Talk:Greater Los Angeles Area

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Los Angeles Area article.
Article policies
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario

User le909 who removed all mention of the "Inland Empire" from this article is mistaken in his efforts. This article is not simply about the Los Angeles Metro, which includes only LA & Orange Counties and is home to roughly 13 million people, but this article refers to the "Southland", or the "Greater Los Angeles" Combined Statistical Area (CSA), which is far more inclusive, takes in the 5 counties in and around Los Angeles (Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside) and is home to more than 18 million people. Perhaps a new article should be started that is only about Metro L.A. and not Greater L.A. to avoid confusion. 69.225.127.48 01:08, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Again, to reiterate to the blockhead who goes by username "Le909": this article is about the 5 county Combined Statistical Area sprawling outward from Los Angeles. That 5 county CSA is called "Greater LA" or "The Southland", and it includes Ventura, Los Angeles, Orange, San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. That's what this article is about. What is so hard to comprehend about that? Get off your egocentric trip over the 909, it's embarassing.67.124.201.191 (talk) 11:08, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

I suggest it should be named back to Greater L.A. Area, The I.E. is a region of the greater L.A. Area!--Redspork02 (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Concur with your move. Ameriquedialectics 21:42, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Opening comments

The map does not agree with the definition in the article. The definition only mentions Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the map also includes Riverside, San Bernardino and Ventura. RickK 03:43, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I moved this page back to 'Greater Los Angeles Area'. It's not necessarily the best title, but I think the move to 'The Southland' was ill-advised. This term means nothing to anyone who's not a resident of the area in question; and in fact, I'm sure there's other places in the world that call themselves that.

I'm certainly open to a move to a better title, but I think 'The Southland' is NOT it. --Morven 10:50, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

"The Southland" (although highly artificial) is the term most often used by the Los Angeles-centric media (i.e. the 'Los Angeles Times' and local TV stations) to refer to any region that extends beyond Los Angeles County. That makes it a valid emic description of the region. And in that regard, it's no less valid (even if equally obscure outside the area) as a Chicagoland. JoelWest 21:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

As long as I can remember, the this 5-county region has always been referred to as Greater Los Angeles. It is the Los Angeles metro area, so the title is appropriate. Dcmcgov 19:38, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

By the way, what is the definition of 'Anchor Cities' ? --Morven 10:52, 27 Dec 2003 (UTC)

like an anchor store in the mall

I'd like a source for the definition of "Greater Los Angeles Area." Most of the included areas are unpopulated mountains and desert. I'd only include the Southern parts of Orange and Los Angeles Counties. Mackerm 22:08, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

The arbitary but definsible decision is to use counties as the units of analysis for the "Los Angeles Area." It's defensible because this is standard practice, as well as highly convenient. Unfortunaly two of the counties are absolutely enormous in size, and hence contain a lot land that is in no way shape or form part of anyone's definition of LA. However, because the area outside of LA is so sparsely populated, using counties shouldn't significantly exagerate population or other common urban measures. The urban areas in that region are basically all part of the LA area. Strider
The urban areas of the Inland Empire are also on the western edge of their counties... but I thought they were "greater LA" because they get reception of LA television and radio broadcasts.

Once again, it's totally ridiculous to include all of these counties in "Greater Los Angeles". It looks like somebody decided to apply a US Census category of the metropolitan area to an existing Wikipedia article. This is just wrong. I guess it's time to disambiguate. Mackerm 00:43, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

What's wrong with using a US Census category? These are professional statisticians and demographers who've been studying this for decades. What makes the amateur authors of Wikipedia more qualified than the pros? JoelWest 21:27, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Do you have a definition of "Greater Los Angeles"? It looks like some amateur Wikipedia author has applied that term to a Census statistical area. Mackerm 07:41, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)
LA broadcast media market = greater LA?

What is the total population in this area? -- Kaihsu 17:06, 2004 May 10 (UTC)

The population/area numbers in this article are contradictory, or at least somewhat confusing. It says: the population of the Greater Los Angeles area is 17,545,623, and a total area of 87,972 km² (33,953 mi²)., but later it states a greater metropolitan area with a relatively high density of 7,070 people per square mile (2,730/km²). But 33,953 mi² * 7,070 people/mi² would be 240,047,710 people, or the other way round, 17,545,623 people/33,953 mi² would only be 516 people/mi². Can somebody check the numbers or specify more precisely which areas these number apply to? Luzian 09:02, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

The 7070 per sq. mile density is for the urbanized area which has a population of 11.79 million in an area of 1670 sq. miles (figures are rounded off values of 2000 census data). Polaron 02:49, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

I have concerns about the overgeneralizing of how people from Orange County relate to Los Angeles. As a longtime and current resident of Orange County, I would argue that there is no consensus on this issue. I will reflect this lack of consensus in the "Identity" section. I also question the statement "most people outside of Los Angeles County do not go there and therefore do not assimilate with it." The statement is questionable in its truthfulness and borders on opinion. Furthermore, why single out Orange County? One could make the same statement about other neighboring counties, such as Riverside County. I would argue that the whole diatribe about Orange County should be removed.

