Talk:Greater Los Angeles Area
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Greater Los Angeles Area article.|
|This page was nominated for deletion on 10 July 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was no consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|This talk page is automatically archived by MiszaBot I. Threads with no replies in 90 days may be automatically moved.|
|This article has been mentioned by a media organisation:|
Greater Los Angeles as a valid area designation
Wow! this page is really dense. I started a new topic in large part because I'm not sure where my comment would be best placed.
I have lived in GLA virtually my entire life. The area that seems to be referred to whenever this phrase is used in conversation or news broadcasts:
- Los Angeles County, excluding the Antelope Valley and mountain areas, but including Canyon Country
- Orange County
- The Inland Empire as far east as the eastern boundary of Redlands
- The developed southern area of Ventura County, including the Conejo and Simi Valleys and Ojai
This is a geographically contiguous area. With the exception of the cities east of Redlands, significant areas of open space separate this area from other built up areas in Southern California.
Greater Los Angeles is different from Metropolitan Los Angeles, which seems to roughly include most of the built-up area of Los Angeles County, i.e. the LA Basin and the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys; Metro LA includes the City of Los Angeles and all the other smaller cities within that area.
I do believe that Greater Los Angeles should be retained as a distinct entity. Generalized geographic area references often refer to similar areas, but usually have different enough scopes to merit existance. Therefore, I feel that templates for smaller areas are valid unto themselves, but do not invalidate the use of one to cover the entire GLA.
For example: the Inland Empire template is a valid one, but I feel that cities that fall within the larger area defined by GLA should be included in both templates and not forced to be one or the other. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OLEF641 (talk • contribs) 01:27, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
- Greater LA is known to be as far east as the Cucamonga Valley. House1090 (talk) 01:37, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
This is inaccurate. If you drive on the 10 or 210 freeways, the urbanized area is continguous from Claremont (Los Angeles County)/Montclair (San Bernardino County) until you reach Redlands and Yucaipa (near the eastern edge of San Bernardino Valley.)
From the 210 freeway you will travel through Azusa and San Dimas into Pomona (all in Los Angeles county) into Cucamonga valley. Upland and Rancho Cucamonga are directly continguous with the Los Angeles county cities, which are considered part of the Los Angeles metro area, despite being closer in size and proximity with the Inland Empire (Montclair and Ontario border one another, and Montclair is a small city) than they are with Los Angeles city. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 03:57, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
Why is there a factual accuracy tag?
There is a "Dispute" tag on this article because it has absolutly no reliable soutces that define its boundaries or what cities or counties are part of it.--Jojhutton (talk) 02:32, 8 August 2010 (UTC)
- I agree. Somebody is trying to define this amorphous area in Wikipedi, but why? To what purpose? For example, User:Moalli has pasted a link to this page on, it seems, every named place in the Southland (which is different from GLA), including the Channel Islands! See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Moalli. What can we do to rid WP of this monstrous and unsourced article? In high dudgeon today, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:22, 16 September 2010 (UTC) Look at this page, too, while you are at it:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Moalli . Sincerely, GeorgeLouis (talk) 02:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
- It's defined by the census bureau as Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside metropolitan area.--Prosfilaes (talk) 00:03, 24 January 2011 (UTC)
Merge Los Angeles metropolitan area and Inland Empire (California) into this article?
a) Combined statistical area articles and "extended metropolitan area" articles often cover all of their "metropolitan areas" or "divisions" in one large umbrella article, such is the case with the San Francisco Bay Area, New York metropolitan area, Greater São Paulo, and Chicago metropolitan area articles.
b) The size of the LA Metro article is a small 44 bytes while the IE article is twice the size at 88 bytes. Meanwhile the Greater Los Angeles area article is somewhat in between at 50 bytes. Since the Greater Los Angeles area seems to, in common usage, refer to the extended area, it would seem like a good idea to merge the two articles and greatly increase the size of this article while still using the invaluable information from the IE and LA metro articles.
c) It would get rid of the sometimes confusing disambiguation page titled Greater Los Angeles - as the LA Metro article would be merged into the Greater Los Angeles Area Article and would reduce the need to redirect to Inland Empire.
