Is Greater Los Angeles the physically largest metro area in the world that is unobstructed by water? (Long Beach: assess)

[manny9manny]

Many of the world's great cities are located next to large bodies of waters, like Los Angeles. However, most of them are severely obstructed by harbors, great rivers and bays. Los Angeles is not, perhaps giving it an advantage in this post-modern world of ours. Great harbors did wonders for cities in the industrial revolution, but nowadays they make for some expensive bridges and tunnels. They force to fragment cities. They force to densify cities. To me, those harbours and great rivers can have some burdens on those cities. Greater Los Angeles has plenty of room, which makes me believe that it is the largest (by land area) metropolitan area in the world.

[bhcompy]

Well, in the Greater Los Angeles area San Pedro and Long Beach are both affected by their harbors. It's just that Los Angeles proper is an inland city and is largely unaffected by any water features

[Cubancoffee]

Let me look that up for you. Cities ranked by size.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by bhcompy

Well, in the Greater Los Angeles area San Pedro and Long Beach are both affected by their harbors. It's just that Los Angeles proper is an inland city and is largely unaffected by any water features

Actually San Pedro is part of Los Angeles proper. LA annexed San Pedro through a narrow corridor of annexed land very early on.

People confused DTLA/central LA with LA proper. LA proper has a very odd geography, different from other American cities, that a many are not aware of. (Pacific Palisades is part of LA proper, but Santa Monica is not, Westwood is, Beverly Hills and West Hollywood are not, East LA is not, but the entire SF Valley through West Hills and Chatsworth are, and the aforementioned San Pedro/Wilmington are).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:L...ighlighted.svg

[djsmps]

Tokyo

[MB8abovetherim]

Originally Posted by djsmps

Tokyo

...was just about to say that.


And in the US I can't help but think Houston dwarfs LA in sq miles.

[jorge112597]

GLA, in my opinion is the largest metro area in N America from my experiences, over 140 miles from redlands/yucaipa to ventura, and also 100 miles from san clemente to santa clarita, all connected by developed land. Also 120 miles from temecula to santa clarita.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by jorge112597

GLA, in my opinion is the largest metro area in N America from my experiences, over 140 miles from redlands/yucaipa to ventura, and also 100 miles from san clemente to santa clarita, all connected by developed land. Also 120 miles from temecula to santa clarita.

I guess it all depends on how you define all developed.

Santa Clarita is surrounded by wild canyon parkland. And Temecula still does have agriculture around, avocado groves and vineyards, although there is definitely a lot of development too.

West of LA, Ventura County has been quite determined to keep as much open space as possible unlike OC and the IE. Thousand Oaks basically has a greenbelt of grassland, oak savanna, chaparral/scrub all around it, and the SM mountains to the south. In the Oxnard plain, there has also been effort to control development there too, and there are still lots of strawberry and other crop fields.

LA to San Clemente, and LA to Redlands however I can agree with. Just sticking to the 405, I think there's really only the Seal Beach naval station and the Laguna coast wilderness/Irvine ranch open space, and those areas are small.

Out to Redlands, theres some open space in the Chino Hills off the 60, and some dairy farms near Chino, but yeah, its basically all built up to Redlands on the 10 or 60.

But yes, if you consider that protected areas don't count as country, I could agree with your assessment.

Personally I think both Greater LA and the Bay Area are very unique in having millions of people, yet still so much access to nature. Thank the topography for that.