California's Lopsided Population Distribution

[xzmattzx]

A 5-second search brings up this map of 2010 density, which shows lots of areas under 500 people per square mile, and lots of that under 100 people per square mile.



And if you look at the Census map, there's a lot of yellow near Los Angeles, because those are sheer mountainsides, but there is a lot of green in New Jersey.

[craigs]

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.

Disagreed:

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 explain the similarities that you see between the population patterns of New Jersey and Los Angeles. Just to make it easy right from the start, make sure to account for the bipolarity of NYC and Philadelphia, as well as the vast empty spaces of LA that NJ does not have. Also, it's "Angelenos." Even your old biddy aunt in Orange County knows it's not Los Angelis.

[Shawn]

Originally Posted by Yuri

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.

Clearly we have forum members who haven't seen arguably the best episodes of both The Sopranos and It's Always Sunny...

[craigs]

I can't find a bigger version, but the point stands:

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

A 5-second search brings up this map of 2010 density, which shows lots of areas under 500 people per square mile, and lots of that under 100 people per square mile.



And if you look at the Census map, there's a lot of yellow near Los Angeles, because those are sheer mountainsides, but there is a lot of green in New Jersey.

https://citypopulation.de/en/usa/admin/NJ__new_jersey/

That's NJ density. The least dense NJ county is denser than every single South Atlantic state, except for Florida, Maryland and Delaware. That county is much denser than the old and heavily populated Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia.

The only place with density comparable to the West non-urbanized area is Wharton Forest. A forest that started regrowing by the late 19th century. A big urban park basically and it covers only 2% of New Jersey.

BTW, 500 people/sqm is your average Atlanta suburb.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

A 5-second search brings up this map of 2010 density, which shows lots of areas under 500 people per square mile, and lots of that under 100 people per square mile.



And if you look at the Census map, there's a lot of yellow near Los Angeles, because those are sheer mountainsides, but there is a lot of green in New Jersey.

[iheartthed]

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.

This isn't a dick measuring contest. I'm not sure why you're so hung up on LA having big mountains.

Originally Posted by Yuri

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.

You keep bringing up the CSA but we're talking about the LA MSA. The LA MSA is only two counties. And I don't know what your definition of "vast" is but there isn't a ton of empty land. Los Angeles County is not like San Bernardino or Riverside counties, which are mostly rural.

I think it's weird that people have gotten so wound up by the comparison of the LA MSA to New Jersey. Why is it hard to believe that the most densely populated state has spatial similarities to the most densely populated MSA?

[craigs]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Why is it hard to believe that the most densely populated state has spatial similarities to the most densely populated MSA?

Because the case for that has not been adequately made?

[pj3000]

So as NJ's red population density runs from NE to SW (i.e., the NJ portion of the NYC metro area), it all of a sudden it gets cut off at Trenton/Delaware River and then it's just gray on the map... I wonder what's there? Must be a completely separated metro area from the NYC metro area.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

You keep bringing up the CSA but we're talking about the LA MSA. The LA MSA is only two counties. And I don't know what your definition of "vast" is but there isn't a ton of empty land. Los Angeles County is not like San Bernardino or Riverside counties, which are mostly rural.

I think it's weird that people have gotten so wound up by the comparison of the LA MSA to New Jersey. Why is it hard to believe that the most densely populated state has spatial similarities to the most densely populated MSA?

You misinterpreted me: I'm just genuinely puzzled on how you're saying regions that were settled centuries apart, with completely different geography, climate and urban form are anyhow similar.

There are at least 6,000 km² of completely empty land in LA County. No people, no farms, only raw nature. In NJ there's only that regrown forest which is more a big Central Park than anything else. Every square inch of NJ had been transformed by humans, several times.

And no, they don't share any spatial similarities for those very obvious reasons we've stated. Los Angeles is similar to places like Phoenix, Denver, etc. Not with New Jersey.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

You misinterpreted me: I'm just genuinely puzzled on how you're saying regions that were settled centuries apart, with completely different geography, climate and urban form are anyhow similar.

I'm obviously not talking about climate here. That should not even have to be said. In terms of when they were settled, I don't think that matters too much either. New Jersey may have cities and towns founded in the colonial era but the vast majority of the state's population growth occurred in the 20th century, just like the Los Angeles metropolitan area. In fact, Los Angeles County and New Jersey were fairly close to each other in population as early as 1930 (LAC: 2.2m vs NJ: 4m).

Originally Posted by Yuri

There are at least 6,000 km² of completely empty land in LA County. No people, no farms, only raw nature. In NJ there's only that regrown forest which is more a big Central Park than anything else. Every square inch of NJ had been transformed by humans, several times.

And no, they don't share any spatial similarities for those very obvious reasons we've stated. Los Angeles is similar to places like Phoenix, Denver, etc. Not with New Jersey.