Thoughts are greatly appreciated on this matter. 08OceanBeachS.D. 02:44, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- I agree that the welter of similar articles is confusing. Will Beback talk 03:14, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Merge - first, I think you mean kb, not bytes, but it's a relative term anyhow. These terms can be covered easily in one article. (my initial !vote was otherwise, but I thought through it and agree) tedder (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Merge - Two articles basically covering the same geographic area.--JOJ Hutton 03:53, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Sure. Seems like the logical thing to do. I'm expecting some sort of opposition from the IE Wikipedians, but they could surprise me. :-) Killiondude (talk) 05:34, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Comment - I don't see why both of the proposed articles to be merged cannot be sub-articles of the larger Greater Los Angeles Area. Both Los Angeles metropolitan area & Inland Empire (California) are sufficiently notable to warrant having their own articles, and therefore, it maybe only a matter of time before those articles are recreated. Furthermore, if both articles are merged at large, wouldn't the end merged article of Greater Los Angeles Area be large enough to warrant a split? --RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 08:05, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Perhaps. But it may be of interest to point out that county articles also exist, so in essence we have three very similar articles covering the same thing. 08OceanBeachS.D. 08:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Merge Los Angeles metropolitan area, but Do not merge Inland Empire (California). I do think there are way too many duplicative articles, slicing and dicing Southern California this way and that way. Currently we have Greater Los Angeles Area, Los Angeles metropolitan area, Inland Empire (California), Southern California, South Coast (California), etc., and I do think the field should be trimmed somewhat. This article is an obvious one to keep (partly because so many spinoff articles use the same terminology, see "Category:Greater Los Angeles Area"). I would also keep "Inland Empire" because the term is so commonly used and, again, there are a number of spinoff articles, see "Category:Inland Empire (California)". Obviously the articles about the counties, cities, and geographical features (such as Los Angeles Basin) should all be kept as separate articles, but we have too many articles repeating the same information. Incidentally we have the same problem in the San Diego area, where there is a current proposal to merge San Diego metropolitan area into San Diego County. --MelanieN (talk) 14:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge Inland Empire (California); neutral on merge of Los Angeles metropolitan area. I largely agree with Melanie and RightCowLeftCoast. The Inland Empire is definitely notable on its own, and is an ideal subarticle. Look even at one of the examples given above - San Francisco Bay Area. That article has subarticles on East Bay (San Francisco Bay Area), North Bay (San Francisco Bay Area), etc. I'm less certain about Los Angeles metropolitan area. The way it's currently written has too much overlap with the greater LA region, so I'd be fine with a merge, but it may be able to be salvaged as a stand-alone article, too. Dohn joe (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge - They are two independent things, requiring their own articles. The Scythian 18:18, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge Inland Empire into Greater LA - Inland Empire is a distinct metropolitan area. WhisperToMe (talk) 00:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge The Inland Empire is the 14th largest metropolitan are in the US, there for it needs it's own article; it is larger than the Las Vegas metro, Kansas City, Minneapolis, ect.. House1090 (talk) 22:34, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge Sooner or later all of the areas will become a continuous Southern California metropolitan area. (Indeed, there is a Megaregions of the United States article which mentions SC.) But for now leaving the IE and larger LA areas (or should I say neighborhoods?) with their own articles is clear enough and gives the reader a sense of distinction from one to the other. Perhaps California megapolitan areas can include a sort of pyramid table that clears up the distinction.--S. Rich (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge Los Angeles Metro. Area, as other metropolitan areas, needs its own article. It feeds more the reader more information about the area. House1090 (talk) 05:05, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- Do not merge either article, for the reasons stated above. The IE is particularly notable in its own right, because of all the reasons (high pollution, high crime, large numbers of working-class people, etc.) anyone who can afford to live elsewhere better (e.g., Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, Laguna Niguel, etc.) will do so. --Coolcaesar (talk) 19:16, 17 April 2011 (UTC)
- 'Do not merge The Inland Empire is geographically, culturally, and somewhat climatically different than that of L.A./Orange/Ventura Counties. --Moreau36--Discuss 01:34, 18 April 2011 (UTC)
- 'Do not merge for all the above excellent reasons. Would make for a very unwieldy article also, Namaste... — DocOfSoc • Talk • 06:09, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
Split into two articles
This article is an uncomfortable shotgun marriage of two concepts: the casual, popular, organic and loosely defined Greater Los Angeles Area, and the precise federal census/management designation of Los Angeles-Long Beach-Riverside, CA Combined Statistical Area. The two are not equivalent! The eastern edge of GLAA stops at Ontario in most popular definitions and does not usually include the cities of San Bernardino or Riverside. It does not usually include the Mojave Desert, or the Palm Desert, or Death Valley. Some observers see it smaller; they do not include San Fernando Valley to the north. Sometimes, however, the usage extends so far that it might as well be called the Southland or Southern California. This sloppy and varying definition is what we know as the Greater Los Angeles Area.
