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

[Quixote]

So you’ve now resorted to a red herring since your findings were disproven rather conclusively. Why do you keep on doing this?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

So you’ve now resorted to a red herring since your findings were disproven rather conclusively. Why do you keep on doing this?

Is this directed at me? I think I've been fairly consistent. I said this a month ago and still feel the same way.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

LA has 10x the land area of SF. I actually don't think this makes the case that LA belongs in the big urban category because it should actually have far more people living in high density than SF. If LA maintained SF's density at scale it would have about the same population as New York, but would still be half as dense as NYC.

[Quixote]

^ I missed that statement. Just more nonsense. You’re consistent on that front. I mean, you think Detroit and LA should be grouped together partly on the evidentiary basis of shared familial connections. lol

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ I missed that statement. Just more nonsense. You’re consistent on that front. I mean, you think Detroit and LA should be grouped together partly on the evidentiary basis of shared familial connections. lol

Are you upset that L.A. isn't a denser city? Or are you upset that I pointed it out? lol. You'll have to take up the first point with your city leaders and the second with your therapist.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Total population: 1,677,280 over 97.88 SM

Impressive.

How many other US cities put over 1.5M people on less than 100 contiguous sq. miles of land?

NYC obviously.

probably Chicago.

Who else?

[ChiSoxRox]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Impressive.

How many other US cities put over 1.5M people on less than 100 contiguous sq. miles of land?

NYC obviously.

probably Chicago.

Who else?

Closest I'm getting for Boston using distinct municipalities is 1.27M on 97 square miles.

[38 Geary]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Impressive.

How many other US cities put over 1.5M people on less than 100 contiguous sq. miles of land?

NYC obviously.

probably Chicago.

Who else?

The Peninsula gets close, but not quite. About 1.45 million in about 125 square miles. A lot of open space preserve though so I'm sure if you look at actual developable land, it'd meet the criteria. If you cap the square mileage under 100 square miles, in 97 square miles, it gets you about 1.31 million.

And although not contiguous given it's separated by the Bay, if you took Daly City + SF + Oakland + Berkeley, that gets you about 1.54 million in about 120 square miles of land. Also includes a decent amount of open space preserves.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Impressive.

How many other US cities put over 1.5M people on less than 100 contiguous sq. miles of land?

NYC obviously.

probably Chicago.

Who else?

Philadelphia probably does, or at least comes very close.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Impressive.

How many other US cities put over 1.5M people on less than 100 contiguous sq. miles of land?

NYC obviously.

probably Chicago.

Who else?

All told, we get 2,065,000 in almost exactly 150 square miles. That doesn't include the SFV, SM Mountain communities, and anything south of the 105 (i.e. the awkward port annexation).

[mhays]

LA is dense, yes. Unfortunately it might also have the highest density of cars in the world.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Quixote

All told, we get 2,065,000 in almost exactly 150 square miles. That doesn't include the SFV, SM Mountain communities, and anything south of the 105 (i.e. the awkward port annexation).

There are 14 million people in LA metro. I don't think finding 2 million people in 150 square miles should be all that hard. Detroit had that way back in 1950 when it was barely a 3 million person metro.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

First, Miami is but 36 square miles and 442,000 people. Disagreed that it is a "big" urban city either by land area or by population.

Second, New York City is the nation's most extreme outlier in terms of population and density. No other city in the US even comes close. Thus, I disagree that it should be the standard by which all other US cities are judged. Ranking cities by percentage of NYC's density seems like a gratuitous move by a New York homer. Every other US city will necessarily be significantly "deficient."

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

Ranking cities by percentage of NYC's density seems like a gratuitous move by a New York homer. Every other US city will necessarily be significantly "deficient."

It's called baselining lol.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

It's called baselining lol.

"A baseline can be any number that serves as a reasonable and defined starting point for comparison purposes." I disagree that using the most extreme possible outlier as the baseline is reasonable.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by craigs

"A baseline can be any number that serves as a reasonable and defined starting point for comparison purposes." I disagree that using the most extreme possible outlier as the baseline is reasonable.

It is a reference point. It doesn't matter whether you think it is a "reasonable" reference point or not. A reference point can be arbitrarily chosen. But if it makes you feel any better here is the same point using L.A. as the baseline:

Selected cities by weighted density, % of weighted density compared to L.A.'s

1. New York: 65,299 -> 378%
2. Jersey City: 36,846 -> 213%
3. San Francisco: 33,572 -> 194%
4. Boston: 27,437 -> 159%
5. Newark: 24,478 -> 142%
6. Miami: 22,014 -> 127%
7. Philadelphia: 21,935 -> 127%
8. Chicago: 21,235 -> 123%
9. Washington: 20,642 -> 119%
10. Los Angeles w/o SFV: 20,315 -> 117%
11. Los Angeles: 17,294 -> 100%
12. Seattle: 15,249 -> 88%

Selected cities by average density, % of average density compared to L.A.'s

1. New York: 29,302 -> 353%
2. Jersey City: 19,835 -> 239%
3. San Francisco: 18,634 -> 224%
4. Boston: 13,976 -> 168%
5. Newark: 12,903 -> 155%
6. Miami: 12,284 -> 148%
7. Chicago: 12,059 -> 145%
8. Philadelphia: 11,936 ->144%
9. Washington: 11,280 -> 136%
10. Los Angeles w/o SFV: 8,802 -> 106%
11. Seattle: 8,775 -> 106%
12. Los Angeles: 8,304 -> 100%

[craigs]

I think weighted density is a better measure than population/land area. I also disagree that Jersey City, Newark, or Miami are "big" cities. But whatever--you do you.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Quixote

All told, we get 2,065,000 in almost exactly 150 square miles. That doesn't include the SFV, SM Mountain communities, and anything south of the 105 (i.e. the awkward port annexation).

Nice.

Here's a 135 sq. mile, non-cherry-picked, version of Chicago.

It's basically all of the community areas east of Cicero Ave. and north of 95th Street.

2020 population of the orange CAs was 2,072,413

[JManc]

I thought ORD was physically connected to the rest of Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

I thought ORD was physically connected to the rest of Chicago.

It is.

the base image I started with wasn't very high resolution.