The 2020 census tract weighted density of the entire state of NJ is 8,690/square mile. The weighted density of the Los Angeles MSA is 13,075/square mile. So the entire state of NJ's weighted density is about 66% of the LA MSA. If you just limit to the New Jersey counties in the New York MSA, the weighted density jumps to 10,415/square mile, or 80% of the LA MSA weighted density. That's seems pretty comparable to me but to each their own.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Yuri

https://citypopulation.de/en/usa/admin/NJ__new_jersey/

That's NJ density. The least dense NJ county is denser than every single South Atlantic state, except for Florida, Maryland and Delaware. That county is much denser than the old and heavily populated Virginia, North Carolina and Georgia.

The only place with density comparable to the West non-urbanized area is Wharton Forest. A forest that started regrowing by the late 19th century. A big urban park basically and it covers only 2% of New Jersey.

BTW, 500 people/sqm is your average Atlanta suburb.

But we are not talking about the West's non-urbanized areas. We are talking about the places in the middle of the LA metro. Almost all of land, other than the sides of mountains, are very dense.

The whole point is that it is not a surprise that there are places in California that are much more dense than others. Just about every place in the US is like that. Even in New Jersey, which is the densest state of all the states, you can find rural areas. And fitting 14 million people into an area that's a little bigger than New Jersey is not that mind-blowing, because there is plenty of land to develop in New Jersey, even though it is the densest state of them all, as those density maps attest.

[Yuri]

LA MSA is like 3,000 inh./km² in one half of it (and a very uniform one all over it) and basically 0 inh./km²;

New Jersey density starts at 100 inh./km², which is considered a very high rural density even for Europe and from there it gets all kinds of density from Atlanta suburban style, to dense old suburbia up to 10,000 inh./km² in urban nodes near NYC;

It’s completely different density patterns.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Yuri

LA MSA is like 3,000 inh./km² in one half of it (and a very uniform one all over it) and basically 0 inh./km²;

New Jersey density starts at 100 inh./km², which is considered a very high rural density even for Europe and from there it gets all kinds of density from Atlanta suburban style, to dense old suburbia up to 10,000 inh./km² in urban nodes near NYC;

It’s completely different density patterns.

You are obviously not looking at the NJ map on this page and seeing the light green sections showing rural areas that are just farmland and marshland. The density in those areas is below 100/sqmi.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

You are obviously not looking at the NJ map on this page and seeing the light green sections showing rural areas that are just farmland and marshland. The density in those areas is below 100/sqmi.

If you cut the whole state in millions of tiny pieces than you'll find low density squares everywhere. Central Park has also 0 inh./km². Excluding the 1 m² where my chair is right now, my apartment has only two cats and 0 people/m²...

The fact is even NJ's least densely populated county is very dense. You'll be around towns, farmhouses, people, everywhere there. In LA MSA you'll find huge places that's as empty as Mars.

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Yuri

If you cut the whole state in millions of tiny pieces than you'll find low density squares everywhere. Central Park has also 0 inh./km². Excluding the 1 m² where my chair is right now, my apartment has only two cats and 0 people/m²...

The fact is even NJ's least densely populated county is very dense. You'll be around towns, farmhouses, people, everywhere there. In LA MSA you'll find huge places that's as empty as Mars.

San Bernardino County has a population density of 110/sqmi

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by xzmattzx

San Bernardino County has a population density of 110/sqmi

San Bernardino County has 51,976 km²; Sussex County has 1,343 km².

Sussex County is a small county and population is evenly distributed over it. You have farms, exurbs, towns all over it. There is only one tiny piece of it which is uninhabited (7 people actually): Walpack township which has only 62.6 km² or less than 5% of the counties area.

San Bernardino has 45,000 km² of uninhabited land, where the density is the same of Walpack township. 90% of the county.

Are we now really saying those two counties are similar?

[xzmattzx]

Originally Posted by Yuri

San Bernardino County has 51,976 km²; Sussex County has 1,343 km².

Sussex County is a small county and population is evenly distributed over it. You have farms, exurbs, towns all over it. There is only one tiny piece of it which is uninhabited (7 people actually): Walpack township which has only 62.6 km² or less than 5% of the counties area.

San Bernardino has 45,000 km² of uninhabited land, where the density is the same of Walpack township. 90% of the county.

Are we now really saying those two counties are similar?

What I have been saying is that when you have a place as big as the LA metro area, or as big as San Bernardino County, or as big as New Jersey, of course you will have different population densities. That has been the argument from the first page from everyone. Does anyone really think that San Bernardino County has houses all the way to the Nevada border? Does anyone really think that all of New Jersey looks like Hoboken or the Oranges or Mount Laurel?

[iheartthed]

San Bernardino County is many times bigger than LA and Orange counties combined so I'm not sure why it has become a sticking point. It is not representative of what the Los Angeles metro area looks like.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

The fact is even NJ's least densely populated county is very dense. You'll be around towns, farmhouses, people, everywhere there. In LA MSA you'll find huge places that's as empty as Mars.

That makes no difference in the discussion. If an area is lightly populated, or empty as the moon, it doesn't change the fact that the population distribution isn't in those geographies.

LA's population distribution wouldn't change if people were forced to farm the deserts, and NJ's population distribution wouldn't change if people were forced to vacate the forests. They would both still have overwhelming population distribution in relatively narrow corridors.

And this is, again, why weighted density makes the most sense.