Etwa 45 % von Kalifornien liegen im angrenzenden Stadtgebiet des Großraums Los Angeles, was etwa 17,5 Millionen Einwohnern entspricht, verglichen mit etwa 22 Millionen Einwohnern im Rest Kaliforniens. Wenn man Kalifornien mit ca. 19,7 Millionen in zwei gleichwertige Hälften teilen würde, würde es durch das Herz der Stadt Los Angeles verlaufen, irgendwo zwischen den Boulevards Wilshire und Ventura.
Von urmummygae42069
26 Kommentare
And this is with California having many other large cities. In almost every other state, the SF Bay Area would be the largest or one of the largest metros, with over 7 million people, but in California, it is dwarved by Greater LA with 10 million more residents. Metros like San Diego, with 3.3 million, and Sacramento, with ~2.5 million people, would be large metros in other states, but are completely overshadowed by LA or SF
This also happens to be a map of the best places to spend time in California. Those big open white areas are 🤌🏻.
*Population distribution
Not imbalance
It’s always amusing to see how empty western states are outside of the few large cities they have.
Not like this east of Mississippi. Even east of the Missouri.
Rural is a whole different meaning out west.
Connect the red in the middle and you have located highways 5 and 99.
/r/peopleliveincities
If you add greater San Diego to that polygon, it would encompass the majority of the state’s population.
People live in cities. How is this an imbalance?
I know people from Orange County don’t like getting lumped in with LA. This map is great
The east and west of the states are hilly and mountainous, with deserts, forests, and glaciers.
People, surprisingly, settle where it’s most comfortable.
I guess you could use “imbalance”. But. It’s a bit difficult to house a bunch of people in places without water.
Why is it so empty between San Luis Obispo and Monterey?
How is this “imbalance”? “Balance” assumes that all areas are identical and should have identical population, which…well, is not a realistic assumption for any part of the planet.
I grew up in the San Jose metro (biggest city in the Bay Area) before moving to LA. San Jose feels much more spread out and suburban than LA, despite the popular characterization of LA as a collection of suburbs in a trench coat. The population density of the Bay Area outside of SF is surprisingly low for such a large metro of 7 million people.
I think around 21-22 million people live in the two southern California metro areas (San Diego and Los Angeles, and that includes Riverside and San Bernardino), so roughly a bit more than half of California’s population. There are another 7-8 million in the greater Bay Area and another 6 or 7 million or so in the Central Valley, including Sacramento. Illinois has a much more uneven population dispersal where 70%+ of the state are in metro Chicago. Same dynamic with probably New York, Nevada (75% in Las Vegas metro), and several others.
This is literally how the world’s population is distributed…
People live in cities and alongside of infrastructure.
45% of California land area is owned by the Federal Government, so no one can live there, anyway (apart from military base residents, I suppose).
Some professor told us once that it was 60% for California, but he must have been wrong, even allowing for what ownership may have changed in the intervening years.
It’s not that bad honestly. England (59m) has a similar concentration with London (12-14m). Except California has a prominent second city in San Francisco while England has Manchester and Brum…
More than 1 out of 20 Americans live in the highlighted yellow box!
That said, south Orange County cities like Newport Beach, Laguna Beach, San Clemente, etc. don’t love being called “Greater Los Angeles”.
Every State’s Population Imbalance: Biggest City vs. the Rest of the State
California has a really normal population distribution. It has five separate combined statistical areas over 1 million (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento). It has a string of medium-sized cities throughout the Central Valley, and several decently-sized urban areas sprinkled around its deserts. The mountain areas and the rest of the deserts are very unpopulated, but for good reason. The only oddity is that it does seem like the Central Coast is underpopulated.
California has a really normal population distribution. It has five separate combined statistical areas over 1 million (Los Angeles, San Diego, San Francisco, Fresno, Sacramento). It has a string of medium-sized cities throughout the Central Valley, and several decently-sized urban areas sprinkled around its deserts. The mountain areas and the rest of the deserts are very unpopulated, but for good reason. The only oddity is that it does seem like the Central Coast is underpopulated.
In LA county and not considered greater LA 🙁
Perfect rail corridor down the middle of that and Caltrain has fucked it up this badly
Based on shape (tilt head to right) should call the population dense area around the Bay Area and Central Valley the swooping eagle!
You go live in fucking Shasta then.