Connect with us

The Knowledge

Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago

How dense are America’s biggest cities? A clear breakdown of population density in Los Angeles, New York City, and Chicago—city limits vs metro areas—and why it matters.

Published

on

image gen

Population Density: How Los Angeles Compares to New York and Chicago

When people think of crowded American cities, New York City usually comes to mind first. Los Angeles, by contrast, is often labeled as “sprawling,” while Chicago is seen as a middle ground. But population density tells a more nuanced story—especially when comparing city proper numbers versus metro-area density.

City Proper: How Dense Are the Cities Themselves?

Looking only at official city boundaries, the differences are stark:

  • New York City averages about 27,000–28,000 people per square mile, making it by far the most densely populated major city in the United States.

  • Chicago comes in at roughly 12,000 people per square mile, dense but far more spread out than New York.

  • Los Angeles, despite being the nation’s second-largest city by population, averages just 8,400–8,500 people per square mile.

This gap reflects development patterns. New York grew upward with dense apartment buildings and extensive transit. Los Angeles expanded outward with single-family neighborhoods and car-oriented planning.

Metro Areas Tell a Different Story

When the lens widens to include surrounding suburbs and commuter communities, the rankings shift:

  • Los Angeles Metro Area: ~7,000 people per square mile

  • New York Metro Area: ~5,300 people per square mile

  • Chicago Metro Area: ~3,500 people per square mile

This surprises many readers. While New York’s core is extremely dense, its metro region stretches across a vast, lower-density area spanning parts of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania. Los Angeles, on the other hand, has a metro region that is more consistently built-up, with fewer truly rural gaps.

Why Density Feels Different in Each City

Population density doesn’t always match perception:

  • New York feels crowded because density is concentrated vertically and transit funnels millions into compact areas.

  • Los Angeles feels congested not because of extreme density, but because people are spread out and heavily reliant on cars.

  • Chicago balances both, with dense neighborhoods near the core and more traditional suburban sprawl outward.

Hollywood vs. Reality: How LA’s Wilshire Subway Was Really Built

Why This Matters

Density shapes:

  • Transportation planning

  • Housing affordability

  • Infrastructure costs

  • Environmental impact

For cities like Los Angeles—now reinvesting in rail, buses, and transit-oriented development—understanding density is critical. As coverage on LA Metro and urban revival continues, these numbers explain why transit challenges in Southern California differ so sharply from those in New York or Chicago.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

The Big Picture

  • Most dense city: New York City

  • Most dense metro area: Los Angeles

  • Most balanced: Chicago

Density isn’t just about how many people live in a place—it’s about how they live, move, and interact with the city around them.

Further Reading: Population Density & Urban Development

Dive into “The Knowledge,” where curiosity meets clarity. This playlist, in collaboration with STMDailyNews.com, is designed for viewers who value historical accuracy and insightful learning. Our short videos, ranging from 30 seconds to a minute and a half, make complex subjects easy to grasp in no time. Covering everything from historical events to contemporary processes and entertainment, “The Knowledge” bridges the past with the present. In a world where information is abundant yet often misused, our series aims to guide you through the noise, preserving vital knowledge and truths that shape our lives today. Perfect for curious minds eager to discover the ‘why’ and ‘how’ of everything around us. Subscribe and join in as we explore the facts that matter.  https://stmdailynews.com/the-knowledge/

View recent photos

Unlock fun facts & lost history—get The Knowledge in your inbox!

We don’t spam! Read our privacy policy for more info.


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Rod: A creative force, blending words, images, and flavors. Blogger, writer, filmmaker, and photographer. Cooking enthusiast with a sci-fi vision. Passionate about his upcoming series and dedicated to TNC Network. Partnered with Rebecca Washington for a shared journey of love and art.

Continue Reading
Advertisement Sports Research
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Urbanism

The Building That Proved Los Angeles Could Go Vertical

Los Angeles once banned skyscrapers, yet City Hall broke the height limit and proved high-rise buildings could be engineered safely in an earthquake zone.

