How Big Would you Consider the Actual City of LA to be?

[SFBruin]

I think that I may have under-counted the population of the region of LA that would be considered "city-like".

I was generally considering the city-like part of LA to be the city boundaries of LA, minus the San Fernando valley, which would, I think, be about 2 million.

But this probably excludes some areas that are city-like (e.g. Santa Monica), that may add to the total.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by SFBruin

I think that I may have materially under-counted the population of the region of LA that would be considered "city-like".

I was generally considering the city-like part of LA to be the city boundaries of LA, minus the San Fernando valley, which would, I think, be about 2 million.

But this probably excludes some areas that are city-like (e.g. Santa Monica), that may add to the total.

But you can make the same arguement for other cities. Not all of Chicago and DC are urban/city like either. To name a few examples.
I could make the case over 1/3 of Chicago isn't that urban/cityish-the bungalow belt etc. Not too many vibrant areas there.
Probably the same for DC. Most of Northwest/NE DC isn't urban at all.

And the valley isn't all suburbia ether.

[kittyhawk28]

Interesting comparison between New York City city limits and Greater LA

[liat91]

Originally Posted by austlar1

Pasadena maybe, but Burbank and Santa Monica definitely fall within most people's experience of LA as a city. Ditto for Encino and other West San Fernando Valley locations.

Yeah, Santa Monica was the toughest for me. I mean a lot of tourists, when they say their visiting “LA”, are actually staying in SM. Either way I guess.

Disagree on SW SF Valley. Inner semi-urban suburbs at most, and not city imo.

Burbank outside the 5 could go either way as well.

[liat91]

Originally Posted by kittyhawk28

Interesting comparison between New York City city limits and Greater LA

Kind of surprised DTLA is a bit smaller than lower Manhattan(south of 14th).

[SFBruin]

^ Honestly, I am kind of surprised that the the geography of the LA basin isn't that much bigger than that of NYC, in general.

[jbermingham123]

In my ideal world:
1. The city of LA annexes all the cities in present-day LA county that are in the basin (torrance, long beach, compton, downey etc)
2. LA county jettisons all non-basin areas (palmdale, etc) into a new county
3. LA county annexes orange county (which used to be a part of LA county) and the entire greater inland empire area, all the way out to Banning and down to Temecula

And then build a massive high speed regional rail network

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jbermingham123

In my ideal world:
1. The city of LA annexes all the cities in present-day LA county that are in the basin (torrance, long beach, compton, downey etc)
2. LA county jettisons all non-basin areas (palmdale, etc) into a new county
3. LA county annexes orange county (which used to be a part of LA county) and the entire greater inland empire area, all the way out to Banning and down to Temecula

And then build a massive high speed regional rail network

Technically, annexations aren't necessary if the goal is to expand and improve regional rail. The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("Metro") covers all of LA County, and Metrolink runs commuter rail lines in LA, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Ventura, and northern San Diego counties. Just upgrade Metrolink alone and you're well on your way to a regional high speed rail network.

[SFBruin]

Originally Posted by craigs

upgrade Metrolink

I always thought that it might make sense to make improvements to the rail service between LAUS and ARTIC.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by liat91

Yeah, Santa Monica was the toughest for me. I mean a lot of tourists, when they say their visiting “LA”, are actually staying in SM. Either way I guess.

Disagree on SW SF Valley. Inner semi-urban suburbs at most, and not city imo.

Burbank outside the 5 could go either way as well.

Encino, Tarzana and Woodland Hills are more suburban than Sherman Oaks, Studio City, North Hollywood etc. The latter have decent pedestrian activity for being so far out from downtown.

Ventura in Studio City/Sherman Oaks is basically a watered down version of West Hollywood or something. It's not crazy dense, but the walkabillity/street front retail/restaurants goes on for miles.

[citywatch]

there are parts of Ventura blvd in the SF valley that remind me of sections of Wilshire blvd on the other side of the hill.

https://youtu.be/B8TWKJdr0IU?t=58

LA, for both good & bad, tends to be its own animal. I recall a person saying yrs ago that most typical cities don't have a lot beyond mainly their hub area...such a manhattan in NYC, the loop in Chicago, the peninsula in SF, etc.....but that urban LA has a lot of surrounding areas of some meaning or importance. That makes it different but also not as ideal for various tourists, certainly the ones who want to walk everywhere or don't have an easy way to get around.

[jd3189]

Based on my recent travels to central LA within the past week, I am pleasantly surprised by the low-rise urban/suburban density I saw. It is mostly car centric, but still more urban than any other Sunbelt city. Parts of Koreatown, East Hollywood, and Westlake are just as dense as similar neighborhoods in Brooklyn and Queens. Only Little Havana and South Beach in Miami can compare and those are still a tier below what's in LA.

In sum, core LA is legitimately #1 in the US after the big prewar 6. If they are able to reduce the amount of cars on the road and replace them with bikes and cycling infrastructure, it would only get better.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by citywatch

I recall a person saying yrs ago that most typical cities don't have a lot beyond mainly their hub area...such a manhattan in NYC, the loop in Chicago, the peninsula in SF

Those are some pretty inconsistent geographies.

SF peninsula: 49 sq. miles
Manhattan: 22 sq. miles
Chicago Loop: 1.5 sq. miles

[SFBruin]

Delete.

[LuluBobo]

What is considered the Big 6?

NYC, SF, Philly, Boston, Chicago, DC?

[SFBruin]

^ I assume so.

[LA21st]

I can see LA surpassing DC as 5 this decade for most people. DC has a nice core, but it becomes lower density, fast. In parts on Connecticut Ave like Woodley Park and Cleveland Park are small pockets.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Those are some pretty inconsistent geographies.

SF peninsula: 49 sq. miles
Manhattan: 22 sq. miles
Chicago Loop: 1.5 sq. miles

If you look at the map a few posts above of politically defined NYC (meaning the recognized city govt boundaries) superimposed upon the boundaries of politically defined LA, I see more segments of metro LA outside LA city govt boundaries of points of interest or attractions as compared with metro NYC...much less just the district of manhattan island alone.

Although there are variations of this in every urban area of the US & world, something about the LA region is its own animal....

https://www.youtube.com/@TheBritishBlokeRealtor/videos

Stretching the same OP's question of not so much a governmentally defined city ('actual city')...LA or otherwise....but of the metro region a city is part of in general, this is around 50 miles from downtown la....

https://youtu.be/UF_Ei2XHiGw?t=1603

As a comparison, the hamptons of Long Island are almost twice as far from Manhattan. In turn, I think of areas like Yale university as not far from NYC's north & Princeton as not far from NYC's south.

In a similar vein, I consider the wine country of napa valley north of SF or Silicon Valley to SF's south as part of the region of SF.