Cranford or Westfield? (Rahway, Clark, Chatham: best towns, sales, to rent)

[AAVC]

Can anyone compare Cranford and Westfield for me? How are they alike, and how are they different? Both high schools seem comparable as far as test results go... I am looking to relocate my family this summer due to a job transfer, and I think I narrowed down to these two (I have yet to visit the two towns, but soon...). We will be looking to rent for a while, and I want a nice environment for my family, good schools, etc. Thank you in advance for any guidance.

[tandcookies]

Do a search on this forum. There are lots of threads comparing the two towns. They are both beautiful.

Good luck!!

[kalim2008]

Yep, lots of threads there.

I can probably summarize it from my POV.

1. If you look at rankings, the schools are pretty much the same, but for some reason Westfield disappeared in NJ Monthly's last ranking of Best Towns to Live in NJ (Chatham for some unknown reason was #1, Cranford was #37, Clark actually ranked higher). But many think this Best Places to Live ranking was bogus.

2. Cranford's median household income (~$100k) is less than Westfield's (~$120k), which is a wealthier town. Both however, are significantly above the average in NJ or nationwide.

3. Westfield is more diverse than Cranford (more asians and more blacks in Westfield), although Cranford is improving.

4. Westfield's downtown has larger chain stores, Cranford's downtown has mostly smaller mom and pop stores. Both are being negatively affected by the economic downturn.

5. Both are typical "boring", safe suburban towns.

6. Actual median home sales prices in Westfield have dropped a hell lot more Y/Y the last quarter (-19%) than in Cranford (+3%).

7. In terms of physical/natural beauty, I think it's no contest, because Cranford has the Rahway river flowing completely from North to south along its center, bisecting the town. This creates lots of opportunities for recreation that surrounding towns don't have, from canoeing along the river, to fishing the river and ponds within the town.

You can see more pics of Cranford in this flickr group:

Flickr: Cranford Township, New Jersey (NJ)

Slideshow:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/cranford/pool/show/

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

3. Westfield is more diverse than Cranford (more asians and more blacks in Westfield), although Cranford is improving.

how are they improving in this category?

[kalim2008]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

how are they improving in this category?

From 2000 to 2007, the estimated percentage of minorities has increased (e.g. from 2% to 3% asians), although obviously westfield too has seen an increase at the same time.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

From 2000 to 2007, the estimated percentage of minorities has increased (e.g. from 2% to 3% asians), although obviously westfield too has seen an increase at the same time.

but wouldnt most people prefer less diversity where they live? 3% isnt going to be much of a bother but generally speaking, id say diversity is a bad thing where you live.

[kalim2008]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

but wouldnt most people prefer less diversity where they live? 3% isnt going to be much of a bother but generally speaking, id say diversity is a bad thing where you live.

Hmmm...I would think actually most people would prefer diversity so long as everything else (crime, etc) remains the same or gets better.

That's why cities like NYC tend to have more stuff to do and are more "colorful" and exciting. It's the fact you have access to more things and more information. As in nature (e.g. rainforest vs monocultures), and almost everything else, having more of different kinds of things usually is good.

The problem with you and your demented kind of people is that you equate diversity with "more crime", which isn't necessarily the case. My idea of diversity is diversity in culture and ideas. That is almost always better, and definitely more stimulating.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by kalim2008

Hmmm...I would think actually most people would prefer diversity so long as everything else (crime, etc) remains the same or gets better.

That's why cities like NYC tend to have more stuff to do and are more "colorful" and exciting. It's the fact you have access to more things and more information. As in nature (e.g. rainforest vs monocultures), and almost everything else, having more of different kinds of things usually is good.

The problem with you and your demented kind of people is that you equate diversity with "more crime", which isn't necessarily the case. My idea of diversity is diversity in culture and ideas. That is almost always better, and definitely more stimulating.

i think nyc has more stuff to do because they have millions of people jammed together and many people have money to spend. sure, a white person may go to a mexican restaurant but for the most part people try to stay with their own kind.

i dont necessarily equate diversity to more crime. i also appreciate that you consider my kind "demented" because i have a different opinion than you do (or than you believe you do). whether you like it or not, most people agree with me. most people have friends that are like them, you probably do also. i dont really see where diversity has added value and made any place better. to say its definitely more "stimulating" is just a word that really means nothing. you see a black guy, a chinese guy and an arab walking down the street and somehow that stimulates you? or maybe a chinese, african, pakistani and a mexican restaurant excites you?

[VeradoDan]

Originally Posted by CaptainNJ

but wouldnt most people prefer less diversity where they live? 3% isnt going to be much of a bother but generally speaking, id say diversity is a bad thing where you live.

I would tend to agree.

[CaptainNJ]

Originally Posted by VeradoDan

I would tend to agree.

yeah, we can be politically correct about it and kid ourselves into believing that we are the world but realistically most people tend to stay among people like them.