Published

on

Los Angeles once banned skyscrapers, yet City Hall broke the height limit and proved high-rise buildings could be engineered safely in an earthquake zone.
LA City Hall. Image Credit: TNC Network & Envato

How City Hall Quietly Undermined LA’s Own Height Limits

The Knowledge Series | STM Daily News

For more than half a century, Los Angeles enforced one of the strictest building height limits in the United States. Beginning in 1905, most buildings were capped at 150 feet, shaping a city that grew outward rather than upward.

The goal was clear: avoid the congestion, shadows, and fire dangers associated with dense Eastern cities. Los Angeles sold itself as open, sunlit, and horizontal — a place where growth spread across land, not into the sky.

And yet, in 1928, Los Angeles City Hall rose to 454 feet, towering over the city like a contradiction in concrete.

It wasn’t built to spark a commercial skyscraper boom.
But it ended up proving that Los Angeles could safely build one.


A Rule Designed to Prevent a Manhattan-Style City

The original height restriction was rooted in early 20th-century fears:

  • Limited firefighting capabilities
  • Concerns over blocked sunlight and airflow
  • Anxiety about congestion and overcrowding
  • A strong desire not to resemble New York or Chicago

Los Angeles wanted prosperity — just not vertical density.

The height cap reinforced a development model where:

  • Office districts stayed low-rise
  • Growth moved outward
  • Automobiles became essential
  • Downtown never consolidated into a dense core

This philosophy held firm even as other American cities raced upward.


How Los Angeles City Hall Proved Skyscrapers Could Be Built Safely

Why City Hall Was Never Meant to Change the Rules

City Hall was intentionally exempt from the height limit because the law applied primarily to private commercial buildings, not civic monuments.

But city leaders were explicit about one thing:
City Hall was not a precedent.

It was designed to:

  • Serve as a symbolic seat of government
  • Stand alone as a civic landmark
  • Represent stability, authority, and modern governance
  • Avoid competing with private office buildings

In effect, Los Angeles wanted a skyline icon — without a skyline.


Innovation Hidden in Plain Sight

What made City Hall truly significant wasn’t just its height — it was how it was built.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

At a time when seismic science was still developing, City Hall incorporated advanced structural ideas for its era:

  • A steel-frame skeleton designed for flexibility
  • Reinforced concrete shear walls for lateral strength
  • A tapered tower to reduce wind and seismic stress
  • Thick structural cores that distributed force instead of resisting it rigidly

These choices weren’t about aesthetics — they were about survival.


The Earthquake That Changed the Conversation

In 1933, the Long Beach earthquake struck Southern California, causing widespread damage and reshaping building codes statewide.

Los Angeles City Hall survived with minimal structural damage.

This moment quietly reshaped the debate:

  • A tall building had endured a major earthquake
  • Structural engineering had proven effective
  • Height alone was no longer the enemy — poor design was

City Hall didn’t just survive — it validated a new approach to vertical construction in seismic regions.


Proof Without Permission

Despite this success, Los Angeles did not rush to repeal its height limits.

Cultural resistance to density remained strong, and developers continued to build outward rather than upward. But the technical argument had already been settled.

City Hall stood as living proof that:

  • High-rise buildings could be engineered safely in Los Angeles
  • Earthquakes were a challenge, not a barrier
  • Fire, structural, and seismic risks could be managed

The height restriction was no longer about safety — it was about philosophy.


The Ironic Legacy

When Los Angeles finally lifted its height limit in 1957, the city did not suddenly erupt into skyscrapers. The habit of building outward was already deeply entrenched.

The result:

  • A skyline that arrived decades late
  • Uneven density across the region
  • Multiple business centers instead of one core
  • Housing and transit challenges baked into the city’s growth pattern

City Hall never triggered a skyscraper boom — but it quietly made one possible.


Why This Still Matters

Today, Los Angeles continues to wrestle with:

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage
  • Housing shortages
  • Transit-oriented development debates
  • Height and zoning battles near rail corridors
  • Resistance to density in a growing city

These debates didn’t begin recently.

