3 ms·
A huge chunk of that is national parks and deserts. It's not all inhabited. Only about 25% is classified as urban with the overwhelming majority of that being
by themafia 1y ago
A huge chunk of that is national parks and deserts. It's not all inhabited. Only about 25% is classified as urban with the overwhelming majority of that being concentrated in Los Angeles and it's surrounding cities.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles#Urban_areas_within https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Los_Angeles#Urban_area...
This isn't a size measuring contest. I think Europeans forget how _young_ America is. That's the only unique part of this country. Give us a few thousand years and we'll be on par.
- cenamus 1y agoWell, and we always have to shit on the younger (and now bigger) brother
- cassepipe 1y agoYou'd be surprised to learn that geopolitics do not actually mimick family disputes
- lukeschlather 1y agoNo it was a population density measuring contest and you were trying to argue that greater LA was more dense than greater Berlin, without defining greater Berlin in a rigorous way. The size of Germany relative to greater LA was brought up to attempt to put the population densities in perspective.
- FireBeyond 1y agoMeasuring methods are also very different. I've had this argument before here. Looking at the population of greater Melbourne has you looking at suburbs like Werribee, Frankston, Boronia, etc., which everyone would consider as a part of Melbourne (suburbs, outer, but very much a part of the core). On the flip side, the "Seattle Metropolitan Area" consists of: Mt Rainier. Bainbridge Island. Glacier Peak in Mt Baker Snoqualmie National Forest. Mt Vernon. Olympia. North Bend. No Western Washingtonian is calling any of those locations "a suburb of Seattle".