Urban Cores

[BostonFaker]

You're certifiable.

Boston definitely wouldn't compare to LA, but most other cities, it could be "bigger."

[Rockford_IL]

You will probably think I am nuts, but I have crunched some of these numbers.  The area within route 128 is less than 300 square miles and it contains about 1.8 million people.  It makes me wonder how far outside Boston you have to include to get the 4-6 million metro population.  I could have gone further, maybe to include all within 495, but it is very tedious.  Of course my math could be way off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yah you would have to count everything within the 495 belt and even after that to get the 4-6 million. Cities like Lawerence, Lowell, New Beford, Brockton, etc... add large boosts to get the overall number up. I'm too lazy to check what the exact MSA boundaries are, but I'm pretty sure it includes Worcester and maybe even some cities in New Hampshire...

[dixiecupdrinking]

For what it's worth, I believe that the Providence MSA may "steal" some population from Boston's in southeastern Mass. I remember once looking at places such as Attleboro and Mansfield and finding them in the Providence metro, which is legit, but those towns down around the intersection of 495 and 95 could seemingly go either way.

[Cotuit]

Providence's MSA is all of Rhode Island, and all of Bristol County, MA (New England used to be split by town, but in 2000, the census switched New England to the county method that the rest of the country uses). It is highly likely that after the 2010 census, all of the Providence MSA will be absorbed by Boston's MSA.

[pvenne]

Boston definitely wouldn't compare to LA

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

im sure most people would agree with this statement, however, i find that doing the math suggests that boston could and should be compared to L.A.

heres what i have found:

boston's population = 589,000 (i know 20,000 left, but this is what im using)

l.a. population = 3,850,000

boston land = 41

l.a. land = 469

boston density = 14,000 per square mile

l.a. density = 8,000 people per square mile.

SO.......doing the math, for argument's sake, we get:

Boston's theoretical population at 469 square miles = 6,566,000 people (2.5 million more than los angeles currently has)

OR

L.A.'s theoretical population at 41 square miles = 328,000 (over 200 thousand less people than boston currently has).

Now i know this is a little impractical, but expanding bostons municipal boundaries to match those of L.A., or shrinkinig L.A.'s city limits to match those of boston makes these two cities very comparable....as i have shown,boston is actually bigger based on density mathematics.

[pvenne]

boston

Los Angeles

now i know L.A. has a much more populous metro than boston's, and the math i did above might not be reflective of the true results, because density might fall a lot as you get farther from boston and closer to L.A.'s core, but here are some aerial photos of both metro regions that makes them look very similar in size meaning the math probably isnt that far off.

[Cotuit]

Not to defend LA, but you have to take into account that LA has an entire mountain range within it's municipal borders. Reducing it's geographic area doesn't change it's population numbers as much as you think, considering that such a large chunk of it is literal wilderness.

Some of LAs most dense areas are also chopped up into smaller independent municipalities like West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

This Map shows LA in white, all the coloured bits, are cities and towns that are not part of LA city.

[Cotuit]

but here are some aerial photos of both metro regions that makes them look very similar in size meaning the math probably isnt that far off.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those aren't to scale though, LAs metro is much larger than Boston's.

I think that Boston's metro area is more interesting than LAs. In that LAs is basically one large sprawl of urbanity and sub-urbanity, that has little difference in texture. Whereas Boston is a wonderful collection of small cities with distinct individual identies. Not that LA is totally homogenized, but Boston is simply more varied.

[BostonFaker]

Again, so what!

Yeah, if Boston had more area, and kept its same density, it would have a greater pop. than LA...so what?

Boston metro has a much smaller pop. than LA, and Boston is a lot denser.

Why do we care about LA anyways?

[pvenne]

Again, so what!

Yeah, if Boston had more area, and kept its same density, it would have a greater pop. than LA...so what?

Boston metro has a much smaller pop. than LA, and Boston is a lot denser.

Why do we care about LA anyways?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well my guess is that since we ae in the boston forum, we dont care about L.A. but this is a place for urban discussion, and L.A. is urban, so it was used to ILLUSTRATE A POINT about BOSTON and cities in general that was brought about by a general discussion called "urban cores" not "only boston's urban core"

and bostons metro pop is not a lot smaller than L.A.'s metro pop. were talking like 5 million compared to 17 million, which is barely a difference of 3X.

boston metro area is in the top ten, so comparisons like that of boston and L.A. are valid if you ask me. L.A. has one of the biggest land masses for an american city and thats why it came up in this discussion because someone was wondering about urban "cores". the size of L.A. makes some of its parts similar to some of the areas around boston...i.e. not part of the downtown or immediate city, but still urban....

[pvenne]

Not to defend LA, but you have to take into account that LA has an entire mountain range within it's municipal borders. Reducing it's geographic area doesn't change it's population numbers as much as you think, considering that such a large chunk of it is literal wilderness.

