will la ever become larger than Chicago or NY

[richyb83]

I realize rankings for city size are based on population figures . And LA has more people than Chicago . But when looking at Chicago's impressive skyline , it sure seems larger than LA to the eye . LA's skyline is nice , but it can't compare to Chicago.

[Unifour]

Los Angeles has probably reached 4,000,000 in the city. According to the census, the Los Angeles Long Beach Santa Ana MSA has a population of 12.9 million. New York City has a population of nearly 8,200,000. The New York Northern New Jersey Long Island MSA has 18.7 million. The CSA, however, is the number used for a conurbation. The census ranks metropolitan areas according to CSA if the area has a CSA, then MSA numbers. The Los Angles Long Beach Riverside CSA has a population of 17,500,000. The New York Newark Bridgeport CSA has 21.9 million.

[runawayjim]

LA has plenty of room to expand while NY can only build up...

What if it becomes more economically feasible and more popular to build up? What if we move from a car-based society to one on public transportation... building up makes more sense in this situation.

I don't think LA will overtake NY.

i don't think LA will build up... it's very spread out as it is.

in order for LA to overtake NYC as the largest city in the country, it will take a large portion of people leaving NYC and a huge influx into LA. LA needs to more than double the population to reach NYC's population.

it won't happen.

[convulso]

whence the assumption that being the largest city is a good thing?

chicago is 'smaller' than l.a. or nyc, but look at its skyline and its overall infrastructure.

atlanta is an order of magnitude smaller than any of these, but just looking at it and being in it gives the impression that it has to be one of the most affluent cities (in terms of corporate investment and per capita) in the country. i don't have the numbers - that's just the impression one gets from repeated visits. atlanta proper feels like l.a. proper, but with a population of roughly 450-500 thousand.

that said, i love me some l.a...there really is no other place like it on earth. i probably feel more at home there - that i have just a natural rapport with any average person i see on the street - than in any other place i've been (a lot of good that says about me, i guess...) being the largest city in the u.s. wouldn't change that a damn bit.

[convulso]

double post; sorry...

[Mikejesmike]

For LA to over take NYC it would need a population density of at least 17,500, about the same as San Francisco, and I don't see it happening. Anyway LA is almost entirely built up. The only place to go is up and I think the people living there are not going to be into that. L.A. still has a more suburban character,the people moving there expect this.

NYC on the other hand has an extreme urban density, so people know what they're in for when they move there. So they are always building upwards to accomodate. Then add to the fact that despite it's density and size it STILL has undeveloped areas to build on-Staten Island. Staten Island has about 475,000 on 58 sq miles and the majority of those are on coastal areas of the island on the eastern and north eastern side.

Also remember that LA still has to build more to accomodate, NYC doesn't really have to. LA is at a peak of about 3.8-4 million. If every borough in NYC was at it's peak there would be at least 9,714,000. Let's say Manhattan only peaks at it's highest number it rebounded to after it started it's decline then it would be at least 8,898,000.

[FromCityToRural]

They have to find more water, first, then take care of the pollution and crime. LA (or Hell-A, as I call it) is not a nice place. I miss the weather though.

[PghUSA]

^^aw From, nothing like cruising the Strip or the Blvd. or heading over to Beverly Hills, or even the beach at Santa Monica to see the latest and greatest in plastic surgerys advances and I don't mean just Joan Rivers demo on this .

[FromCityToRural]

Eh, I've been there several times, although it was a solid 8 hour drive from where we used to live. There's things I liked about SoCal...it's the center of the Hot Rod Kar Kulture universe, there's a ton of great (and not so great) music there, the beaches are pretty good, and the weather absolutely rocks my socks. The problem is that there's even more about it that I don't like. And when I'm willing to skip a place that good, they really have to be pretty good reasons.

[Fallingwater]

Chicago is 1/2 the size of Los Angeles. It's not in the same league as NY or LA.

Oh PULLEEEEZE!

[dimebag1980]

Oh PULLEEEEZE!

I have to agree with Fallingwater. Chicago is an amazing and huge city. Look out over the city from the observation deck of the Sears Tower and then say they're not in the same league. No doubt, Chicago is a huge, world-class city, much like New York and Los Angeles.

[tracer1138]

NYC on the other hand has an extreme urban density, so people know what they're in for when they move there. So they are always building upwards to accomodate. Then add to the fact that despite it's density and size it STILL has undeveloped areas to build on-Staten Island. Staten Island has about 475,000 on 58 sq miles and the majority of those are on coastal areas of the island on the eastern and north eastern side.

In the spirit of getting information right, not trying to be rude... those undeveloped areas of Staten Island you refer to are not part of NYC proper. As far as city limits and developable land within them go, NYC is all but full... the difference is, there are pockets of vacant land and many vacant buildings, enormous options for redevelopment and a community not completely averse to high density. Given the current condo building boom, assuming full occupancy of buildings within the city and infill on vacant land, I can easily see the potential for the city proper-population of New York City to top 10 million.

Of course, that's a long way down the road.

[monsoon]

Oh PULLEEEEZE!

