Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
With the exception of Delco (the Camden area in NJ), I don't really think that Philly's urban fabric extends into the suburbs. There's a block or two here or there, but mostly it shifts over right away to detached single-family homes once you hit the city line. The small urban boroughs which have walkable downtowns in Bucks and Montgomery are really little independent urban nodes, with the gaps eventually filled in by suburbia.
I would mostly agree with this and are the areas I added, though the areas there do add a decent amount of population
there are some select areas in other places but not as much as Delaware County, Cheltenham is probably the largest outside of those two in Montco
Bucks in the far NE becomes pretty suburban quickly in Bensalem and Southampton save a sliver along the river but Bristol is a little further and its own thing
Abington might be a little iffy, so other than that are any of the towns I added falsely represented in your opinion
I am adding places that sustain 10K+and a more urban development not places like a Waltham or Norristown (in the Philly comparison which is more urban than most if not all of the places you are mentioning here)
I am speculating I am more familiar with Boston and the areas around it than you are with Philly and the areas around it
i.e Camden or Upper Darby or Chester are much more intensely urban than many of what you are describing which to me would be more like a flourtown or Ardmore or Narbeth etc which are more dense closer in suburbs really (many with main streets etc and less consistent)
We can agree to disagree but I think you may not realize how the urban footprint extends, a lot of the towns I am referencing were more just city extensions developed in the heyday of industrial production of which Philly had a slightly different dynamic than Boston which had a different industrial development of sorts
I am not disagreeing in any sense on the areas you added earlier and some parts of those places are dense but based on my experience don't continue with the same pattern. For example going from West Philly into Upper Darby, it basically continues the exact same rowhome setup and is indistinguishable in many ways from the city itself on a continuity, Newton, no
Newton and Waltham have dense and less dense parts and are quite lovely in many parts but feel more first ring suburban of which Philly has those similar towns and dynamics, and probably more as they make a full circle without the bay
Philly does have a larger urban footprint while not huge is enough to be pretty well evidenced
I am guessing you have not spent much time in the places I reference. I am in Boston and Cambridge and Waltham (and places in between) probably twice a month and have been for nearly 20 years for work as well as leisure, will be at our office in Cambridge and meetings in Waltham and then to our other office in Lexington next week.
Newton and Waltham are less than 5K ppsm Upper Darby is closer to 12K I believe etc
based on my experience you get out of the more intensely urban developed areas of Boston much more quickly than in Philly, albeit much of that for Philly isn't all that desirable on the edges
Chester, Darby, Camden, Abdington and a few others far fall short of 10,000ppsm. And are the majority of that population you claim. Abdington and Cheltenham are less dense than any of the municipalities I listed
It’s really simple Boston at 134 sq miles is very close to Philly at 134 sq miles. If you add until Philly is 170 sq miles Boston keeps pace pretty well only dropping back like 10%. Now if you compare 170sq miles of Philly vs 134 sq miles of Boston Obviously Philly will be significantly more populous.
Last edited by btownboss4; 03-20-2019 at 11:06 AM..
Chester, Camden, Abdington and a few others far fall short of 10,000ppsm. And are the majority of that population you claim. Abdington and Cheltenham are less dense than any of the municipalities I listed
It’s really simple Boston at 134 sq miles is very close to Philly at 134 sq miles. If you add until Philly is 170 sq miles Boston keeps pace pretty well only dropping back like 10%. Now if you compare 170sq miles of Philly vs 134 sq miles of Boston Obviously Philly will be significantly more populous.
Abington probably should not be in maybe parts of it
Chester and Camden are pretty intensely developed and very urban, both lost population at a high clip but would be hard pressed to say they are not extended urban footprint albeit very blighted
Cheltenham has a substantial portion very dense and continued rowhome neighborhoods, maybe a tail of two places within the township
Boston and Philly are in the same category, Philly is def larger on footprint and population within it
I don't see the footprint extending that next 40 sq miles in Boston based on my experience from the 130
I would mostly agree with this and are the areas I added, though the areas there do add a decent amount of population
there are some select areas in other places but not as much as Delaware County, Cheltenham is probably the largest outside of those two in Montco
Bucks in the far NE becomes pretty suburban quickly in Bensalem and Southampton save a sliver along the river but Bristol is a little further and its own thing
Abington might be a little iffy, so other than that are any of the towns I added falsely represented in your opinion
Looking at what you mentioned:
Upper Darby: Definitely urban, but not across its entirety. The Drexel Hill area for example is pretty suburban.
Yeadon/Millbourne/Darby/Colwyn/Sharon Hill: Urban, and part of a natural extension of West Philly.
Chester/Conshohocken/Jenkintown: Urban, but not part of the urban core, since they're surrounded by suburban areas.
Cheltenham: Almost entirely suburban, though there is a small section east of Washington Lane with apartment blocks and semi-attached housing.
Abingdon: Not urban - where are the rowhouses?
Camden - Urban, and part of the core. I'd also include Gloucester City.
Upper Darby: Definitely urban, but not across its entirety. The Drexel Hill area for example is pretty suburban.
Yeadon/Millbourne/Darby/Colwyn/Sharon Hill: Urban, and part of a natural extension of West Philly.
Chester/Conshohocken/Jenkintown: Urban, but not part of the urban core, since they're surrounded by suburban areas.
Cheltenham: Almost entirely suburban, though there is a small section east of Washington Lane with apartment blocks and semi-attached housing.
Abingdon: Not urban - where are the rowhouses?
Camden - Urban, and part of the core. I'd also include Gloucester City.
