Quote:
Originally Posted by iheartthed
I'm not sure what "The 'mountains' in New Jersey are obviously not even comparable to the mountains in Los Angeles County" is supposed to mean lol. No one said they are the same mountains. There just appeared to be an assumption that the terrain of New Jersey is all flat and filled with sprawl.
And the overall point still stands that New Jersey, the most densely populated state in the United States, is fairly comparable to the Los Angeles metro area in terms of density and development patterns.
|
They're very different. NJ is covered by some small pockets of high urban density surround by low density suburban sprawl and dense rural areas; Los Angeles has virtually no traditional urban form, dense suburbs, virtually zero farmland and 90% of the land area with zero density and untouched by humans.
The lowest density county in NJ is Sussex, with 110 inh./km2! That's very dense. The biggest non-inhabited area in NJ is on the extreme edge of this county and measures only 62.6 km², a township called Walpack. The size of Manhattan.
Using census tracts, the area uninhabited in Los Angeles CSA has 51,062 km². Almost 1,000 bigger. And that's being very conservative. 90% of San Bernardino and Riverside counties and half of LA county is completely empty.
Threaded Mode