that Los Angeles UA is the most dense metro in the United States, followed by San Francisco and San Jose.

Not really, and you already know why.

I thought the Urban Area metric was preferred by most on this site?

So you already know where I'm going. We can caveat this to death but I don't know why you want to invalidate the observations of others, especially about a place you seem to know very little about. You're obviously trolling.

I'm trolling because I don't think Detroit is similar in nearly every respect to Los Angeles and backed up my opinion with population statistics?

Ok, man.

Literally nobody has said that Detroit and Los Angeles are similar in every respect. You have been arguing against a point that literally no one has been arguing. Yes, that does make you a troll.

If you want to make an objection then object. But you continue to try to invalidate other people who agreed with the assessment and have actually seen both places with their own eyes. And the worst part of it is that you admittedly have little knowledge about Detroit, other than what you've seen in the media. You are demonstrating the absolute worst aspect of the internet right now. It empowers people to think they know more about a subject than they actually do.

No you're not trolling. This person is projecting his trolling. This is a typical pattern you see from this person on threads that may compare Los Angeles. It is best just to ignore him.

Fact LA city is twice as dense as Detroit. Metro LA is one of the top 5 densest in the US:

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2012/...t-metros/3450/

America's Densest Metros by Population-Weighted Density as Compared to Average Density:
Metro Area Population-Weighted Density Average Density
New York-Northern New Jersey-Long Island, NY-NJ-PA 31,251 2,826
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont, CA 12,145 1,755
Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana, CA 12,114 2,646
Honolulu, HI 11,548 1,587
Chicago-Joliet-Naperville, IL-IN-WI 8,613 1,315

Kind of interesting stuff here on densities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...lation_density

la and detroit are both filled with dense sfh neighborhoods and blanketed by a large grid of freeways. (i think dallas applies here too, houston somewhat less WRT freeways, being more of a spoke/belt)

Both were founded and developed at roughly the same time. One is francophone while the other anglophone but beyond that they look and feel remarkably similar. Large Italian and Jewish communities are present in both but Brooklyn is a lot denser. There's a ton of pre-WW2 row housing in both although the architecture was influenced by different European countries: France and England. They're both stone and feature stairs coming down to the sidewalk with cast iron railings.

The central core of each have the same feel with lots of grand pre-WW2 structures. Montreal's core is a lot busier, of course.

Borough of Brooklyn
Settled: 1634
Area: 183 km2
Population: 2,648,771

City of Montreal
Settled: 1642
Area: 365 km2
Population: 1,704,694

Thread title:
What two cities do you find most similar in nearly every respect?

Discussion in the thread: Los Angeles and Detroit. ;)

There’s definitely been a lot of circular arguments in this thread, but I can’t help but feel like you in particular have been a bit all over the place from bringing up personal (family) and cultural (Motown) connections to stating that the cities’ respective Art Deco buildings could be swapped for one another (when objectively speaking that’s certainly not the case) but at the same time going as far as to nitpick why the buildings used in Seinfeld are so obviously not NYC (arguing against something nobody was saying).

I don’t think you’re a troll, but you definitely seem to have an emotional stake in the matter and are clearly “triggered.”

A Dutch visitor who just arrived from LA said Toronto felt a lot like LA to her. I thought it was an odd comparison but is there some validity to it? I've not been to LA so it's hard for me to say.

On the surface they're both multi-nodal and have big heavily used freeways. A lot of LA and Toronto were built 1945-1995 and do have many similar characteristics. The climate is obviously different and downtowns of each are different. Perhaps they are similar in lots of other ways though?

Philadelphia is a lot more comparable to montreal than brooklyn

Brooklyn lacks a large commercial core thanks to its proximity to manhattan
Brooklyn has 3x the population density of Montreal
Brooklyn generally has taller brownstones than Montreal and more apartment buildings

Philadelphia and Montreal both have older commercial cores with office architecture from different eras
Both have similar population densities
Both have a fair amount of nice rowhouses
Both have lots of modest rowhouses
Both have old wealthy single family neighborhoods
Both suffered due to competition with a more dynamic neighboring city for many decades

Both are cities that have solid pre-war (WW2) bones with modest beginnings and explosive post-war growth. Like Toronto, LA is heavily gridded and lacks a certain polish because it was never built with the grandeur of cities like Baltimore, St. Louis, Cincinnati, Detroit, etc., let alone New York, Philadelphia, Boston, DC, Chicago, and SF. Look at historic photos of LA in the early 20th century and you’ll see lots of low-rise buildings, single-story retail strips, and power lines everywhere.

Wilshire’s “fraternal twin” is Yonge Street, not Detroit’s Woodward Avenue. LA’s equivalent of Woodward would be Huntington/Foothill which takes you from DT all the way to the Inland Empire.

Toronto north of Bloor can be a bit like West LA.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0596...7i16384!8i8192

https://www.google.com/maps/@43.6872...7i16384!8i8192

It's funny how easy it is to fool viewers, though. Most people are pretty ignorant re. urban streetscapes, or maybe they just don't care.

This is the exterior of the Seinfeld building. An intern scanning LA on Streetview for 10 minutes could probably find a more appropriate building (heck, there's one that would work around the corner):
https://www.google.com/maps/place/75...4d-118.2930867

Putting aside the fact there's a Taco Bell drive-thru across the street, the lawn fronting the building screams "old building anywhere but NYC". The Mediterranean foliage and definitely-not-NYC facade are nice added touches.

I can see the LA-Toronto comparisons as cities that grew at similar times from more modest prewar beginnings.

Toronto still follows more of a traditional East Coast development pattern with the more desirable neighbourhoods (both for young people and the traditional wealthy SFH areas) closest to the core, and typically you expect prices and general urban activity to decline as you move outwards . Toronto is multi-nodal with high-ruse clusters scattered throughout the core, but they tend to be more immigrant-heavy, and feel somewhat superficial maybe? Like they aren't really destinations for a ton of people who don't live there. I don't think many people who live downtown would never go to Mississauga or Scarborough City Center for entertainment. I feel like the same isn't true in LA with Santa Monica and all the various beaches (Venice, Manhattan, Hermosa, etc.).

LA is pretty unique in that regard with highly desirable areas for young people separated from the core by miles of low-density detached neighborhoods.

I wouldn't say they're low density neighborhoods. Spread out? Yes. But between downtown LA and Santa Monica/Venice, it's pretty urban and walkable, especially compared to the Miamis, Atlantas, Houstons etc.

And I don't know if it's because of rideshare or urban infill, increased tourism, but there is just alot more pedestrian activity throughout the city than 5-10 years ago.