Jenkintown would got the way of Abington so probably agree
Conshy misses the city border by a little over a mile with roxbourough (not exactly the most urban part of philly regardless)
Chester touches eddystone, essington then the airport and Philly, yes to its west its suburban but to me is an extension along the river touching the city, it does have the nature preserve on the one side and all its marsh land but to me Chester makes a continuous connection
am probably splitting hairs and many places don't maintain all the way out, the west side of Cambridge starts to feel more like Ardmore than West Philly etc
maybe then a question for you as I think you have considerable experience with Boston and Philly, how much larger would you speculate the Philly urban footprint is compared to Boston, 10, 20, 30 etc?
am probably splitting hairs and many places don't maintain all the way out, the west side of Cambridge starts to feel more like Ardmore than West Philly etc
True, but then comes Watertown, which is fairly urban in many places, as is the southern reaches of Belmont. Kind of come and goes in pockets, but almost all of the Charles River west extension feels urban through downtown Waltham.
Chester touches eddystone, essington then the airport and Philly, yes to its west its suburban but to me is an extension along the river touching the city, it does have the nature preserve on the one side and all its marsh land but to me Chester makes a continuous connection.
I don't think the river connection counts, because sections of 291 lack sidewalks. IMHO it's not part of a continuous urban fabric unless you can set out from city limits, keep walking along continuous sidewalks, and never run into a suburban neighborhood (strip malls, detached housing on cul-de-sacs, etc).
maybe then a question for you as I think you have considerable experience with Boston and Philly, how much larger would you speculate the Philly urban footprint is compared to Boston, 10, 20, 30 etc?
Using the google maps area calculator, and drawing a ring around the rowhouse areas of the Philly metro - including the industrial zones, but excluding the airport and some of the really undeveloped parts of NW and NE Philly - I come out with an urban core of around 140 square miles. I know it seems small, but basically Urban Delco and Camden/Gloucester and the "non-core" parts of the city cancel each other out.
Boston is harder, because the vernacular outside the core is basically dense detached housing, which means the line between city and suburb is harder to judge. But even if I'm being extremely generous, even getting it up to 100 square miles is difficult. The far southern neighborhoods of Boston aren't really that urban - somewhere like Quincy is just straight up suburbia. In the north, the continual urban fabric goes no further up than Malden/Medford. Belmont is close in, but suburbia. Watertown/downtown Waltham is arguably the furthest west the urban core goes. Newton is mostly suburbia - even half of Brookline is.
Philadelphia is much more like NYC, if only in its structural form. Not only is it significantly larger than Boston, it has far more truly UGLY urban neighborhoods that look like the junk in Brooklyn and Queens thrown up seemingly in a day (ain't nothing uglier than taking Amtrak through Queens; and, yes, Brooklyn has far less of that).
The Northeast of Philadelphia and the outer boroughs of NYC have a very, very urban look, but they also have a very, very urban ugliness that eludes Boston.
P.S.: You don't really appreciate New England until you've done a road trip south … So there you have it!
I don't think the river connection counts, because sections of 291 lack sidewalks. IMHO it's not part of a continuous urban fabric unless you can set out from city limits, keep walking along continuous sidewalks, and never run into a suburban neighborhood (strip malls, detached housing on cul-de-sacs, etc).
Using the google maps area calculator, and drawing a ring around the rowhouse areas of the Philly metro - including the industrial zones, but excluding the airport and some of the really undeveloped parts of NW and NE Philly - I come out with an urban core of around 140 square miles. I know it seems small, but basically Urban Delco and Camden/Gloucester and the "non-core" parts of the city cancel each other out.
Boston is harder, because the vernacular outside the core is basically dense detached housing, which means the line between city and suburb is harder to judge. But even if I'm being extremely generous, even getting it up to 100 square miles is difficult. The far southern neighborhoods of Boston aren't really that urban - somewhere like Quincy is just straight up suburbia. In the north, the continual urban fabric goes no further up than Malden/Medford. Belmont is close in, but suburbia. Watertown/downtown Waltham is arguably the furthest west the urban core goes. Newton is mostly suburbia - even half of Brookline is.
that could make sense, the differential in footprint at about 35-40% on your method would make sense on my guess on feel
I don't think the river connection counts, because sections of 291 lack sidewalks. IMHO it's not part of a continuous urban fabric unless you can set out from city limits, keep walking along continuous sidewalks, and never run into a suburban neighborhood (strip malls, detached housing on cul-de-sacs, etc).
Using the google maps area calculator, and drawing a ring around the rowhouse areas of the Philly metro - including the industrial zones, but excluding the airport and some of the really undeveloped parts of NW and NE Philly - I come out with an urban core of around 140 square miles. I know it seems small, but basically Urban Delco and Camden/Gloucester and the "non-core" parts of the city cancel each other out.
Boston is harder, because the vernacular outside the core is basically dense detached housing, which means the line between city and suburb is harder to judge. But even if I'm being extremely generous, even getting it up to 100 square miles is difficult. The far southern neighborhoods of Boston aren't really that urban - somewhere like Quincy is just straight up suburbia. In the north, the continual urban fabric goes no further up than Malden/Medford. Belmont is close in, but suburbia. Watertown/downtown Waltham is arguably the furthest west the urban core goes. Newton is mostly suburbia - even half of Brookline is.
If the UrbN core is 40% bigger why can’t you find a geography that has 40% more people than an equivalent one around Boston? Heck find one that’s more than 15% off. Because I can’t find one beyond about 10%.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
