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

[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).

[Yuri]

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?

How accurate are those numbers? When I was making my Downtown lists, I found 479,985 people within 66 km2 (25sqm) on Central Los Angeles (Downtown, Chinatown, Echo Park, Silver Lake, Los Feliz, East Hollywood, Westlake, Koreatown, Pico-Union)

Maybe I'm mistaken, but I wouldn't think this (high) density keeps up for an area four times larger.

[ChiSoxRox]

I tracked down my old 2020 Census weighted population data to see if I could crunch LA's weighted density for either side of the Santa Monicas.

The map is still alive with sufficient information (density and population), but the server query page is dead now, meaning a weighted density calculation is back to a tedious tract by tract sweep.

Edit: There should still be a table somewhere to query to pull population and density per census tract. I'll see if I can find it. LA actually has a sensible CT numbering scheme: 1000-1400 is the Valley, 1900-2000s is the rest of the city, 3000 and up are suburban LA County.

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ iheartthed is saying that, using 2020 figures, the population density of the city of LA is nearly even north and south of the Santa Monica Mountains.

I'm sure that the make-believe "classic LA" wasn't as dense as it is day, given all the post-war apartment complexes that have sprung up over the decades. That's a different argument.

Yeah the guy has an agenda. What LA also has between the SFV and the Basin is the the Santa Monica Mountains, The Verdugo Hills and even 5K Mt. Lukens in its City boundaries.

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by Quixote

^ iheartthed is saying that, using 2020 figures, the population density of the city of LA is nearly even north and south of the Santa Monica Mountains.

I'm sure that the make-believe "classic LA" wasn't as dense as it is day, given all the post-war apartment complexes that have sprung up over the decades. That's a different argument.

Yeah, it does seem that LA is denser today than back then, but it is strange to see such low calculated densities when the city ( even if less dense than the big 6) is still far denser and city-like than the majority of the other large American cities.

The hills and mountains make a huge difference with Griffith Park, the Hollywood Hills, and the Santa Monica mountains taking up a huge amount of land between the basin and the SFV. Not that many US cities have mountains within their city limits. LA has several.

And much of East LA ( Lincoln Heights, Eagle Rock, Highland Park, etc) is very hilly. Still slightly more suburban compared to similar areas in SF, but it's still development surrounding quite a few hills and protected parks.

[Crawford]

Yes, there are individual buildings, but let's be real. Leipzig was absolutely obliterated during WW2.

I've been there. I have a cousin nearby. The predominant housing stock is from the DDR era. Leipzig's built form is almost entirely postwar.

[KlausD2]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Yes, there are individual buildings, but let's be real. Leipzig was absolutely obliterated during WW2.

I've been there. I have a cousin nearby. The predominant housing stock is from the DDR era. Leipzig's built form is almost entirely postwar.

Leipzig was less destroyed than other cities in Germany. Today, there are large, intact Wilhelminian style/Gründerzeit areas that have been restored after years of decay.

[mhays]

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

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by mhays

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

Sadly, São Paulo is probably the biggest offender here. Its footprint is half of Los Angeles+Inland, whereas it has just a slightly smaller number of cars.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Sadly, São Paulo is probably the biggest offender here. Its footprint is half of Los Angeles+Inland, whereas it has just a slightly smaller number of cars.

Los Angeles and São Paulo are the two most car centric mega cities that I've visited, but L.A. is far more car centric than SP.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Los Angeles and São Paulo are the two most car centric mega cities that I've visited, but L.A. is far more car centric than SP.

Yes, LA is definitely more car-centric. São Paulo subway/railway systems carry 8 million passengers daily. Buses another 8 million. LA comes nowhere close to it. However those big numbers disguise how car-centric SP is. It's actually a cultural thing and fortunately younger generations are turning back to cars.

But back to the number of cars, São Paulo state (44.4 million people) has 33.26 million registered vehicles (Dec/2023) of which 6.77 million are motorbikes. 26.5 million cars. I don't want to do the math for the 38 municipalities comprising metro area, but I'd guess 12.5 million or so are registered on the metro area (20.7 million people).

Los Angeles CSA still has more cars than São Paulo metro area. How many cars there? 14-15 million? Of course LA CSA is a way too generous definition for LA metro area.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Los Angeles CSA still has more cars than São Paulo metro area. How many cars there? 14-15 million? Of course LA CSA is a way too generous definition for LA metro area.

Why is that a way too generous definition?

[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.

[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.

[Nouvellecosse]

^ Yes the big urban 2nd tier below NYC makes a lot more sense as a group. While the argument may not have been that the "big 6" were similar, obviously did suggest that they were similar enough to belong to a single group while no other city was similar enough for inclusion. But with NYC being such an outlier makes it hard to justify rejecting other outliers.

But then the issue comes down to defining terms like urban and traditionally urban. If we're talking about traditionally urban then it might be best to denote that with a name like "2nd tier of traditionally urban cities". But at some point when your group starts gaining more and more qualifiers and complex naming, one has to wonder how useful the exercise it lol.

[ChiSoxRox]

Fun data point #24537 on "New York is insane:"

We've been debating what side of 1.5 million you can get with 100 or 150 square miles in various cities.

Manhattan + Brooklyn + Queens board 2 (Long Island City):

4,569,412 on 98.6 square miles