The introduction to the article says, "It is often referred to simply as L.A., especially by the residents of Los Angeles County and by outsiders." This may be semantics and hermenutics, but this seems to say that 'A' and everyone who is not 'A', i.e. everyone, calls this region L.A. Who's left to call it otherwise?

What about San Diego? It's close enough, why isn't it considered part of the "Greater Los Angeles Metropolitan Area"?

What about 20 to 50 years from now, when most of the state will be connected by high speed mag lev rail? With L.A. only 20 minutes away from S.F., wouldn't you consider them to both be part of one community?

[edit] Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


[edit] Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~. Please remember that this survey is not a vote, and please provide an explanation for your recommendation.
noted at Wikipedia:WikiProject Southern California#Requested Moves — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:51, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Survey - in support of the move

[edit] Survey - in opposition to the move

  1. Weak Oppose. Greater Los Angeles is normally considered to be the metropolitan area, while the Greater Los Angeles Area covers the 5-county area described here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:44, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
    Should that Greater Los Angeles definition be added to the Greater Los Angeles Area article? Right now the intro just mentions the metropolitan area. Since Greater Los Angeles is a redirect, it really should be in the intro and bolded. Vegaswikian 03:04, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

Add any additional comments:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

It was requested that this article be renamed but there was no consensus for it to be moved. --Stemonitis 14:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Sprawl

Leaving aside for the moment problems with other sections of the article, the "Sprawl" section is particularly muddled. Some sentences are so oddly written that I can't figure out exactly what they intended to say, and so I can't figure out exactly what to put into a rewrite. Also, there are many claims about the area's statistical characteristics, but few actual statistics to back them up. For example, is that part of the Santa Monica Mountains within the municipal limits of the city really so vast and so sparsely populated that it alters the city's (let alone the region's) population density statistics in any significant way? It sure doesn't look that way on a map.

The section also comes close to flat-out contradicting itself. Is L.A. very dense or is it not? Much of this confusion could be cleared up with some authoritative citations. What exactly is the population density of the Los Angeles area relative to that of those eastern cities mentioned? (L.A.'s regional density is given in the last paragraph, but without the context.) Exactly how dense is that dense area just south of the Santa Monica Mountains? Is that area the most densely populated section in the region? How does that area compare in density to the most densely populated areas of other large cities? How much of the region approaches that density? Lots of questions. The generalized reference link to the census bureau page at the end of the article isn't any help, as that page itself is probably incomprehensible to the average person. Whyaduck 22:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)


I edited the section in an attempt to make it more coherent, and I added a reference link for the density statistic. I hope it helped. EmergentProperty 04:53, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] This pages move

I think that this page should be located at "The Southland" rather than the Greater Los Angeles Area. Orange County holds a distinct identity, and is almost never refered to as the Greater Los Angeles Area. Neither are the Desert communities of Riverside. Almost all these areas are primarily referred to as The Southland, and only some are refered to as "The Greater Los Angeles Area" I will be moving the page, feel free to discuss the change. Rich in LA 18:37, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

We couldn't use that title as is. There are many places called "Southland". At best it would have to be somehing like "Southland (California)". Have you reviewed the previous discussion, towards the top of the page? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
I have never heard non-socal's call it "The Southland" and outside of The Southland everyone thinks of Orange and Chino and Fontana etc. as greater LA. Funny thing was in college (in San Diego) I heard LA natives call it the southland even though it was north! San Diego news and radio did not call it the southland that I recall, but I've been listening to KNX on the web and they have said "the Southland" like 5 time in the last 30 mins (and a sig alert at 1am!). Up here in norcal I heard someone say they went down to LA to go to Sea World (which is in San Diego). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.107.130.198 (talk) 08:10, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Commerical Airports

Right now the table of airports is fairly miscellaneous. Would it make more sense to include Commerical Airports as part of a general "Regional transtportation" section? The main article would still be Transportation of Los Angeles, and the material here would undoubtedly overlap with the execellent summary at Los Angeles, California#Transportation. However some duplication is inevitable with this kind of article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 00:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Death Valley

Death Valley is a long way from L.A., and is not in the counties that we currently call "Greater L.A." Mt. Whitney is about the same distance, but we don't include it either. Perhaps we should keep the scope more limited. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:07, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

I know Death Valley is pretty far, but I included it because it is located in San Bernardino and Inyo counties. The five counties in the Greater LA area include San Bernardino (and according to the articles map, apparently all the way to the Nevada border). Mt. Whitney is in different counties. I am fine removing Death Valley, but we probably need to define the Greater LA area better than the entire area of the counties, particularly going inland. Thanks, Alanraywiki (talk) 21:17, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Badwater is in Inyo County. Only a tiny portion of Death Valley is in San Bernardino, a part that's well above sea level. I agree that including the whole of San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, which stretch to the Nevada border, is overly broad. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:55, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. I will revert my postings on Death Valley. I'll also keep on the look out for the lowest level in the realistic Greater LA area. Alanraywiki (talk) 21:58, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Correction, the SB border meets the 0' contour line in Death Valley, so it's conceivable that an acre of SB Co is a foot or so below sea level. lat=35.79184 lon=-116.55710. However it wouold be more convenient and realistic to use the shoreline as the low point for Greater L.A. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:13, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Transportation?

