Jump to content

Yo foadi- do you still believe your ridiculous claim that LA is more dense than NYC


Carrie Mathison
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

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

Guest El Chalupacabra

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

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

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 Area

NYC: 3,450.2 sq mi

LA: 1,736.0 sq mi

 

Population

NYC: 18,351,295

LA: 12,150,996

 

Density

NYC: 5,318.9/sq mi

LA: 6,999.3/sq mi

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Guest El Chalupacabra

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

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.