Some of LAs most dense areas are also chopped up into smaller independent municipalities like West Hollywood and Beverly Hills.

This Map shows LA in white, all the coloured bits, are cities and towns that are not part of LA city.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow, never would have imagined that. you could be climbing a mountain and call someone on your cell phone (which thank god i dont have) and tell them youre in the middle of Los Angeles...weird.

[TheBostonian]

im sure most people would agree with this statement, however, i find that doing the math suggests that boston could and should be compared to L.A.

heres what i have found:

boston's population = 589,000 (i know 20,000 left, but this is what im using)

l.a. population = 3,850,000

boston land = 41

l.a. land = 469

boston density = 14,000 per square mile

l.a. density = 8,000 people per square mile.

SO.......doing the math, for argument's sake, we get:

Boston's theoretical population at 469 square miles = 6,566,000 people (2.5 million more than los angeles currently has)

OR

L.A.'s theoretical population at 41 square miles = 328,000 (over 200 thousand less people than boston currently has).

Now i know this is a little impractical, but expanding bostons municipal boundaries to match those of L.A., or shrinkinig L.A.'s city limits to match those of boston makes these two cities very comparable....as i have shown,boston is actually bigger based on density mathematics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(Note: somehow I skipped a whole page of replies to the above post before I chimed in, so I might be saying things others have and that pvenne has acknowledged.)

Where'd you get 41 sq miles for Boston? I thought it was closer to 50? But I will use it now just to be on the same page with you.

We don't know if the 41 square miles in the center of LA has 328k or 900k. It is likely more dense than the rest of LA. And we don't know how many people 489 sq miles of metro Boston would include. Less than 6.5 million I suspect, since the first 300 sq miles has less than 2 million.

I can't think of a good way to compare these two cities. Maybe we could stop looking at any borders and only compare how the population is distributed and concentrated.

[pvenne]

Where'd you get 41 sq miles for Boston?

[TheBostonian]

San Francisco might be an easier comparison, with its similar area and population. It also has famous schools just outside the city proper and similar problems with high housing costs.

[dixiecupdrinking]

im sure most people would agree with this statement, however, i find that doing the math suggests that boston could and should be compared to L.A.

heres what i have found:

boston's population = 589,000 (i know 20,000 left, but this is what im using)

l.a. population = 3,850,000

boston land = 41

l.a. land = 469

boston density = 14,000 per square mile

l.a. density = 8,000 people per square mile.

SO.......doing the math, for argument's sake, we get:

Boston's theoretical population at 469 square miles = 6,566,000 people (2.5 million more than los angeles currently has)

OR

L.A.'s theoretical population at 41 square miles = 328,000 (over 200 thousand less people than boston currently has).

Now i know this is a little impractical, but expanding bostons municipal boundaries to match those of L.A., or shrinkinig L.A.'s city limits to match those of boston makes these two cities very comparable....as i have shown,boston is actually bigger based on density mathematics.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

...all that this shows is that within their respective city limits, Boston's population density is higher than L.A.'s. You can't simply multiply Boston's density by L.A.'s city area, because while the city of Boston may have a density of 14,000 (in fact I think it's closer to 12,000), a 469 square mile area around the city certainly has a much lower density. There's no relevant comparison here. Your math is assuming there are 10 Bostons placed side by side which is pretty far from reality.

At the same time, you're fundamentally correct in the argument that Boston's city population doesn't accurately reflect the urban nature of the region. If Boston's close-in suburbs were actually part of the city, its population would probably rival that of, say, Philadelphia and maybe place it in a league with Chicago, though L.A. would likely be in a different arena altogether.

[TheBostonian]

"If Boston's close-in suburbs were actually part of the city, its population would probably rival that of, say, Philadelphia and maybe place it in a league with Chicago, though L.A. would likely be in a different arena altogether."

I agree.

"...all that this shows is that within their respective city limits, Boston's population density is higher than L.A.'s. You can't simply multiply Boston's density by L.A.'s city area, because while the city of Boston may have a density of 14,000 (in fact I think it's closer to 12,000), a 469 square mile area around the city certainly has a much lower density. There's no relevant comparison here. Your math is assuming there are 10 Bostons placed side by side which is pretty far from reality."

It is complicated, considering how there are areas outside Boston (such as Somerville) with a higher density than Boston.

[pvenne]

Your math is assuming there are 10 Bostons placed side by side which is pretty far from reality.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

well it cant be that far from reality because boston's metro region has 5 million people and 500,000 multiplied by 10 is equal to 5 million....so i cant see how this could ever be considered a completely invalid assumption. basically there are 10 bostons side-by-side population wise. thats what the boston MSA is. and even so, thats why i said the "theoretical" populations. because i know there is no true way to go mile for mile in comparing the two cities without a more accurate picture of the population distribution.

