NE metropolitan area populations (USA Today)

do you think it's fair to say that the people of needles, CA, (200 miles from LA), should be included in the same metropolitan area as the people of ontario, CA (40 miles from LA), just because they're in the same county? (San Bernadino county, the largest county in the country, larger than MA, CT, and RI combined). Do you think it's fair because the census bureau produced the number of >33,000 sq mi, based on political boundaries, even if these boundaries have nothing to do with what actually constitutes the metropolitan region of Los Angeles? Don't these boundaries merely contain it?
 
a630, you have a point but there are many places in the country that have the same problem such as Houston, some counties in it's metro have more cows than people, I'm not trying to degrade Los Angeles metro but many other places have farm land, desert, water bodies, etc which are included in the metro statistics and bring down the densities of metro areas. Also i do not believe that areas 200 or 300 miles away should be included in metro areas unless there is a connection to the metro such as residents that commute to the city or people from the metro work there.
 
Either visit southern california or take your argument to Brookings:
http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/publications/fulton.pdf

And I was wrong, Honolulu is number 1. LA is second.
And this is not about Los Angeles, it's about people throwing the term sprawl around without having any idea what it is. The bottom line is all cities sprawl, and in different ways, and this creates different problems. Those of Los Angeles are well-publicized. Northeastern metros however consume far more land per person. Northeastern metros are full of municipalities that impose huge minimum lot sizes or resist additional housing development, forcing development further and further outward. And we should consider why this even is a problem. The LA metro afterall is one of few metros in the US (perhaps in the developed world?) that is actually increasing in density, and nobody in California I know is too happy about that.
 
Read: Cities Without Suburbs: Census 2000 Update. It has a good comparison of northeast and southwest city sprawl.

Outside of New England, Metro areas are not officially defined by commute patterns, they are simply taken to be the entire county. In new england, it is different. So, to compare densities of Boston and L.A., you would need to introduce an element of similarity. I propose this should be comparing the L.A. county with Suffolk county (that's the county Boston is in, right?). Well, which one is denser...then you have your answer. Of course Boston will be denser right now, as things are currently considered, because its metro encloses a primarily urban area, but in L.A. it is different due to different regional census rules, so large areas of wilderness that have nothing to do with the city are included. Just the urbanized section of L.A. and its surroundings is probably denser than Boston, if only because of the poor and rushed planning and development characteristic of an area like So Cal that has more people coming in than leaving.

Lastly, L.A. is not the only metro in the world increasing in density. Any metro area that adds population yearly gains density. I believe this includes boston.
 
But most metro areas are gaining area very quickly ie people consuming more land per person at the edges. This includes most in Europe, where many central cities eg Paris and London are losing population as rural areas suburbanize, though not nearly at the rate of many American cities after WWII. I dont know about the developing world. And the point is (again) that most of LA county (north county) is unincorporated and barely populated (with the exception of Lancaster and Palmdale). The urbanized area is all in the south, and contiguous. This is why any realistic measurement of the area's population density does not include the entire county.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/LA_in_LA_County_map.png
 
a630 said:
But most metro areas are gaining area very quickly ie people consuming more land per person at the edges. This includes most in Europe, where many central cities eg Paris and London are losing population as rural areas suburbanize, though not nearly at the rate of many American cities after WWII. I dont know about the developing world. And the point is (again) that most of LA county (north county) is unincorporated and barely populated (with the exception of Lancaster and Palmdale). The urbanized area is all in the south, and contiguous. This is why any realistic measurement of the area's population density does not include the entire county.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/22/LA_in_LA_County_map.png
Click to expand...

I know what you mean, my city has 53 sq. miles but only 18 of them are actually part of a built environment. the rest is composed of water and uninhabited islands that dot the surrounding water. But if we only include the densest parts of a metro, then we would have to go to the census maps and see which metro areas had the densest cores. But this may be unfair, too, because Portland, Maine is denser than Providence, RI if you take this stance. our West End has 23,000 people per square mile. The catch is, though, that its not even one square mile. this is misleading. the only things that is truly not misleading, is personal perception from actually being there and observing. Ask someone who has been to both L.A. and NYC which place is denser and you'll have the most credible source. My guess is that NYC density dwarfs that of L.A. if only the urbanized parts are considered.
 
NYC densest population per sq. mile is 235,000/mile. That's like fitting the entire residential population of Boston into two and a half miles.

The same maximum density figure for L.A. is only 93,000/mile.
 
235,000 per square mile? yikes! you're off by a power of 10 with both those figures. The city of new york has 23,500 per square mile. The city of LA has 9,000. Metropolitan LA, by every responsible count made by every think tank, academic, and publication I know, is the densest metropolis in the United States. The census bureau's assumption that LA's metro is 33,000 square miles because it is located within some of the country's largest counties is absurd. I'm sure the people of Blythe, on the AZ border 200 miles away, would be shocked/are shocked to be considered part of the LA metro just because the western edge of their county (which is bigger than southern new england), includes places that are part of greater LA. Read my previous posts. It's a fact. I'm sorry that it upsets your worldview. And I'm not from LA, I'm from Cambridge.
 
oh sorry you weren't wrong you were just off topic. the issue here is metropolitan density, not the densest census tract. yes, of course new york city has the densest census tracts in the country. and yes, of course new york is the densest municipality in the country. overall metropolitan density is the issue here.
 
Bobby Digital said:
... im a little sick of people saying they are from boston when they live in NH. thats not boston, i hate to tell ya, nobody down here will recognize your from boston.
Click to expand...

Can you then explain Manchester-Boston Regional Airport. Let's face it souther New Hampshire is really the exburbs of Boston. If you go abroad or to the west coast and say you're from Manchester, New Hampshire, nobody will have a clue. They'll think you're from the U.K. It's about time that Providence is included in the Boston CSA. Providence has already recognized it, selling itself as the affordable suburb of Boston. Also, they are extending the MBTA to T.F. Green Airport. So, it makes sense to me.
 
The quote and your following statements don't conflict with eachother. Regionally and locally NH is not part of boston, nor is RI. in cali ti might be. If you ask me, manchester and providence are both heavily dependent upon the Boston area...Imagine either area if they were located more remotely.
 
Metro numeric increase(2000-2006)

Boston 62,877

Worcester 35,019

Springfield 6160

Portland 26,099

Manchester 21,946

Providence 29,992

Hartford 40,223

Burlington 7,118
 
wow those numbers surprise me. I would have thought both southern NH (manchester) as well as Providence would be growing faster than portland in terms of added population.
 
Providene metro has a larger population than the state of R.I., meaning more people than live in the state have to commute into the city. So I wonder why Providence would be included in Boston's metro. Clearly, more people commute in than out.
 
Yes, but at least 15% of providence metro commutes to Boston metro for work, which is how the government determines it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top