metro LA denser than metro New York?

[platypeanArchcow]

LA is proverbially sprawly.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas (taken from census data which the page links to, with maps) though, it seems that the area is actually denser than the New York area.  (The way they calculate an urban area is roughly "start somewhere and take adjacent blocks with more than 1000 people/sq mi (and maybe some with only 500/sq mi) until there are no more blocks to take or you hit another urban area.")  Partly this is a question of definitions: since LA is divided by mountains from many of its exurbs, they're considered separate areas.  However, when I calculate the density for

Los Angeles/Long Beach/Santa Ana + Riverside/San Bernardino + Mission Viejo + Santa Clarita + Simi Valley + Thousand Oaks + Camarillo + Victorville/Hesperia/Apple Valley

I come out with 5610 people/sq mi -- still more than New York's 5309 (which includes large swaths of New Jersey and Long Island, but none of Connecticut.)

Comments/explanations?

[Adding together
San Francisco/Oakland + San Jose + Concord + Livermore + Vallejo + Gilroy/Morgan Hill
gives 5338, also in the running.

Chicagoland is totally out.

In checking my calculations, note that they give area in sq km, but density in people per sq mi.]

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Obviously if it was just about the city limits, New York city would win this hands down. However, the New York city metro area includes Long Island and a large fraction of New Jersey. There are fewer barriers to growth there. Los Angeles has mountains, areas without water, national forests in the way hemming things in and discouraging sprawl enough for it to beat NY.

[Torie]

LA is getting dramatically more dense. Having lived there all my life, I have witnessed it all first hand. And you would be amazed how much high density housing is being built around downtown, and the west side almost has a Manhattan feel now in some ways. When I was a kid it was just single family houses. Now in places like Brentwood they are largely gone south of Sunset replaced by 3-6 story condos and apartment buildings. And then Hispanics tend to have lots of folks living in homes and apartments. Part of that is cultural.  They seem to like having lots of folks around in many cases. I don't.

[Sbane]

In addition to what Torie said (LA truly is starting to become more like a city rather than an amalgamation of suburbs), the suburbs in the LA area aren't as sprawly as in NYC or in any other metro area outside of California and the west in general. New Jersey as well as a lot of Westchester county have houses that are built on huge lots while in most of California the average lot size is only 5-7.5k square feet. So even if more people live in suburban settings in LA and the bay area, they take up less space than those living in the suburbs of eastern metros. This is why I find it surprising when California is used as an example when discussing the evil of sprawl (especially Mcmansions built on half acre lots). Most metros around the country are much worse than those here in California.

[Torie]

Part of it is the mountains and the sea fence stuff in. There simply isn't much available land left that is practically buildable that is not very far away in the Antelope Valley, and far off in the inland empire.

[Sbane]

Part of it is the mountains and the sea fence stuff in. There simply isn't much available land left that is practically buildable that is not very far away in the Antelope Valley, and far off in the inland empire.

Very true. You can't always build on hills (and here in the bay area we wouldn't allow it anyways) and the water restricts builders to a limited amount of space. This is why California is so expensive. Of course it wouldn't be so expensive if we all just lived in condos but people like to live in single family homes. They will even commute 2 hours a day to achieve that dream.

[Хahar 🤔]

Gah, the hills around San Diego are ugly.

[Sbane]

Gah, the hills around San Diego are ugly.

With or without houses on them?

[WillK]

LA is proverbially sprawly.  From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas (taken from census data which the page links to, with maps) though, it seems that the area is actually denser than the New York area.  (The way they calculate an urban area is roughly "start somewhere and take adjacent blocks with more than 1000 people/sq mi (and maybe some with only 500/sq mi) until there are no more blocks to take or you hit another urban area.")  Partly this is a question of definitions: since LA is divided by mountains from many of its exurbs, they're considered separate areas.  However, when I calculate the density for

Los Angeles/Long Beach/Santa Ana + Riverside/San Bernardino + Mission Viejo + Santa Clarita + Simi Valley + Thousand Oaks + Camarillo + Victorville/Hesperia/Apple Valley

I come out with 5610 people/sq mi -- still more than New York's 5309 (which includes large swaths of New Jersey and Long Island, but none of Connecticut.)

Comments/explanations?

Comment:  

Gross density of a metropolitan area doesnt tell you much about the form of development in that area.  Imagine two areas both of a square mile;  in one there are 5000 people distributed evenly; in the other there are 5000 people clusted in the corner.  What are the gross densities of the two areas?  Both are 5000/sq mile -- Exactly the same!

That said, I think the distant suburbs of NY (such as much of northern NJ and long island) are more sprawling LA.

[minionofmidas]

Isn't New York fenced in by water too?

[platypeanArchcow]

Isn't New York fenced in by water too?

Yes, but only on a couple sides.  It has all the room it wants to expand into upstate and New Jersey.

It's interesting, though, that even in the Antelope Valley, the lots are actually pretty small:
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source=s_q&hl=en&geocode=&q=palmdale,+ca&sll=41.798866,-87.594549&sspn=0.007454,0.019119&ie=UTF8&hq=&hnear=Palmdale,+Los+Angeles,+California&ll=34.546509,-118.054447&spn=0.008236,0.019119&t=h&z=16

By the way, the list confirms that Atlanta has the worst sprawl of major cities.

[cinyc]

Isn't New York fenced in by water too?

Yes, but only on a couple sides.  It has all the room it wants to expand into upstate and New Jersey.

Actually, it's more than a few sides - it's about 1/4th of the whole potential land area.  And there are natural barriers to growth in upstate New York - Harriman State Park in Rockland County, and the NYC Croton Reservoir system watershed in Westchester and Putnam Counties - which has forced sprawl into Orange and Dutchess Counties.  Sprawl in central New Jersey will eventually run into the Philadelphia suburbs and Pine Barrens.   Sprawl in northeast New Jersey is somewhat contained by hills and reservoirs, as well.

Los Angeles has room to grow in the Antelope and Victor Valleys, as well as other parts of the Inland Empire and a few distant parts of Ventura and Orange Counties.  There's even some room to grow near Santa Clarita.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Also in the east you can pretend you live in the forest, while in SoCal a gigantic lot would just get you more of a scrubby view to the next McMansion.

[platypeanArchcow]

Also in the east you can pretend you live in the forest, while in SoCal a gigantic lot would just get you more of a scrubby view to the next McMansion.

This is actually a very good point.  Although with enough money, you can even pretend you live in a forest in SoCal.  See, e.g., San Marino.

[Хahar 🤔]

Gah, the hills around San Diego are ugly.

With or without houses on them?

Do they exist without houses?

[Sbane]

Gah, the hills around San Diego are ugly.

With or without houses on them?

Do they exist without houses?

Haha yeah they do. Not very attractive either ways.