California's Lopsided Population Distribution

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Per Wikipedia, New Jersey is more than twice as dense as the Los Angeles CSA. But the LA MSA is more than twice as dense as New Jersey.

But CSA is just an administrative “accident”. “Los Angeles” is what between Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, San Bernardino, Riverside and Irvine. Maybe Temecula.

So it’s much smaller and denser than NJ.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But CSA is just an administrative “accident”. “Los Angeles” is what between Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, San Bernardino, Riverside and Irvine. Maybe Temecula.

So it’s much smaller and denser than NJ.

Yes, I know that most of the land in the LA CSA that are undeveloped desert. New Jersey also has rural areas.

But in terms of land area, New Jersey isn't that much bigger than the Los Angeles MSA. New Jersey has 7,354.22 square miles of land compared to 4,857 square miles in the Los Angeles MSA. On the other hand, the Los Angeles CSA has about 5x as much land as New Jersey.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, I know that most of the land in the LA CSA that are undeveloped desert. New Jersey also has rural areas.

Yeah, but it's been completely developed by the mid 18th century I guess. Full of villages, farms, everywhere. Between the outskirts of San Bernardino and Las Vegas there is only untouchable land and that's the whole reason SB County borders Nevada. Not even a 500 people village that could be a county seat.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

But in terms of land area, New Jersey isn't that much bigger than the Los Angeles MSA. New Jersey has 7,354.22 square miles of land compared to 4,857 square miles in the Los Angeles MSA. On the other hand, the Los Angeles CSA has about 5x as much land as New Jersey.

Yeah, but even LA County has plenty of nothingness.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yeah, but even LA County has plenty of nothingness.

Yes, the mountains and desert areas of LA County are rural, but New Jersey also has mountains and rural areas. New Jersey has 7 counties with population densities of less than 500/sq mile. Those counties account for 40% of New Jersey's land area but only about 10% of its population.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yes, the mountains and desert areas of LA County are rural, but New Jersey also has mountains and rural areas. New Jersey has 7 counties with population densities of less than 500/sq mile. Those counties account for 40% of New Jersey's land area but only about 10% of its population.

The mountains and desert areas of LA County aren't just 'rural' like New Jersey rural areas are. They are completely uninhabitable. The 'mountains' in New Jersey are obviously not even comparable to the mountains in Los Angeles County.

I suspect you know this, but are just arguing for some reason.

[Yuri]

Yeah, my point was similar to Edale’s: it’s not rural, but nature. NJ has been completely modified by human action for centuries. Even today’s forests are mostly regrown.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by edale

The mountains and desert areas of LA County aren't just 'rural' like New Jersey rural areas are. They are completely uninhabitable. The 'mountains' in New Jersey are obviously not even comparable to the mountains in Los Angeles County.

I suspect you know this, but are just arguing for some reason.

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.

[Crawford]

Most of NJ's population is in a pretty small, dense corridor. It isn't that wildly different, just obviously as an Eastern city it has rural population and LA doesn't. The mountains in the NW and the Pine Barrons in the South are both sparsely populated.

[Yuri]

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.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Most of NJ's population is in a pretty small, dense corridor. It isn't that wildly different, just obviously as an Eastern city it has rural population and LA doesn't. The mountains in the NW and the Pine Barrons in the South are both sparsely populated.

That's incorrect. Every corner of NJ is densely populated and had been completely anthropised by the 18th century.

---------------------------------------

Just confirmed: the largest non-developed area in NJ is Wharton Forest (497.3 km² or merely 2.6% of the state land area). And it's a regrown forest: completely wiped out in the 18th and 19th century. NJ couldn't be more different from LA CSA.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

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.

The Los Angeles CSA is a much, much bigger land area than New Jersey's. The Los Angeles MSA (LA and Orange counties) is much more comparable.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The Los Angeles CSA is a much, much bigger land area than New Jersey's. The Los Angeles MSA (LA and Orange counties) is much more comparable.

Still. LA MSA has 12,567 km²; the 4 UAs inside it 4,883 km² few farmland here and there and the rest is completely empty: about 6,000 km². In NJ you get the 500 km² forest and the 60 km² township. All the rest is all developed, urban, suburban, exurban, brownfields and farmland.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Still. LA MSA has 12,567 km²; the 4 UAs inside it 4,883 km² few farmland here and there and the rest is completely empty: about 6,000 km². In NJ you get the 500 km² forest and the 60 km² township. All the rest is all developed, urban, suburban, exurban, brownfields and farmland.

There is farmland in LA County: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DTSzZAiDQmi6r9uA8

[Yuri]

90,000 of people in LA County are classified "rural", and the vast majority are either exurbans all those people living in fancy homes in the canyons.

Let's assume 20,000 at most living in a very isolated, rural settings: 3 inh./km². The least dense county in NJ has 107 inh./km².

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

There is farmland in LA County: https://maps.app.goo.gl/DTSzZAiDQmi6r9uA8

I have been through Green Valley a dozen times and never saw any crops in any field. What crops do you imagine they grow on that land? Perhaps you mean ranchland.

[edale]

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.

The 'mountains' in New Jersey wouldn't even be foothills of the mountains in SoCal. LA County has massive mountains exceeding 10,000 feet, and it has multiple ranges within its boundaries.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

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.

No, the point doesn't still stand. It never stood in the first place.

[edale]

Originally Posted by Yuri

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.

Thank you for providing actual numbers here. This is very helpful.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by edale

The 'mountains' in New Jersey wouldn't even be foothills of the mountains in SoCal. LA County has massive mountains exceeding 10,000 feet, and it has multiple ranges within its boundaries.

What is the point of this? I hear LA has more celebrities and palm trees too. And NJ has more guidos and chicken parm.

Putting aside apparently peeved Angelinos offended about any comparison with NJ (yes, we're aware they're quite different), the larger point was that NJ's population distribution is highly concentrated in a relatively narrow corridor, not unlike LA. Whether there are 0 or 100 persons per square mile in the rural areas has no significant impact on overall population distribution.

[jd3189]

It's interesting how Southern California is the most populated part of the state but is the most inhospitable. Outside the coastal plains in the LA basin/OC/SD area and inland valleys, most of SoCal is desert through the Arizona and Nevada borders with the Colorado River.

LA is basically a coastal oasis. One of the most dramatic settings for an American city, or a city in general worldwide. One of the reasons I'm planning on staying.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

What is the point of this? I hear LA has more celebrities and palm trees too. And NJ has more guidos and chicken parm.

Putting aside apparently peeved Angelinos offended about any comparison with NJ (yes, we're aware they're quite different), the larger point was that NJ's population distribution is highly concentrated in a relatively narrow corridor, not unlike LA. Whether there are 0 or 100 persons per square mile in the rural areas has no significant impact on overall population distribution.

Please, look at a density map of NJ and LA MSA: they couldn’t be more different. Every bit of NJ is densely populated. In vast parts of Los Angeles MSA/CSA is as empty as Alaska.

It’s insane we’re discussing this at SSP. Eastern and Western urban/suburban forms are very different; rural areas, even more. LA has dense suburbs and nature emptiness; NJ is dense urban areas, low density exurbs and high density rural areas. They’re the opposite of each other.