[pvenne]

At the same time, you're fundamentally correct in the argument that Boston's city population doesn't accurately reflect the urban nature of the region.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

in the end, thats all the L.A. comparison was meant to be used for, to illustrate this point.

and placing it in the same category of chicago, if not L.A., immediately brings boston's status up from top twenty to top three u.s. cities (if i remember correctly, boston is currently 20th largest and chicago is currently third). thats all i was trying to say, you said it yourself, and i used L.A. as an example to illustrate the reverse of the boston situation simply because i recalled that it has such a large land mass that likely made its population seem much more significant than it really is.....i hope this ends the L.A./Boston discussion....

[BostonFaker]

".....i hope this ends the L.A./Boston discussion.... "

Me too!

I just thought about something I learned down in Atlanta: Growing up in MA, when someone said they lived in Boston, I was "impressed" because so few people do compared to the metro. But this is untrue in most parts of the country, when the city limits can be pretty must the same as the metro. So now when someone tells me their address is Miami, I'm not so impressed anymore. (The End!)

[dixiecupdrinking]

well it cant be that far from reality because boston's metro region has 5 million people and 500,000 multiplied by 10 is equal to 5 million....so i cant see how this could ever be considered a completely invalid assumption.  basically there are 10 bostons side-by-side population wise.  thats what the boston MSA is.  and even so, thats why i said the "theoretical" populations.  because i know there is no true way to go mile for mile in comparing the two cities without a more accurate picture of the population distribution.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

True that Boston's city population is about 10% of the metro's population, but the issue is that the area designed MSA is certainly much larger in physical area than 10 Bostons would be.

I'm not pointing this out just to be argumentative, there is a reason: L.A. is actually one of the densest metropolitan areas in the country. In fact I believe it is THE densest. The center city is not particularly dense or urban in the sense that Boston is, for instance, but the fringes of the city itself and the suburban areas are moderately but uniformly dense for unparalleled distances. Boston, on the other hand, has an extremely dense core city as well as several very dense surrounding towns. However, even these other towns are rather small in physical area, outside of which the density drops pretty dramatically.

Making numbers up for argument's sake here, I'd imagine that a town fifteen miles from downtown Boston, say around or just outside 128, would have a density of something like 2,500-3,000 people per square mile, while an area the same distance from downtown L.A. would be more like 7-8,000.

Anyway, not sure that what I'm saying is at all relevant anymore. It is an interesting thing to think about.

[dixiecupdrinking]

".....i hope this ends the L.A./Boston discussion.... "

Me too!

I just thought about something I learned down in Atlanta: Growing up in MA, when someone said they lived in Boston, I was "impressed" because so few people do compared to the metro.  But this is untrue in most parts of the country, when the city limits can be pretty must the same as the metro.  So now when someone tells me their address is Miami, I'm not so impressed anymore.  (The End!)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Miami itself is pretty small, actually -- only something like 300k. It's a similar city to Boston in that its population doesn't represent the nature of the area.

It's true, though. I'd bet half the people with Atlanta addresses live outside the city. And that's one of those cities where even if they don't have an Atlanta address, everyone within fifty miles considers himself an "Atlantan."

[BostonFaker]

When I'm outside of NE I will tell people I'm from Boston, because, yes, it is easier, and no one knows where Franklin is.

But, I'm certainly not a Bostonian here, even though it is my city.

[pvenne]

True that Boston's city population is about 10% of the metro's population, but the issue is that the area designed MSA is certainly much larger in physical area than 10 Bostons would be.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

you make very good points, all of them.

[TheBostonian]

As a lover of skylines, I am disappointed with LA's. It looks like it has some good height to it, but the buildings seem very spread out compared to Chicago and NY. It isn't quite as bad as Dallas and Atlanta, which have surface parking between some of their high rises.

I know LA is seen as a car dominated city, but it does have a subway line and 3 light rail lines. If the system expands over time, the city probably will evolve and have a denser skyline some day.

[pvenne]

As a lover of skylines, I am disappointed with LA's.  It looks like it has some good height to it, but the buildings seem very spread out compared to Chicago and NY.  It isn't quite as bad as Dallas and Atlanta, which have surface parking between some of their high rises.

I know LA is seen as a car dominated city, but it does have a subway line and 3 light rail lines.  If the system expands over time, the city probably will evolve and have a denser skyline some day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

wow who ever knew L.A. had a subway...it just doesnt fit right in my mind...subway is new yorkish, and you cant get any less new yorkish than los angeles. its skyline does suck, i agree...but as with many cities, it is fuller from certain angles. new york is so big that its skyline is no longer a line, ut a sky clump. it looks like one of those toys where you put your hand into a bunch of needles and they all stick up on the other side of the glass in the shape of your hand or whatever...but going over that one bridge there (the one that every famous shot is taken from) is spectacular. bostons skyline is too spread out too, but then when your going north over the new zakim bridge and you look in your rear view it looks like NYC, well, almost...

does atlanta really have a crappy skyline? thats too bad.