will la ever become larger than Chicago or NY

[unless]

Some notes:

Within the next 25 years New York is scheduled to gain 1 million in population to a total of 9 million (almost entirely within the boroughs).

Within the next 25 years the New York and Philadelphia MSA's are scheduled to start generating enough cross-commuting to fit the census definition of a CMSA, with a total population of around 40 million by that time. LA and San Diego are also about to merge. There are a few other such emerging "megapolitan areas" around the country, do a google search on the term to find out more.

So once the NYC area annexes Philly it will be essentially impossible for LA to ever catch up, either in terms of the city itself or the metro area. The only other way I could see to measure is to keep land area constant. If you use say a 60-mile radius around city hall, LA has already surpassed New York as it has generally denser suburbs than East Coast metros.

[runawayjim]

Some notes:

Within the next 25 years New York is scheduled to gain 1 million in population to a total of 9 million (almost entirely within the boroughs).

Within the next 25 years the New York and Philadelphia MSA's are scheduled to start generating enough cross-commuting to fit the census definition of a CMSA, with a total population of around 40 million by that time. LA and San Diego are also about to merge. There are a few other such emerging "megapolitan areas" around the country, do a google search on the term to find out more.

So once the NYC area annexes Philly it will be essentially impossible for LA to ever catch up, either in terms of the city itself or the metro area. The only other way I could see to measure is to keep land area constant. If you use say a 60-mile radius around city hall, LA has already surpassed New York as it has generally denser suburbs than East Coast metros.

[unless]

the northeast has the 7 most densely populated states. NYC has more than twice the population within the 5 boroughs than LA within the city limits. what makes you think that using a 60 mile radius around LA will give larger population numbers than a 60 mile radius around NYC?

[runawayjim]

that's all fine and well... but you're forgetting the fact that the cities just outside of NYC are experiencing growth as well. white plains, stamford, bridgeport, the northern NJ cities, etc. i highly doubt that LA will ever overcome NY either in terms of city population or metropolitan area population. while there might be more spread out suburban areas around NYC, those areas are also growing. there's some rural areas within 60 miles of NYC that will no doubt be built in so people can live close to the city.

and the reason the outer boroughs of NYC woudl take more of the growth than manhattan is because people are being priced out of manhattan and manhattan is pretty close to being maxed out. they can't go out anymore and they can't really go up either. the boroughs can still go up, and there's a lot of land available on staten island.

[Savboy08]

that's all fine and well... but you're forgetting the fact that the cities just outside of NYC are experiencing growth as well. white plains, stamford, bridgeport, the northern NJ cities, etc. i highly doubt that LA will ever overcome NY either in terms of city population or metropolitan area population. while there might be more spread out suburban areas around NYC, those areas are also growing. there's some rural areas within 60 miles of NYC that will no doubt be built in so people can live close to the city.

and the reason the outer boroughs of NYC woudl take more of the growth than manhattan is because people are being priced out of manhattan and manhattan is pretty close to being maxed out. they can't go out anymore and they can't really go up either. the boroughs can still go up, and there's a lot of land available on staten island.

[runawayjim]

if we forget about MSA and CSA, for a while... in order for LA to surpass NYC, you'd have to build up. NYC is already built up and out in 4 of the boroughs (staten island being the exception). NYC is also only 303 sq mi in land, while LA is 465, yet LA has less than half the population (NYC=8.1 mil, LA=3.8 mil, as of 2005). the population density of LA would need to greatly increase to join the ranks of NYC. the metropolitan areas are closer in range (NYC=17.2 mil, LA=12.9 mil), but that's because LA is sprawled out while there are many rural areas around NYC in upstate NY and upper fairfield county, CT. it's not so much the size of houses and lots around NYC as it is the amount of wooded areas, which i don't consider a bad thing (when compared to sprawl).

[dgreco]

if we forget about MSA and CSA, for a while... in order for LA to surpass NYC, you'd have to build up. NYC is already built up and out in 4 of the boroughs (staten island being the exception). NYC is also only 303 sq mi in land, while LA is 465, yet LA has less than half the population (NYC=8.1 mil, LA=3.8 mil, as of 2005). the population density of LA would need to greatly increase to join the ranks of NYC. the metropolitan areas are closer in range (NYC=17.2 mil, LA=12.9 mil), but that's because LA is sprawled out while there are many rural areas around NYC in upstate NY and upper fairfield county, CT. it's not so much the size of houses and lots around NYC as it is the amount of wooded areas, which i don't consider a bad thing (when compared to sprawl).

[Nashville_maestro]

folks we're forgetting about 2 things: geographic location and economics. How did NY become so huge to begin with? Because it had the best natural harbor to do trade with Europe. Now look at what's happening with china? Where do you think the majority of the trade will go? Now I don't live under a rock and I realize that much trade is done electronicly now a days but there will be a huge surge in goods that enter and leave through the west coast that comes with it. It's not a matter of will but when will LA surpass NY. Not saying NY won't continue to grow; it just won't grow at the same rate as the cities on the west coast. California already has an economy that's bigger than all of Canada's (it has the 8th biggest economy in the world I believe) and it is only going to get bigger. There was even a petition going around for a while pushing for California to succede from the United States. San Francisco, Los Angeles, and San Diego are almost destined to become the next Boston, New York, and Philly. The only thing I see holding LA back is water.

