[Alta California]

Urbanized area of Southern California according to the US Census definition of census tracts that have densities higher than 1,000 p/sqmi.

For comparative purposes, I highlighted the tracts in Socal that meet or exceed the metro density of New York as blue. The deep red are the tracts that are denser than the metro density of L.A. This shows quiet graphically that dense developments in SoCal are widely distributed.

Map done by with US Census data from ESRI and the ArcGis.


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/87/Densityny.jpg

[Ronin]

Good work. That looks amazing.

[plinko]

Go Oxnard! (err...San Bernadino-by-the-Sea)

[The Agonist]

That's amazing how almost all of the ten million people in LA county live in the lower 1/3. If they can fill that to the brim, there will be 25 million or so in the county alone.

[Buckeye Native 001]

Northwestern Orange County = Not surprised

[Alta California]

Thanks for the feedback. Here are some observation about our awesome sprawl:

1. You can drive on the 5 from Sylmar to Tustin and hit nothing but 'red' tracts. That's 60 miles!

2. Alternatively, you can get on the 10 from Santa Monica to Covina and hit nothing but red tracts. 40 miles!

3. Take any freeway you like, but from Redlands to Thousand Oaks is more than 100 miles of pure Census-defined urban goodness.

[HurricaneHugo]

I guess San Diego is not in SoCal.

Guess we're in Mexico now.

[Alta California]

I guess San Diego is not in SoCal.

Guess we're in Mexico now.

You bet your ass you are in Mexico. You and the rest of Imperial County.:D

I'll post one for SD and the Bay later.

[Alta California]

That's amazing how almost all of the ten million people in LA county live in the lower 1/3. If they can fill that to the brim, there will be 25 million or so in the county alone.

I calculated that for the city of LA to reach the same population density of NYC, it would need 12.5 million people. NYC density is 26,720 p/sqmi * LA 469.1 sq mi. land = 12.5 million.

It's doable!!

[Buckeye Native 001]

Thanks for the feedback. Here are some observation about our awesome sprawl:

1. You can drive on the 5 from Sylmar to Tustin and hit nothing but 'red' tracts. That's 60 miles!

2. Alternatively, you can get on the 10 from Santa Monica to Covina and hit nothing but red tracts. 40 miles!

3. Take any freeway you like, but from Redlands to Thousand Oaks is more than 100 miles of pure Census-defined urban goodness.

Trouble is, most don't consider that "urban goodness" because you have to use a fucking car to go through those points of density.

[WesTheAngelino]

I calculated that for the city of LA to reach the same population density of NYC, it would need 12.5 million people. NYC density is 26,720 p/sqmi * LA 469.1 sq mi. land = 12.5 million.

It's doable!!

^ Yeah, but that's not entirely fair. Griffith Park is the largest urban park in the United States, then there's the Santa Monica Mountains, some of which is uninhabited, but even the inhabited parts are extremely underutilized. Let's not forget LAX and the Harbor which are massive. All we really need to do is make the rest of L.A. look like Westlake in terms of density.

[bobcat]

Also, remember that LA is a multinodal region and will always be that way so a lot of the density gets distributed to other cities. The end result is that the city of LA is similar in density to many of the surrounding suburbs. If LA city were to have a density of 26K ppsm, the suburbs would probably be pretty close to that, too, and I don't want to think about how many people overall that would be.

[Alta California]

You bet your ass you are in Mexico. You and the rest of Imperial County.:D

I'll post one for SD and the Bay later.

One for America's Finest City:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/df/Densitysd.jpg

Bay Area...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Densitybay.jpg

Close up of Los Angeles with zip codes imposed over the census tracts so you can find neighborhoods faster:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/f/f2/Densityla.jpg

[Alta California]

Also, remember that LA is a multinodal region and will always be that way so a lot of the density gets distributed to other cities. The end result is that the city of LA is similar in density to many of the surrounding suburbs. If LA city were to have a density of 26K ppsm, the suburbs would probably be pretty close to that, too, and I don't want to think about how many people overall that would be.

To get NYC density LA city would need 12.5 million people like I said in the earlier post. But as WesTheAngelino pointed out, there are huge spots in the city that are plain ol' uninhabitable like the mountains and ports. So really at 26,000 ppsm, there will be places in LA that would look like Paris (or Delhi) in density. It means that it's the kind of density that doesn't look like Manhattan or HK, but relatively low-rise.

[bobcat]

^My point is that not only the city of LA would be that dense, you'd also see similar densities across a large swath of suburbs as well. Overall population would probably top 30 million.

ETA: Actually, more like 40 million.

[edluva]

in other words LA would be Tokyo

This makes me wonder what population we could acheive if we circumscribed 465 continuous sq miles of the densest hoods in the basin. Unlike Chicago or NY, LA doesn't entirely cover the densest possible swath of the metro.

[BTinSF]

Bay Area...

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Densitybay.jpg




Looks like the only part of SF that's not red is water (Lake Merced), park land (Presidio, Golden Gate Park, McLaren Park) and under construction (Mission Bay).

