Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I suspect I missed you before you left, but I'm talking about your utterly retarded post from here: LA is the densest urban area in the country at 7068.3/sq mi (as opposed to 5309.3/sq mi for NYC and 3913.6/sq mi for chicago. if you're b*tching about sprawl maybe you should take a look at your own city. you've got a dense center (although chicago doesn't - the loop only has a population density of 16,388/sq mi) but once you get away it's a surburban nightmare. LA has urban sprawl. NYC and chicago have suburban sprawl. ... los angeles has 10 buildings over 200 meters tall, 4 of which were built after 1990 (40%). chicago has 21 buildings over 200 meters, 9 of which were built after 1990 (43%). LA has a large anti-development faction with significant influence plaguing its government. this might exist to a limited extent in a place like chicago and new york, but the historical precedent of skyscraper construction easily crushes such NIMBYism from taking hold. that said, los angeles does have a number of projects in the works which will not only enhance downtown, but will help revitalize street life in downtown, which seems to be a major issue with you. LA live is prolly the prolific you also have significant clusters along the miracle mile, wilshire center, hollywood, burbank, glendale, woodland hills, long beach, anaheim, irvine, etc etc etc. to say that LA lacks skyscrapers is just ridiculous. the LA area has 20 fortune 500 companies and 44 fortune 1000 companies - although i will admit that the bay area beats LA hands down in this department. and i will also admit that considering LA's size and influence it probably should have more fortune 500 companies but you have to remember that where LA excels is smaller businesses. but LA is still king in terms of media, manufacturing, ports, etc. You know, the ridiculous one where you actually claim that a much larger metro in area (NYC) must be lower density, even though that definition contains part of f-cking Connecticut; when compared to a smaller area MSA (LA).. even though, clearly anyone that has ever been to both cities actually knows LA is a big, sprawling mess that is not nearly as dense. I offer this to consider: The population density of Manhattan is 69,467.5/mi, not only easily the densest place in the US, but one of the densest places in the world, including Manila and Kowloon. The absolute densest place in the LA metro area is Walnut Park, at 21,919.0/mi, which is a) not even coming close to Manhattan and b) as an aside, is a sh-thole. You lose. Debate me on this if you dare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lucas1138 Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Oh my god. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamonAtila Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I know it's hard to believe New York has more people since LA covers more ground, but it's true. LA has lots of open space where there's no people. New York usually has about 2 million more people than LA, even though the population has increased. Now it's about 10 million for New York (12 million counting everybody) and 8 million for LA (10 million with everybody) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ms. Spam Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I LOVE IT! Also, that was like six years ago. God we're old as a message board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Oh my god. LOOK. This was never settled. If foadi is back, I want his goddamn answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Also- I'm a little drunk. But that's besides the point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 One thing is for sure, this thread is in the running for being the most dense thread, ever. Also- I'm a little drunk. But that's besides the point.This explains all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Geez Chalup, I thought we were friends. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foadisto Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I suspect I missed you before you left, but I'm talking about your utterly retarded post from here: LA is the densest urban area in the country at 7068.3/sq mi (as opposed to 5309.3/sq mi for NYC and 3913.6/sq mi for chicago. if you're b*tching about sprawl maybe you should take a look at your own city. you've got a dense center (although chicago doesn't - the loop only has a population density of 16,388/sq mi) but once you get away it's a surburban nightmare. LA has urban sprawl. NYC and chicago have suburban sprawl. ... los angeles has 10 buildings over 200 meters tall, 4 of which were built after 1990 (40%). chicago has 21 buildings over 200 meters, 9 of which were built after 1990 (43%). LA has a large anti-development faction with significant influence plaguing its government. this might exist to a limited extent in a place like chicago and new york, but the historical precedent of skyscraper construction easily crushes such NIMBYism from taking hold. that said, los angeles does have a number of projects in the works which will not only enhance downtown, but will help revitalize street life in downtown, which seems to be a major issue with you. LA live is prolly the prolific you also have significant clusters along the miracle mile, wilshire center, hollywood, burbank, glendale, woodland hills, long beach, anaheim, irvine, etc etc etc. to say that LA lacks skyscrapers is just ridiculous. the LA area has 20 fortune 500 companies and 44 fortune 1000 companies - although i will admit that the bay area beats LA hands down in this department. and i will also admit that considering LA's size and influence it probably should have more fortune 500 companies but you have to remember that where LA excels is smaller businesses. but LA is still king in terms of media, manufacturing, ports, etc. You know, the ridiculous one where you actually claim that a much larger metro in area (NYC) must be lower density, even though that definition contains part of f-cking Connecticut; when