They trace back to a single contradiction: a city that banned tall buildings — while proving they could be built safely all along.

Los Angeles City Hall wasn’t just a monument.
It was a test case — and it passed.

Further Reading & Sources


More from The Knowledge Series on STM Daily News


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Space and Tech

Blue Origin Launches First Human Spaceflight of 2026 with New Shepard NS-38

Blue Origin successfully completed its first human spaceflight of 2026 with New Shepard NS-38, carrying six private astronauts and marking 98 humans flown to space.

Published

on

Blue Origin successfully completed its first human spaceflight of 2026 with New Shepard NS-38, carrying six private astronauts and marking 98 humans flown to space.
Image Credit: Blue Origin

Blue Origin has officially kicked off its 2026 flight calendar, successfully completing the 38th mission of its New Shepard program and further solidifying its role in commercial human spaceflight.

The suborbital flight, known as NS-38, carried six private astronauts beyond the Kármán line, offering several minutes of weightlessness and sweeping views of Earth before a safe return to West Texas. The mission marks the first New Shepard launch of 2026 and another milestone for Blue Origin’s reusable spaceflight system.

STMDN Podcast 2

Metro Transit Update: Sepulveda Corridor & C Line South Bay Recap STM Daily News Podcast

The NS-38 Crew

The six-person crew aboard NS-38 included:

  • Tim Drexler
  • Dr. Linda Edwards
  • Alain Fernandez
  • Alberto Gutiérrez
  • Jim Hendren
  • Dr. Laura Stiles

With this flight, New Shepard has now flown 98 humans into space, representing 92 individual passengers. The growing total reflects Blue Origin’s emphasis on routine, repeatable access to space—once considered experimental, now becoming operational.

A Reliable Start to 2026

Blue Origin leadership emphasized reliability and customer trust as central priorities moving into the new year.

“As we enter 2026, we’re focused on continuing to deliver transformational experiences for our customers through the proven capability and reliability of New Shepard,” said Phil Joyce, Senior Vice President of New Shepard. “We are grateful for our astronaut customers who put their trust in our team to bring this experience into reality.”

The fully reusable New Shepard rocket and capsule system has demonstrated strong safety performance, autonomous operations, and consistent recovery—key elements in scaling human spaceflight.

Building Toward a Larger Vision

Beyond space tourism, New Shepard plays a foundational role in Blue Origin’s long-term goal of enabling millions of people to live and work in space for the benefit of Earth.

As the company’s first operational human spaceflight system, New Shepard supports:

  • Reusable launch vehicle testing
  • Human-rated safety system validation
  • Increased launch cadence and manufacturing expertise
  • Future Blue Origin programs and missions

Each successful flight expands operational confidence while helping normalize commercial access to space.

What’s Next for Aspiring Astronauts

Blue Origin continues to accept interest from future New Shepard passengers, with additional flights expected throughout 2026. The company also released commemorative merchandise from the NS-38 mission, now available through the Blue Origin Shop.

As commercial spaceflight matures, missions like NS-38 highlight the industry’s shift from novelty to normalcy—bringing space closer to scientists, explorers, and private citizens alike.

Related Articles & Information

For more updates, insights, and in-depth coverage of space exploration and commercial spaceflight, visit the STM Daily News blog at stmdailynews.com. From mission breakdowns to industry trends and technology explainers, STM Daily News keeps you informed about humanity’s journey beyond Earth.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

The Knowledge

Metro Board Advances Sepulveda Transit Corridor as C Line South Bay Extension Remains Under Review

The Los Angeles Metro Board meeting addressed progress on two key rail projects: the approved underground Sepulveda Transit Corridor, enhancing regional connectivity, and the debated extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay, which remains undecided.

Published

on

The LA Metro Board approved the Sepulveda Transit Corridor’s underground rail plan while continuing debate over the C Line extension into the South Bay. Here’s what it means for LA transit’s future.
Image Credit: LA Metro

The future of Los Angeles transit was the focus of a recent Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (Metro) Board meeting, where directors considered progress on two major rail projects: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor and the long-planned extension of the Metro C Line into the South Bay.

