Should there be any doubt that LA belongs among the big 6 urban US cities?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by ChiSoxRox

Running the weighted density calculations on various slices of Los Angeles, to negate the effect of the mountains:

Full city: 17,294 ppsm

San Fernando Valley: 12,402

LA - SFV: 20,315

LA urban core (1800-2400 numbers on the map, trims off harbor foot and West Side past BH): 22,314

For comparison, San Francisco is at a WPD of 33,572 ppsm.

Thanks for doing that. However, I don't think this changes the narrative that much. Los Angeles's weighted density is roughly the same ratio to NYC's weighted as its average density is to NYC, with or without the SFV:

Selected cities by weighted density, % of weighted density compared to NYC's

1. New York: 65,299 -> 100%
2. Jersey City: 36,846 -> 56%
3. San Francisco: 33,572 -> 51%
4. Boston: 27,437 -> 42%
5. Newark: 24,478 -> 37%
6. Miami: 22,014 -> 34%
7. Philadelphia: 21,935 -> 34%
8. Chicago: 21,235 -> 33%
9. Washington: 20,642 -> 32%
10. Los Angeles w/o SFV: 20,315 -> 31%
11. Los Angeles: 17,294 -> 26%
12. Seattle: 15,249 -> 23%

Selected cities by average density, % of average density compared to NYC's

1. New York: 29,302 -> 100%
2. Jersey City: 19,835 -> 68%
3. San Francisco: 18,634 -> 64%
4. Boston: 13,976 -> 48%
5. Newark: 12,903 -> 44%
6. Miami: 12,284 -> 42%
7. Philadelphia: 11,936 ->41%
8. Chicago: 12,059 -> 41%
9. Washington: 11,280 -> 38%
10. Los Angeles w/o SFV: 8,802 -> 30%
11. Seattle: 8,775 -> 30%
12. Los Angeles: 8,304 -> 28%

My two takeaways:

• If any city really deserves to be in the "big urban" conversation based off of density numbers, it's Miami.
• Staten Island is a bigger drag on NYC's density numbers than the mountains are on L.A.'s.

source of weighted densities: https://skyscraperpage.com/forum/showpost.php?p=9391840&postcount=3182