compared to a smaller area MSA (LA).. even though, clearly anyone that has ever been to both cities actually knows LA is a big, sprawling mess that is not nearly as dense. I offer this to consider: The population density of Manhattan is 69,467.5/mi, not only easily the densest place in the US, but one of the densest places in the world, including Manila and Kowloon. The absolute densest place in the LA metro area is Walnut Park, at 21,919.0/mi, which is a) not even coming close to Manhattan and b) as an aside, is a sh-thole. You lose. Debate me on this if you dare. LA still has the densest urban area in the country according to the US census, just go to the same link I posted in my previous post to see the numbers from the 2010 census. NYC has a denser core obviously, but LA has denser suburbs. The densest district of LA is actually Koreatown at 42,609/sq mi, which is obviously nothing compared to Manhattan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foadisto Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I know it's hard to believe New York has more people since LA covers more ground, but it's true. LA has lots of open space where there's no people. New York usually has about 2 million more people than LA, even though the population has increased. Now it's about 10 million for New York (12 million counting everybody) and 8 million for LA (10 million with everybody)I don't even know where to start. Let's just do a comparison of the two urban areas since you are wrong on a number of points in your post - I am not even sure where you're getting these numbers from - they seem entirely made up. Land AreaNYC: 3,450.2 sq miLA: 1,736.0 sq mi PopulationNYC: 18,351,295LA: 12,150,996 DensityNYC: 5,318.9/sq miLA: 6,999.3/sq mi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Geez Chalup, I thought we were friends. We are. But you had it coming for this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Krawlie Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 This thread makes me happy in so many different ways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pong Messiah Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I'm going to delete this thread. Because. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Jesus Christ foadi, 6 years counting and your argument still sucks. You're taking a definition of urban area that includes a NYC metro area of 3,450.2 mi to 1,736.0 mi of LA. The NY definition in that article takes into account areas of suburban NJ and CT that are extremely far from the actual city, but are only included because there is a continuous area of urban growth connecting them to NYC. That is pretty absurd, because you won't find much open space outside of NYC until you go way out (i.e. southern NJ or close to Hartford in CT.. arguably, you won't find any true open space between NYC and DC). Sure, you'll find some commuters going into NY from distant NJ and CT (by NJTransit or Metro North, respectively), but it's a little disingenuous to say that the outer reaches of CT are part of the NY metro area, and they use that large area to compare it to LA. Obviously by that definition, LA is more dense. If you compare actual cores- where people would reasonably consider the "city" (i.e. Manhattan vs. say, Wilshire), there is no comparison, and you know it. LA is a poster child for sprawl, for better or worse. I posted the density of Manhattan, where by the way, 1.5 mil people live (almost a half of the entire city limits of LA, which as you know, includes the Valley), and it is 69,467.5/sq mi, whereas for LA, it is a pathetic 8,282/sq mi. LA is sprawly and you know it. I'm not saying NYC is a better city than LA (necessarily), but to argue that LA is denser, or even really a "city" (in the real sense) compared to NYC is complete horsesh-t and you know that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foadisto Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Sometimes, when I am thinking about how much denser LA is than NYC, I touch myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 I'll say it... LA is totally a better city than NYC. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Carrie Mathison Posted October 24, 2014 Author Share Posted October 24, 2014 Wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Driver Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 But... LA has nice weather, chill people and lots of room. NYC is cramped, filthy and full of self-important rageaholics. OH I SEE Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest El Chalupacabra Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 What is it with you and this urban sprawl trip, CM? Being spread out is a good thing. You can actually own a house, rather than a 600 sq\ft apartment in an 80year old building for the same money. It separates good neighborhoods from bad. Humanity isn't stacked like pancakes. You can actually get cell phone reception, without big ass buildings everywhere. Property values aren't through the roof. I mean, really, who wants to pay a half million dollars for a parking space like you do in NYC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerina Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Her parents bought it for her. She didn't buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted October 24, 2014 Share Posted October 24, 2014 Oh my god. I'm STILL fukcin' laughing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foadisto Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 New York Los Angeles Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkeygirl Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 EXNIBIT A, your honor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 New York had Carrie, LA has Driver. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RamonAtila Posted October 25, 2014 Share Posted October 25, 2014 Ok yeah I totally screwed up those populations. But I still say New York is denser. I was in Koreatown for a while. Aint that dense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts