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.
A question for those in Philly. In the early 70s my aunt and uncle lived in an apartment on Packer Terrace (it might have been military housing since my uncle was in the Navy). Looking on Google Maps, it looks like those apartments are gone. Does the City have current plans for that area?
A question for those in Philly. In the early 70s my aunt and uncle lived in an apartment on Packer Terrace (it might have been military housing since my uncle was in the Navy). Looking on Google Maps, it looks like those apartments are gone. Does the City have current plans for that area?
I think they are now market grade townhomes actually; built about 10 years ago and next to the new Eagles training/practice facility
The Navy yard is also closed, a new business park, freight ship building facility (the old Aircraft Carrier refurbishing area) and a lot of mothballed Navy ships still inhabit part of what was the base.
Actually the census has already issued their position statment to combine these UAs as of 2013 with the final 2010 Census data. They have been a maintained UA for a while now. Rural land?????? Guess you have only ever traversed the NJ Turnpike between them. You realized the undeveloped part on the NJ Turnpike is that way because it goes through a military base (which is huge and the Turnpike route was specifically built there to save time in construction through undeveloped lands) and a national forrest. Try going up the route 1 corrider sometime or even 206/202/287 another time and describe the rural area. I think many who traveled between them think the NJ Turnpike between exist 9 and 5 is the barometer, actually far from it.
I know what you are talking about, but there is still think there is too much distance and space inbetween with too little to have those two cities combined.
And you do realize if they do combine the two... it will bot be Philly's UA... It will be NYC's UA? Philly would just be a part of NYC's urban area. Personally I do not now many Philladephians that would be pleased with that. I think Philly is the 4th or 5th most urban metro anyway it doesn't need to be combined with NYC, but we will have to wait till 2013. However, the area between those two cities are not continuously urban for the whole 2 1/2 hour drive. Not even close...
SF has a much more stable middle class base than Philly. The last real middle class area of Philly, the Northeast, has become a pit. Philly's core area, Center City and parts of South Philly, are repopulating, but the rest of the city is slowly receding.
Hmm...what about Wynnefield, Overbrook Park, West Overbrook, West Germantown, East Mount Airy, Cedarbrook, West Oak Lane, Roxborough, Andorra and East Falls?
I know what you are talking about, but there is still think there is too much distance and space inbetween with too little to have those two cities combined.
And you do realize if they do combine the two... it will bot be Philly's UA... It will be NYC's UA? Philly would just be a part of NYC's urban area. Personally I do not now many Philladephians that would be pleased with that. I think Philly is the 4th or 5th most urban metro anyway it doesn't need to be combined with NYC, but we will have to wait till 2013. However, the area between those two cities are not continuously urban for the whole 2 1/2 hour drive. Not even close...
2.5 hrs? (I can get through Baltimore and to DC in that time and this distance is about twice the distance of NYC to Philly) You obviously do not know the area then with a comment like that. The closest points of the two cities (borders) is 46 miles as the crow flies. There are more people that live in the 86 miles from Midtown Manhattan to Center City Phildelphia than in the whole CSA of Atlanta (actually nearly 2 million more people) and that EXCLUDES the cities themselves (NYC/Philly). It takes as little as 75 minutes to get from CC to the tunnels into Manhattan (traffic depending)
I suggest you take a ride up route one from Philly to NYC sometime and tell me where you leave developed space (actually much of the ride is sorrounded by density of between 8K and 20K density along that stretch (Bensalem/Langhorne/Morrisville/Trenton/Hamilton/Plainsboro/South Brunswick/New Brunswick/Edison/Elizabeth/Newark/Jersey City)...
On the combining it is rather immaterial and only uses the same rules as all other urban areas (continuously developed and connected) just like the UA in any area or the 4+ million in the Atlanta area that live in the continuously developed UA
Having spent a lot of time in both cities, I think it's pure East Coast bias that someone would try and argue Philly is somehow more urban than SF.
Perhaps. Or maybe it just depends on what you think "urban" is.
If you're standing underneath the El at 60th and Market, then I could definitely see why someone would think Philly is more urban. I could see someone thinking the same thing standing at the corner of Erie and Germantown.
People might also have that impression because the city is pretty big. It's funny that nobody really thinks of Philadelphia as being a big city...probably because it's right next to New York. But that's like saying Kobe Bryant is not that tall compared to Yao Ming. I grew up in Philly and I'm still discovering new areas of the city.