[Alta California]

Looks like the only part of SF that's not red is water (Lake Merced), park land (Presidio, Golden Gate Park, McLaren Park) and under construction (Mission Bay).

Since there will be 2 million more people in the Bay in the future, the map help identify places in the Bay where there's room for growth. I'm looking at you Marin, Sonoma and Napa! Leave it to France to grow the wines, you three however have some growing to do.

[BTinSF]

Since there will be 2 million more people in the Bay in the future, the map help identify places in the Bay where there's room for growth. I'm looking at you Marin, Sonoma and Napa! Leave it to France to grow the wines, you three however have some growing to do.

I'd rather leave the wines and the redwoods where they are and do what growing can't be done in SF and Alameda (and I think plenty can still be done there) in San Mateo, Contra Costa and Santa Clara.

One thing I've always loved about living in SF is the ability to get OUT of SF and into unspoiled nature very quickly and, barring traffic in recent years, very easily. That's a lot harder to do in the eastern cities where I grew up and lived the early years of my life. Personally, I treasure the Wine Country and the Russian River Valley as they are.

[dimondpark]

great work.

[Dalreg]

All this is fine and dandy but does California really want to become more densely populated? What is there now is bearable but those of you talking NYC or Tokyo density Would you want that?

Personally if I was living in Southern California I wouldn't want to see it basically paved over and built up.

[dcmcgov]

All this is fine and dandy but does California really want to become more densely populated? What is there now is bearable but those of you talking NYC or Tokyo density Would you want that?

Yes, ABSOLUTELY California wants (and desperately needs) to become more densely populated. People keep coming here, and we cannot stop them, so the development needs to be much smarter and denser, before Bakersfield to Sacramento is one swath of cheap tract homes, and our precious mountains, forests, beaches, deserts and ag lands keep getting graded, paved and replaced with tracts of 7 bedroom, 4 car garage tilt-ups that offer a view of the new Wal-Mart uberstore. Seriously.

Personally if I was living in Southern California I wouldn't want to see it basically paved over and built up.

Er... you're about 50 years too late on that wish. Last weekend I drove from San Diego to Oxnard (roughly 200 miles) without a break in the urban complex save the 10 mile stretch through Camp Pendleton.

[dcmcgov]

Thanks for the feedback. Here are some observation about our awesome sprawl:

1. You can drive on the 5 from Sylmar to Tustin and hit nothing but 'red' tracts. That's 60 miles!

2. Alternatively, you can get on the 10 from Santa Monica to Covina and hit nothing but red tracts. 40 miles!

3. Take any freeway you like, but from Redlands to Thousand Oaks is more than 100 miles of pure Census-defined urban goodness.

I can do you one better; San Diego to Oxnard: 200 miles of unabated sprawl. (There is an untouched stretch of coastline through camp pendleton, but if it weren't a marine base, you can bet it would be condos, 4+3's, walmarts and starbucks.)

[TWAK]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/e7/Densitybay.jpg

awe, Dixon is hella covered up by the maps label.
Can you do a Sacramento one too?

[HurricaneHugo]

I can do you one better; San Diego to Oxnard: 200 miles of unabated sprawl. (There is an untouched stretch of coastline through camp pendleton, but if it weren't a marine base, you can bet it would be condos, 4+3's, walmarts and starbucks.)

Got to drive that stretch on sunday on my way to Santa Barbara.

[dlbritnot]

One of the great attributes about the state of CA is it's beaches, mountains, and deserts. Leave them alone. If people wanna move in (which they are in massive quantities) then currently developed land needs to be more built up. I'm sorry, but I dont see too much benefit to living in a tract home with traffic the way it is now. I have no problem slowly replacing single-family homes with mixed-use urban developments. I dont mind preserving historic houses like the craftsmen bungalows, but there's entire neighborhoods that lack any personality and would benefit immensely from smart growth.

[Alta California]

Er... you're about 50 years too late on that wish. Last weekend I drove from San Diego to Oxnard (roughly 200 miles) without a break in the urban complex save the 10 mile stretch through Camp Pendleton.

Make that 20 miles between San Clemente, CA and Oceanside, CA. Hooray for the Military-Industrial Complex! Where is your diety now progressives?:D

[Alta California]

I'd rather leave the wines and the redwoods where they are and do what growing can't be done in SF and Alameda (and I think plenty can still be done there) in San Mateo, Contra Costa and Santa Clara.

One thing I've always loved about living in SF is the ability to get OUT of SF and into unspoiled nature very quickly and, barring traffic in recent years, very easily. That's a lot harder to do in the eastern cities where I grew up and lived the early years of my life. Personally, I treasure the Wine Country and the Russian River Valley as they are.

The Bay Area keeps growing, not coincidentally, NIMBYism is growing. So many many jobs are created by the tech industry and the resulting service economy geared toward wine-sippers, but where do you think the workers are going to live? For every pristine acre of wine country preserved from development, you bet your ass there's an acre somewhere in Solano County (San Joaquin and Sac also) that's gonna get ugly. In fact, the cumulative effect in the Bay hurts California. You get to keep your pretty places, while the rest of us gets Chino.