There is a precedent for splitting this kind of article. The San Francisco Bay Area has historically been thought of as composed of the 9 counties which include shoreline on the San Francisco Bay. The federal government specified a novel designation of 11 counties, two which do not touch the bay. Thus, the 11-county federal definition was split off into its own article: San Francisco Bay Area Combined Statistical Area. I propose doing the same for Los Angeles. Binksternet (talk) 17:38, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
- Map of Greater Los Angeles, per Where magazine. This map includes the east part of of San Fernando Valley, most of northwest Orange County, but does not show Pomona or Ontario, let alone Riverside or San Bernardino.
- Map of Greater Los Angeles, per About.com. This map includes Pomona at the eastern edge, all of San Fernando Valley, and most of northwest Orange County.
- Map of Greater Los Angeles per Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors, dividing Greater Los Angeles into five supervisor districts. All of Los Angeles County is included, nothing outside of it.
- Map of Greater Los Angeles from K. M. Leuschner in 1932. This picture map shows the western edge at Santa Monica, the northern edge at Burbank, the southern border a rough line from Long Beach to Los Alamitos to Santa Fe Springs, and the eastern edge at Mount Wilson, Pasadena, Montebello; not extending quite as far as Pomona.
- Map of Veteran's Affairs facilities in Greater Los Angeles. This map is huge, encompassing Bakersfield and San Luis Obispo. It does not include Riverside or San Bernardino or even Long Beach.
- Map of Greater Los Angeles per Jet Propulsion Laboratory/NASA. This map extends to Burbank and Ontario but leaves off of Orange County.
- Map of Greater Los Angeles according the federal Environmental Protection Agency. This map is accompanied by text specifically describing the area as including all of Los Angeles and Orange counties. It excludes Riverside and San Bernardino counties.
- Greater Los Angeles Area according to Whittier College, includes all of five counties: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Ventura.
- A typical map of recent earthquakes in Greater Los Angeles as defined by the United States Geologic Survey. The USGS includes San Diego and the Mojave Desert, even Mexican areas around Tijuana and Baja California.
- Map of the Greater Los Angeles Vector Control District per LAVCD. This map shows a district entirely within Los Angeles County.
- Map of the Los Angeles Region, according to the American Red Cross of Los Angeles, with headquarters called "Greater Los Angeles Red Cross". It is wholly contained within Los Angeles County. The Red Cross has other, different regional chapters for nearby counties: Riverside, Ventura, San Bernardino, and Orange. Binksternet (talk) 20:06, 17 November 2012 (UTC)
Earthquakes and Building Height
I removed, again, the reference to earthquakes as the reason Los Angeles has fewer highrises than other large cities. There are few highrises because they are zoned out of existence in nearly all areas of the metropolis. These zoning regulations are for the purpose of aesthetics and NIMBY opposition to traffic. Just think about it for a moment: if earthquakes prevented building tall structures, why are there any tall structures at all in Los Angeles? Earthquakes have nothing to do with it. If you want to re-insert the reference to earthquakes you'll need to cite a legitimate source. EmergentProperty (talk) 04:07, 18 December 2012 (UTC)