I used to date a girl from the Bay Area. I took her to see one of my best friends from HS who lived off Cottman Ave at the time. From my mom's then house in West Philly to the far Northeast took about 45 mins. She thought all of the houses jammed pack together off Roosevelt Boulevard for such a long distance was crazy. I never really thought about it before, but you can drive a long time in Philadelphia and see nothing but these tiny homes packed together like sardines. That does give it a more urban feel, I think.
2.5 hrs? (I can get through Baltimore and to DC in that time and this distance is about twice the distance of NYC to Philly) You obviously do not know the area then with a comment like that. The closest points of the two cities (borders) is 46 miles as the crow flies. There are more people that live in the 86 miles from Midtown Manhattan to Center City Phildelphia than in the whole CSA of Atlanta (actually nearly 2 million more people) and that EXCLUDES the cities themselves (NYC/Philly). It takes as little as 75 minutes to get from CC to the tunnels into Manhattan (traffic depending)
I suggest you take a ride up route one from Philly to NYC sometime and tell me where you leave developed space (actually much of the ride is sorrounded by density of between 8K and 20K density along that stretch (Bensalem/Langhorne/Morrisville/Trenton/Hamilton/Plainsboro/South Brunswick/New Brunswick/Edison/Elizabeth/Newark/Jersey City)...
On the combining it is rather immaterial and only uses the same rules as all other urban areas (continuously developed and connected) just like the UA in any area or the 4+ million in the Atlanta area that live in the continuously developed UA
I took a trip from Harlem to Philly took over 2 hours (around 2 hours after I got out of NYC). I drove down 95S and there was very little development. It is over 90 miles apart (over 100 miles from harlem) let alone the other bouroughs ... mapquest it.
Baltimore to DC is 38 miles... still far, but close enough to have a CSA.... but not an UA.
Atlanta's UA is no more than 22 miles from the center of the city. If Atlanta skretched out it's UA according to your standards it would encompase Macon, Athens, and some parts of Alabama.
So you might as well encorporate the whole state of New Jersey in your new future UA and then the middle part will have a larger population than Atlanta... as of right now generally only what's 22 miles outside of Philly's center is considered its UA and 22.5 miles outside of NYC is NYC's UA. The other 50-60 miles between them is known as New Jersey.
Yeah, they turned the projects on 85th into Tassaforanga Village (mixed income housing).
There are some abandoned houses here and there in West Oakland but they're generally not on the same block or even in the same neighborhood and you'll never see a whole street full of them even in the Lower Bottoms. I've only seen about 3 when I've photographed West Oakland.
Yeah I agree with you. I'm just thinking of random spots like these when I'm thinking about areas with empty lots in Oakland:
But I fully agree that there aren't all that many throughout the city and Oakland remains pretty densely packed with buildings, even in the industrial areas for the most part.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nineties Flava
SJ can be considered "urban" in the same way that LA's metro burbs and areas can be considered "urban". There's no real pockets of un-built space in SV outside of the SJ Foothills.
True. I'm not disputing that. I just mean in terms of comparing exactly HOW urban one metro is versus the next, the inner Bay's urbanity (in the sense of the word that I am using) diminishes when looking at Santa Clara County and Fremont. Same with much of the North Bay. Not that this still isn't a very urbanized area from end to end, but if we're comparing SF and Philly in terms of what appears more urban and including our most heavily suburban parts it averages us out to being less so than Philly, I think (not really sure actually lol, I'm just guessing).
I suppose tho if you were looking at a similar-sized area extending further into Pennsylvania maybe or wherever the Philly area gets more suburban in layout, then it might be a similar story for Philly. Again, I'm not really sure of that; I'm just basing that off photos I've seen here of the Delaware Valley.
I love these skewed lists, amazing how you guys drag up these lists that put Philly higher than it deserves....
Data from your list:
4. Philadelphia UA 5,149,079 density per sq/mi 2861.4
12. San Francisco/Oakland UA 3,228,605 density per sq/mi 6130.4
24. San Jose UA 1,538,312 density per sq/mi 5914.1
So for urban density they would rank....
1 San Francisco/Oakland
2 San Jose
3 Philadelphia
The UA list also shows that Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the United States at 7068.3/sq mi......
I love these skewed lists, amazing how you guys drag up these lists that put Philly higher than it deserves....
Data from your list:
4. Philadelphia UA 5,149,079 density per sq/mi 2861.4
12. San Francisco/Oakland UA 3,228,605 density per sq/mi 6130.4
24. San Jose UA 1,538,312 density per sq/mi 5914.1
So for urban density they would rank....
1 San Francisco/Oakland
2 San Jose
3 Philadelphia
The UA list also shows that Los Angeles is the densest urban area in the United States at 7068.3/sq mi......
Yup. This is a highly inconvenient stat for some folks. LOL.
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.