Forgetting that childish retorts such as this are not desired on this site, I take note that you said this about Chicago:

HOWEVER, what is so often the case, when we speak of Chicago as being a great city we are often referencing only the downtown area and the Gold Coast neighborhoods. Unfortunately, it is the case that much of Chicago is a vast wasteland and ghetto and so Chicago offers two extremes. I wish the quality of life in so many of those neighborhoods was better. .......

Now if you honestly want to compare Chicago to LA please do so, but leave the one liners at home.

[runawayjim]

In the spirit of getting information right, not trying to be rude... those undeveloped areas of Staten Island you refer to are not part of NYC proper. As far as city limits and developable land within them go, NYC is all but full... the difference is, there are pockets of vacant land and many vacant buildings, enormous options for redevelopment and a community not completely averse to high density. Given the current condo building boom, assuming full occupancy of buildings within the city and infill on vacant land, I can easily see the potential for the city proper-population of New York City to top 10 million.

Of course, that's a long way down the road.

how are those parts of staten island not part of NYC proper? i was always under the assumption that NYC was all of manhattan, all of staten island, all of the bronx, all of queens, and all of brooklyn...

[jlrobe]

i think LA will overtake NY many years from now - LA has plenty of room to expand while NY can only build up - i also think philadelphia and atlanta will move up closer to the top of that list

Do you know how bad that will suck!!!! LA is built out. There are already too many people, too much traffic, and too much smog. Why would you want more people? Massive ubranization is not a good thing. Now, LA CANNOT catch new york. New york has a steamlined transportation system and a very effective police force. LA has massive ethnic tension, can hardly afford to keep police officers, and a far less effective city government. NY is poised for growth while LA will tear itself apart. Can you imagine taking 4 hours to drive 10 miles? Well in NY that isnt a problem, just take the subway.

[jlrobe]

I have to agree with Fallingwater. Chicago is an amazing and huge city. Look out over the city from the observation deck of the Sears Tower and then say they're not in the same league. No doubt, Chicago is a huge, world-class city, much like New York and Los Angeles.

chicago is a wonderful city. I love chicago, LA and NY. Each are different. LA isnt as "classy/traditional" or city-like as chicago or NY, but the weather and beaches are very nice in LA. NY is all suits and ties, while LA is more casual (except for the wave of yuppies wrecking our CA laid back image!!!).

Chicago and manhattan have awesome skylines where LA uses its ineffective freeway system to spread out all the offices. Chicago and manhattan had to build nice skyskrapers because the cities are centralized with central public transit while LA is spread out. LA also couldnt build skyscrapers because of the earth quake code, but now that the technology is available, LA MAY start building UP.

LA was designed during the freeway era and thus people figured it would be cool to be spred out instead of consolidated. Ooops. I love my car, but I think public transit and consolidation is better.

All three cities are world class, all have their disadvantages and advantages.

[Mikejesmike]

In the spirit of getting information right, not trying to be rude... those undeveloped areas of Staten Island you refer to are not part of NYC proper. As far as city limits and developable land within them go, NYC is all but full... the difference is, there are pockets of vacant land and many vacant buildings, enormous options for redevelopment and a community not completely averse to high density. Given the current condo building boom, assuming full occupancy of buildings within the city and infill on vacant land, I can easily see the potential for the city proper-population of New York City to top 10 million.

Of course, that's a long way down the road.

You're not rude, but you are wrong. In New York state if it's west of Nassau County and South of Westchester County it's New York City.

[jjbradleynyc]

I absolutely agree that the Los Angeles metropolitan area will overtake the New York City metropolitan area, most likely within the next 20 years. I think it will take much longer for the city to overtake NYC--if ever.

As far as comparing Chicago to NYC and LA--Chicago is definitely in a league of its own. It is nowhere near the size of NYC and can't really be compared. LA is suburban hell, and Chicago is vertical and dense. Chicago has a much bigger-city feel than Houston, Philly, or Atlanta, but much smaller than NYC. I much prefer Chicago to LA. But NYC, obviously, is in a much larger league of world cities.

[FromCityToRural]

I really think LA has to re-vamp its image. The smog problems, gang problems, and the superficiality of a lot of the folks there all repulse a TON of people. I happen to think it's an interesting place, if not one I would want to settle down in, but it seems like the LA area is starting to have trouble attracting outsiders to come it and is driving a ton of folks away. In fact, I've met about a dozen Californians just here in Tyler, and all were from the LA area, similarly describing fleeing what they felt was a place they just no longer wanted to be.

Furthermore, I think the lack of water, Southern California being a semi-desert and desert region, is a natural limiting factor, and short of setting up desalinization plants, I think it's going to be tough for LA to even support a whole lot more folks. The highway system was never completed as originally planned, so the freeways are backed up without a good mass transit system to relieve pressure, and property prices make it hard to re-locate there unless you have deep pockets, are willing to commute from the San Bernardino Valley or even beyond, or have a good job offer.

All-in-all, I think it's going to take some trickery, effort, and some forward-thinking leadership down there to really get LA back on the map as a real contender.

[JDC]

I absolutely agree that the Los Angeles metropolitan area will overtake the New York City metropolitan area, most likely within the next 20 years.