STC LPA scaled 1
Image Credit: LA Metro

While the meeting resulted in a decisive vote on one project, the other continues to generate debate among Metro officials, local cities, and residents.

Sepulveda Transit Corridor: Underground Heavy Rail Moves Forward

The Metro Board unanimously approved the Locally Preferred Alternative (LPA) for the Sepulveda Transit Corridor, marking a major milestone for a project that has been discussed for decades.

The approved alternative calls for a fully underground heavy rail subway connecting the San Fernando Valley to the Westside, running from the Van Nuys Metrolink Station to the Metro E Line’s Expo/Sepulveda Station. The line would pass beneath the Sepulveda Pass, UCLA, and other high-demand travel areas.

Metro officials emphasized that the underground alignment offers the fastest travel times, highest passenger capacity, and the fewest surface-level impacts when compared with earlier aerial or monorail alternatives. The project is expected to significantly reduce congestion along the 405 Freeway corridor and improve regional connectivity.

With the LPA now selected, the Sepulveda Transit Corridor advances toward final environmental clearance, engineering, and eventual construction — a process that will continue over the coming years.

Metro C Line Extension: South Bay Alignment Debate Continues

The Board also discussed the Metro C Line extension into the South Bay, a project intended to extend light rail service approximately 4.5 miles from the current Redondo Beach station to the Torrance Transit Center.

Metro has released the project’s Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR), which incorporates years of technical analysis and public input. However, unlike the Sepulveda project, the Board did not take final action to certify the FEIR or formally adopt a locally preferred alignment at this meeting.

Hawthorne Boulevard vs. Metro Right-of-Way

At the center of the C Line discussion is the question of alignment.

Metro staff has identified a “hybrid” alignment using an existing Metro-owned rail right-of-way as the preferred option. This route would largely follow the historic Harbor Subdivision corridor, minimizing new street disruptions while blending at-grade, elevated, and below-grade segments.

Some South Bay cities, however, continue to advocate for a Hawthorne Boulevard alignment, which would place rail tracks within the median of the busy commercial corridor. Supporters argue it offers better street-level access, while Metro has cited higher costs, longer construction timelines, and greater traffic impacts as key concerns.

Metro officials indicated that additional coordination with local jurisdictions and further Board action will be needed before a final decision is made.

Advertisement
Get More From A Face Cleanser And Spa-like Massage

What This Means for LA Transit

The contrast between the two projects was clear at the meeting: the Sepulveda Transit Corridor is now firmly on a defined path forward, while the C Line extension remains in a critical decision-making phase.

Together, the projects highlight both the ambition and complexity of expanding transit in Los Angeles County — balancing regional mobility goals, neighborhood impacts, and long-term funding realities.

Further Reading & Official Project Information


Metro Sepulveda Transit Corridor Project Page

– Official Metro overview of the Sepulveda Pass project, including alternatives, maps, timelines, and environmental documents.

Metro Board Considers Locally Preferred Alternative for Sepulveda Corridor

– Metro’s summary of the Board action and rationale behind selecting the underground heavy rail option.

Metro C Line Extension to Torrance Project Page

– Background, station concepts, and status updates for the South Bay light rail extension.

Final Environmental Impact Report: C Line Extension

– Details on the Final EIR, public comments, and next steps toward Board certification.

Metro Project Updates – The Source

– Ongoing Metro blog updates covering major transit projects, board actions, and construction milestones.

LA Metro Board of Directors

– Information on Metro Board members, meeting schedules, agendas, and voting records.

STM Daily News will continue to follow both projects closely, providing updates as Metro moves toward final approvals, construction timelines, and funding decisions that will shape how Angelenos travel for decades to come.

For ongoing coverage of Metro projects, transportation policy, and infrastructure across Southern California, visit STM Daily News.


Discover more from Daily News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Continue Reading

Trending