I just read an article that included the information that Los Angeles is now the most densely populated metropolitan area in the U.S. This is so contrary to perception and conventional wisdom – to imagine that it is more densely populated than especially crowded-seeming east-coast cities like New York or Boston. And I wonder especially at the criteria – there is a lot of "in between" space in Los Angeles – the Santa Monica mountains, or the little ranges of mountains between the airport and downtown, or the Arroyo up toward Pasadena. How do these open spaces count in the calculation of densities? Alternately, how do the open water spaces of a water-oriented city like New York get counted? And what about "freeway space" – which abounds in LA and virtually doesn't exist in NYC – is it excluded in the calculations, too? I just can't see that, on a comparison of built-up areas to built-up areas, that LA is higher density, given how high-rises so dominate places like Manhattan or the projects of the Bronx.
Then again, Mexico City manages to be one of the densest metropolises in the world with very few (relatively speaking) high rises. I'm just not sure about all this. Regardless, we also need to understand that higher population density doesn't necessarily imply lesser transportation dependence. NYC may "seem" denser because of the very high level of public transportation usage in the city, compared to a place like LA.