[dgreco]

so LA is number1 ? but is it considered number1? when you say the city, I would say NYC comes to mind, then LA, then chicago.

[runawayjim]

so LA is number1 ? but is it considered number1? when you say the city, I would say NYC comes to mind, then LA, then chicago.

[davidzLA]

Will L.A. ever be larger than Chicago or New York City?

By any measure L.A. has been larger than Chicago for some time. It's a much tighter race, however; difference in metro area about 3 million, difference in city about 1 million. Barring any major upset, my hunch is that L.A. increases its lead over Chicago in city and suburbs, perhaps quite dramatically so over time.

New York, the fourth largest metro on the planet, is very secure at number 1 however. The difference here in metro is about 6 million, difference in city about 4.2 million. It would take a lot to beat NYC fair and square, or a very long time. My hunch here is that L.A. gains throughout the century, perhaps but probably not (by 2101) outgrowing New York, which tops out at about 11 million in the city, 40 million in the metro. The LA basin may well yet "Manhattanize" along a myriad of corridors so the carrying capacity I believe is ultimately greater - provided water.

Given population growth estimates all three cities are likely to gain significant population compared to now. All three are considered "Alpha" world cities also.

All of this gets rewritten if there is a major upset along the lines of New Orleans after Katrina. That could be a major earthquake in Southern California that kills or compels a large population to move due to destroyed aquaducts, or a nuclear detonation in New York or Chicago that renders the city center hazardous if not deadly. If there were any other sort of refugee crisis inside the country that didn't affect the cities directly, I'd imagine more people generally resettling in the west rather than the northeast, and specifically LA rather than NY.

[dgreco]

Will L.A. ever be larger than Chicago or New York City?

By any measure L.A. has been larger than Chicago for some time. It's a much tighter race, however; difference in metro area about 3 million, difference in city about 1 million. Barring any major upset, my hunch is that L.A. increases its lead over Chicago in city and suburbs, perhaps quite dramatically so over time.

New York, the fourth largest metro on the planet, is very secure at number 1 however. The difference here in metro is about 6 million, difference in city about 4.2 million. It would take a lot to beat NYC fair and square, or a very long time. My hunch here is that L.A. gains throughout the century, perhaps but probably not (by 2101) outgrowing New York, which tops out at about 11 million in the city, 40 million in the metro. The LA basin may well yet "Manhattanize" along a myriad of corridors so the carrying capacity I believe is ultimately greater - provided water.

Given population growth estimates all three cities are likely to gain significant population compared to now. All three are considered "Alpha" world cities also.

All of this gets rewritten if there is a major upset along the lines of New Orleans after Katrina. That could be a major earthquake in Southern California that kills or compels a large population to move due to destroyed aquaducts, or a nuclear detonation in New York or Chicago that renders the city center hazardous if not deadly. If there were any other sort of refugee crisis inside the country that didn't affect the cities directly, I'd imagine more people generally resettling in the west rather than the northeast, and specifically LA rather than NY.

[DaltonGA]

New York and L.A. are the leading cities for immigration to the U.S. While most of LA'a is from Latin America and the the Pacific basin, New York gains from the world over. Queens population was 44% foreign born in 2000, and is very likely over 50% now.

New York has been experiencing outmigration for quite sometime, immigration and births have long fueled the cities and the metro's gains. Florida is still the leading relocation for New Yorkers, followed by New Jersey, Connecticut and Pennsylvania.

As a result metro New York is becoming sprawlier than Los Angeles. But the water and infrastructure in the New York region can sustain more population than Southern California. Eventually, the southwest is going to battle Southern California over water resources. There is some degree of regional co-operation in New York metro, particularly between New York and New Jersey, that few metro areas have even when entirely located in one state, take the Port Authority of New York for instance. Also another poster pointed out, the present population of Manhattan is well below its 1920 peak, by about 600k. The Bronx peaked in 1970 at almost 1.5 million and presently has 1.3 million and Brooklyn's 2.5 million is below the 1950 peak of 2.7 million. Easily one million more New Yorkers could be added to the existing territory. Queens, lesser so, and Staten Island still have land available for development. Their are still empty quarters of the Bronx, though not as bad as in the 70's and 80's, that are ripe for development.

LA will eventually have to approach high rise urban residency to continue to grow, little infill is left inside the city limits, though unincorporated areas like East LA could be annexed. Discontent in Hollywood and the San Fernando Valley has led to attempts to create new cities out of LA, and the city needs to address this, perhaps creating boroughs like New York to give the areas more local response. LA county since the 70's has experience the same outmigration that New York has experienced, but immigration and birth rates are higher in LA and the average age is younger, so the metro gap will continue to close, but I think it's closer to 2030 rather than 2020 that LA catches up with New York.

The sprawl taking place in New York has already lead Trenton, NJ to be added to New York's CSA in the 1990's and the Allentown-Bethlehem, PA region is rapidly becoming a New York exurb. Philadelphia is seeing a lot of New Yorker relocationg, but Philly is a large enough economic center, that 500k commuting to New York would be a small share of the workforce and keep the two from being statistically merged, and the current number of commuters has a long way to go to reach 500k.