Also doesn't LA have the biggest demand for skyscrapers in the country right now? I'm sure if the city REALLY wanted to, they could build a hellofa skyline. They certainly have the population to support it and the money. They just need to get the planning down. It will be a long time before it can match NY's sheer grandur or Chicago's beauty. I heard that Chicago used to be called a playground for architects. Now Dubai has taken that title I believe.

[monsoon]

.... How did NY become so huge to begin with? Because it had the best natural harbor to do trade with Europe. .....

[runawayjim]

one other thing to consider as you had mentioned importing goods from china is that many of these goods go directly to the NY/NJ harbors. while it does make sense for them to be shipped to LA, there are more people much closer to NYC than there are to LA, meaning those goods would have to be shipped across the country anyway. if we had more rail transport than we do, i think we'd see more goods coming into LA than we currently do. however, it's a tough comparison. trade with china has been increasing, but how fast has LA's population been growing compared to NY's population? that's really the determining factor here.

[jbiz]

These are the top 20 metros in the U.S. as of 2000:

1. New York - 21.36 million

2. LA - 16.37 million

3. Chicago - 9.31 million

4. Washington - 7.54 million

5. San Francisco - 7.09 million

6. Philadelphia - 5.83 million

7. Boston - 5.72 million

8. Detroit - 5.36 million

9. Dallas - 5.35 million

10. Miami - 5.01 million

11. Houston - 4.82 million

12. Atlanta - 4.55 million

13. Seattle - 3.60 million

14. Minneapolis - 3.27 million

15. Phoenix - 3.25 million

16. Cleveland - 2.95 million

17. San Diego - 2.81 million

18. St. Louis - 2.75 million

19. Pittsburgh - 2.53 million

20. Denver - 2.45 million

21. Tampa - 2.40 million

22. Cincinnati - 2.05 million

23. Sacramento - 1.93 million

24. Portland - 1.93 million

25. Kansas City - 1.90 million

[The Voice of Reason]

Where did you get these stats from? According to Wikipedia Boston MSA has 4.5 million people. DC has 5.3 million. And, where is Baltimore. It has over 2.6 million. These stats do not seem accurate.

I lived in Boston, and no way does it feel same size as Philidelphia. It feels barely bigger than Baltimore. And, with DC bleeding into Baltimore; Md seems larger and more fast-paced than Boston.

[runawayjim]

those are no doubt from the Census.

the problem by using terrms like "feel"

and then the census using its own definitions, and such is that every statistic could be contended in a dozen ways.

I think those numbers are the CMSA.

and by CMSA there is really do end to how large a city can grow. the only thing holding LA in would be Sand Diego to the south. so LA could easily grow "larger" than New York in CMSA terms. New york is held in By Hartford to the North, and Philly to the West. It is I suppose possible that New York could absorb Hartford, but that is highly unlikely due to the geography, and transportation systems. not to mention the strong employment base in hartfords CBD.

So sure, LA could pass NY. just give it 20 years.

the thing is that NY will still be more impressive in therms of feel, and no one would ever actually mistake LA as the largest city in America. This is because of the sprawl out west that is countered by density in NY. LA would have to develop hundred of blocks of midrise and highrise buildings to "compete" with NY. and this is not how things are built out West for the most part.

I always find it interesting that people try and measure their city against others. Kind of a "mine is bigger than yours" but its never comparing apples to apples.

NY and LA could not be any more different.

[The Voice of Reason]

you've got some great points. CMSA is basically the metropolitan area, based on commuting patterns. hartford will never be absorbed by new york because, as you said, there's no easy way from hartford to NY and hartford does have its own commuter base.

as far as LA the city becoming larger than NY the city, i don't think it'll happen. NYC is already about twice as big. that would require a HUGE number of people moving to LA, assuming NYC stays the same or decreases.

[jbiz]

The reason Baltimore is not on the list is because it does not have its own CMSA, it has a MSA, and that MSA is part of the Washington MSA. So your 2.5 M are part of the 7.5M credited to DC. and that is just based on the definitions that the census came up with, so it might not really mean a damn thing. Because you have to ask yourself... is Worchester MA part of Boston? is Manchester NH part of Boston? according to CMSA they are.

[The Voice of Reason]

Sorry for "hijacking" the thread and digressing from topic at hand.

The difference in this "feel" that I mentioned is that from Baltimore to DC, and even from Philly to NYC, there is solid development. Massive, crowded, almost urban suburbs. So, those CMSAs make sense. The Boston CSMA includes areas that have large expanses of country between them and Boston. Between Boston and Worcester, there isn't much after Natick. Going North toward NH, there are miles of areas that have a very small town feel.

[runawayjim]

I understand what you are saying, but the formula that the Census uses is what dictates these numbers. Fact of the Matter is that more people from the Greater Worcester area work in the greater Boson area, than work in Central Worcester. So the argument goes at least at the census, that Worcester is a suburb of Boston more than it is its own city. Part of the cause of this is all of the jobs located in Framingham.

But to counter your statement. there may be a ton of connection between Baltimore and DC, but there is also tons farmland... yes, actual farmland between them as well. Hell I have plaid paintball in a forest between the 2 cities.

and again its merely a census thing.

There is an interesting site that is more concerned with the realities than some system. its called realcensus or something, and it is user imput based.