Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Even though Riverside is a separate metro according to the government's definition, it's obvious in looking at
google maps that in reality it's an extension of L.A.
Obvious how? Because they are connected by roads and infrastructure like every other city? Downtown Riverside to DTLA is 50 miles. You can't go 30 miles in any direction from downtown Chicago and still be in Chicagoland.
Hey guys, sure the census SAYS they are two separate metro areas, but I've got a map here that shows they're actually connected by this freeway! Also look at this train route that runs between the two!
The fixation on LA/IE being one unified metro area seems to come from the other side of the country. If you're on the ground in either one, its pretty hard to get confused about which metro area you are in. I can't imagine someone walking the streets of Riverside and asking, "excuse me sir, is this town considered part of the Los Angeles or Inland Empire metro area? Everything is so tightly connected I just can't tell!"
Do lots of people commute from San Bernardino and Riverside for various reasons into Los Angeles? Yes, but its not the norm, as you can see here workers based in Riverside county commuting to Los Angeles county to work is about 13%
If that’s the case, Milwaukee should be a part of Chicagoland.
Except that Milwaukee grew into a major city separately from Chicago, whereas the Riverside, CA area by and large grew as a direct extension of the L.A. suburbs.
You can look at the different towns radiating out from L.A. on wikipedia and tell when their major growth spurts occurred as L.A. continued extending outward.
The towns closer to L.A. grew in the 50s and 60s and further out it's more the 80s and 90s.
The furthest out towns' heyday was in the early 2000s, and after that L.A. pretty much stops spreading out. I guess that's when state government started clamping down on businesses and they began moving to Texas, etc.
@lisa porter i agree but i saw in in ebony magazine that beyonce and several other AFRICAN AMERICAN hollywood celebrities in los angeles BLEACH THEIR SKIN LIGHTER using skin lightening products from some website called " mansion hawaii beauty online" because their stronger professional grade products make them look far more light skin & mixed race and not look totally black anymore. Ebony magazine is very reliable so no doubt its true. They probably get more opportunities if they light skin i mean who knows.
Because of all that it is really hard comparing LA's metro feel to New York or even Chicago.
The Texas cities might be a better comparison as to how much bigger LA feels over them. Houston especially has that consistent UA like LA. I would say LA feels at least twice as big as Houston. But that would just put it at where it's at right now at about 14M people. NY on the otherhand feels more than 3 times as big as Houston
Astute observation, as Los Angeles and Houston's urban area are both about 1700 square miles, with Houston being about half as populated (6 million vs 12 million).
If Houston's population keeps growing within its urban area (which seems likely given the UA is over 80% of the MSA population), then Houston is going to become one of the most urbanized major population areas in the country,
Dunno, I’m from the Bay Area which has an even more confusing metro divide (SF and SJ), so I’m not necessarily always buying what the Census Bureau is selling us. Looking at LA as a Californian but not by any means a native Angelino, I’d also have instinctually put Riverside in with LA.
If LA keeps plugging away at transit, I can see some natural densification happening. LA is already more dense than laymen give it credit for. As an aside, I think if LA seeks growth, then densification is the only way to do it without undue strain on the water supply (that is, less acreage of landscaping to irrigate per capita), although more work has to go into the entire system of waterworks to make that possible, from reducing evaporative losses to desalination.
Dunno, I’m from the Bay Area which has an even more confusing metro divide (SF and SJ), so I’m not necessarily always buying that the Census Bureau is selling us. Looking at LA as a Californian but not by any means a native Angelino, I’d also have instinctually put Riverside in with LA.
Ah yes, from the streets of the Castro to the office parks of Sunnyvale, everything is just so tightly integrated its really confusing as to how any kind of authority could make a distinction!
Just because two places are separated by 50 miles, and no other metro area in the country goes on for that distance, doesn't mean anyone should get any ideas about separate metro areas.
Maybe one day we'll figure out the hidden motivations behind these bizarre census designations!
Ah yes, from the streets of the Castro to the office parks of Sunnyvale, everything is just so tightly integrated its really confusing as to how any kind of authority could make a distinction!
Just because two places are separated by 50 miles, and no other metro area in the country goes on for that distance, doesn't mean anyone should get any ideas about separate metro areas.
Maybe one day we'll figure out the hidden motivations behind these bizarre census designations!
It’s always functioned as one metro. They share sports and media markets, and people commute all over the place. Bart and CalTrain go all over the place. On the ground there’s no real distinction that would suggest otherwise. If you’re from the Bay Area, you’re from the Bay Area. Saying you’re from the city, the South Bay, or east bay isn’t treated any differently than a lot of cities which might have an east side or west side.
Astute observation, as Los Angeles and Houston's urban area are both about 1700 square miles, with Houston being about half as populated (6 million vs 12 million).
If Houston's population keeps growing within its urban area (which seems likely given the UA is over 80% of the MSA population), then Houston is going to become one of the most urbanized major population areas in the country,
I think it has too much competition in-state to continue on pace for that long . Eventually the economics won't work out.
LA has the advantage of glamour and appealing weather. People will always want to live there.
Housing isn't an easy fix though.
I think there's a better chance of LA losing its #2 metro position in the next 50 years than LA city passing NYC for #1 City limits population.
Especially with how generous metro definitions are.
However when OP made this thread in 2007, LA surpassing NYC in the long term seemed feasible. Even 5 years ago it did. But now it seems impossible, as California and Greater Los Angeles are both losing population for the first time in history.
Just goes to show for anyone expecting these sunbelt metros to keep growing faster and faster that demographic trends can change abruptly. There’s no use in making population predictions beyond the next Census cycle.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