I took the liberty of creating an new navbox for Greater Los Angeles transportation; but I do feel it is somewhat lacking. Would anyone here be willing to help? I took the template from San Diego's Public Transportation template and expanded it to fit the needs. Hope my contribution would be greatly appreciated! (located at the bottom above the California navbox, or direct link here Transportation_in_Greater_Los_Angeles. This is my first major contribution to Wiki.. Frozenbrains 22:36, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2 of the same??

I flagged the one section titled Urban areas of the region. It is the same as the section above it titled Components of the metropolitan area. they seem to carry the same info. What do u guys think?--Redspork02 (talk) 21:53, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

No, one contains the same information as the other one, but the CSA represents a larger grouping. I edited the headings to make this more clear. Ameriquedialectics 23:00, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Principal cities

Obviously the list was created based on population, but nonetheless Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are conspicuous by their absence on the list. They may not be large in population, but I'd certianly consider them "principal". 68.146.41.232 (talk) 05:06, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe the list is taken from the Census Bureau lists of "principal cities" for metropolitan areas. It is not based solely on population (note Huntington Beach is not listed), but rather on a variety of factors. Dtcomposer (talk) 16:24, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Principal cities are either large cities (>250,000 population) or cities where there are more jobs than employed residents, i.e. they attract workers from surrounding areas. Primarily residential suburbs are not principal cities even if they have a fairly large population. --Polaron | Talk 16:48, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Image size?

Editor User:Will Beback recently shrunk most of the photos here, commenting "(fmt - reduce pictures to thumbs - too many too big)".

It seems to me that the larger photos made the article much more attractive and visually appealing. Here's the former edit [1] -- see for yourself, and please comment.

It's not as if we're running out of electrons here... <G>

The same editor also removed a nice photo of the Blue Angels, commenting " (rm Blue Angeles pic -doesn't depict topic)". I'm unaware of any such requirement -- the photo depicts aviation,a (then) LA-area company's aircraft, and LA celebrities. Restored, Pete Tillman (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

Concur with Will per Wikipedia:Image_use_policy#Displayed_image_size, and also support the removal of the Blue Angels pic as irrelevant. Ameriquedialectics 03:37, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
The pictures were running into each other and into the text. There are still readers with 800x600 screens so we should avoid hard-coding picture sizes. As for the Blue Angels picture, it doesn't depict an airport or any other physical feature of great Los Angeles, and could have been taken anywhere. There are so many landmarks that we can illustrate that I don't think we should waste space or bandwidth on less-valuable pictures. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:55, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
On 2nd thought, you're right about the Blue Angels photo. No problem with deleting it.
But the standard 180px thumbnails look AWFUL, and this is what 99% of users will see. We need a way to get better-looking pages, with some attention to old screens. Ideas? TIA, Pete Tillman (talk) 04:49, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Users with accounts can set their preferred thumbnail size, though I doubt that many do so. While I was digging up the "wide image" tmeplate I found some others that may help with the formatting on pages like this - Category:Graphic templates. For example, Template:StackImageRight, which I've never worked with, may allow large pictures without all the formatting hassles. "template:Wide image" is supposed to handle adjusting the image to the page size without having to hard-code it. I'm sure there are some solutions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:24, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanx for the tip! For now, I've reset my prefs to 300px <G>. Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 15:21, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Boundaries

This is kind of arbitrary, but I think a plausible eastern boundary for the region in Riverside County could be the Pacific Crest Trail. This is where the urban sprawl kind of peters out and wilderness begins. The southern boundary is pretty well established as being the southern boundary of Riverside and Orange Counties, although it wouldn't follow the Riverside County line all the way to Arizona, instead turning northward where the county line meets the Pacific Crest Trail. The northern boundary is also well established as being the northern Los Angeles County line. All of Ventura County could be included in the region, or Ventura County could be split diagonally in half, with the regional boundary running from where Ventura, Los Angeles, and Kern Counties meet southwest to where the Ventura/Santa Barbara County line meets the Pacific Ocean. The split would include Ventura County's urban areas and exclude its rural areas. As for San Bernardino County, a similar line could be drawn from where Los Angeles, San Bernardino, and Kern Counties meet southeast to where the Pacific Crest Trail crosses the San Bernardino/Riverside County line. Some slightly built up areas like Ojai in Ventura County and the Victor Valley area in San Bernardino County might end up straddling the regional boundaries, but they do seem like the right places where local identification with Los Angeles starts dropping to close to zero. So again, my somewhat arbitrary definition of the region would be all of Los Angeles and Orange Counties, the southeastern half of Ventura County, the southwestern corner of San Bernardino County, and the western fourth or third of Riverside County. Thoughts? Parthepan (talk) 11:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)