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.
The areas around Philly don't feel very urban to me at all: Levitttown, Wyndmoor, Willow Grove, Willingboro - even Camden, to be honest. And there are even sections within city limits that feel straight-up country (ignore the title, its from an earlier search): Route 1 Lincoln-Mercury, U.S. 1, Avenel, NJ - Google Maps
Overall, Philly doesn't come close to the wall of continuous dense development (albeit, narrow) in the 50 miles between San Francisco and San Jose, and 50-60 miles between San Jose and and Richmond. Even Trenton to Wilmington has some serious deserted patches and almost-rural feeling areas.
And you are right it isnt close - the urban footprint of Philly cover a much larger footprint 200 sq miles vs 140 sq miles, there is a big difference. The bay may be longer but on the developed city footprint there is a big difference.
Rural in this stretch? where? Because to find those places (i.e. Willingboro NJ) you leave the width of what everyone articulates in the bay which is highly developed but on a thin line. It seems you use different criteria to compare the two honestly. From South of Wilmington DE along 95 up through Philly to route one and north to Plainsboro (North of Trenton) there is absolutely one continuous line of development (the Jersey side here not anywhere near as much).
Also the continuously dev eloped city footprint is larger and wider in Philly, that can and has been quantified.
Also on your image, cherry pick much? Anyone can find an image next to a park that will feel less developed. BTW Camden (Nor Wyndmor or Willow grove which are all absolutely subburbs here, not the areas or footprint being discussed isnt the reason why anyone says there is a difference in the first place.
and again on the wall of development, well that is great but because it it linear and very narrow it actually does cover a much smaller area, 140 sq miles versus 200 sq miles. I do agree that in general the burbs are denser in the bay, but not sure why denser burbs make a place more urban. Arent subburbs not urban by definition?
Yeah, we've gone over the Philly vs SF/Oakland thing ad nauseum.
As far as Phoenix as SF, the Bay Area is far larger and feels that way to anyone that has ever traversed both regions.
Phoenix and San Francisco to scale:
So Montclair I understand you have been to CC and S Jersey. Have you been to 69th street in West Philly, Broad and Cheltenham in North Philly, Chestnut hill in Northwest, Frankford and Harbison in the NE? Without going and traversing I cant imagine how anyone could get a feel for the size of Philly - these are all far removed from CC and continuous city. I have been all over SF, East bay, made the trip from SF to SJ etc.
This is honest, Philly is larger as a city than the collective city of extended SF/Oakland, and feels this way and maintains a footprint 33% larger, that is significant.
If you can tell me you have explored all these areas of Philly I will respect your feedback, if not I am not sure how you would feel qualified to make the comparison (and no the 5K maps show high density suburban development, not city). And if you judge on S Jersey then wow you really have a perception of the philly not based in the actual composition
This isnt an image from Phildelphia, you all act as though the city mysteriously stops at the Philly border for compariosn when you all continue to add places and justify as only in the Bay etc. Yes the Bay has denser burbs on average, agree
Something to remember in Philly alone there are more than 600K that live in neighborhoods that are affluent by any measure.
I seriously doubt that.
Households Earning $100,000+ Annually, 2005-2009
San Francisco City 114,826
Philadelphia City 66,260
In order for your statement to be true, the average household earning $100,000+ in Philadelphia would have to have an average of 9 people each.
Households Earning $100,000+ per square mile
San Francisco 2,496
Philadelphia 490
Meanwhile, if we expand SF to include Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Daly City, San Leandro and Emervyille so that we are talking a size and population and density identical to Philadephia, then the number of $100,000+ then the total households soars to this:
Households Earning $100,000+ per square mile
San Francisco 190,870
Philadelphia 66,260
Its almost assured that SF is actually close to 600,000 affluent people in its inner 135 sq miles while for Philadelphia it looks more like slightly under 180,000.
Households Earning $100,000+ Annually, 2005-2009
San Francisco City 114,826
Philadelphia City 66,260
In order for your statement to be true, the average household earning $100,000+ in Philadelphia would have to have an average of 9 people each.
Households Earning $100,000+ per square mile
San Francisco 2,496
Philadelphia 490
Meanwhile, if we expand SF to include Oakland, Berkeley, Alameda, Daly City, San Leandro and Emervyille so that we are talking a size and population and density identical to Philadephia, then the number of $100,000+ then the total households soars to this:
Households Earning $100,000+ per square mile
San Francisco 190,870
Philadelphia 66,260
Its almost assured that SF is actually close to 600,000 affluent people in its inner 135 sq miles while for Philadelphia it looks more like slightly under 180,000.
I suggest you read again what I wrote in terms of people residing in affluent neighborhoods. Also the city of Philly has far more pvoerty within the limits but again there areas closer to CC than many part of the NE or NW philly that have very high concentration and density of wealth. (main Line, Haddonfiled NJ, Lafayette Hill etc.).
For example Lower merion (Population 60K is 4.8 miles from city hall) with a mean home value of 797K (I know SF prices but seriously that is not middle income folks). Also I believe that Philly and SF metros basically have the same number of millionares etc. But again when urbanity is discussed you seem to then quickly turn to this more affluent smaller urbanity is better. I personally live in a wealthy area and can afford many things etc. I could also (afford) to live in wealthy areas of the Bay. That is a lifestyle choice and a use of means but on urbanity, not sure how it all fits truly.
Philly does have very good and very bad areas as a city, no doubt but you all take this position that somehow Philly is this barren wasteland devoid of wealth or education or whatever. An interesting stat to me is that among major DT populations Philly is the third most educated and has the highest percentage of residents with port grad degrees in the country. SF was not top 5 in either. Now to me does that make SF uneducated, absolutely not but I really think a lot of these numbers are leveraged without real world sensability
And as far as that pic which of a place that looks very close to Downtown Philadelphia, you accuse me of cherrypicking? LOL
Well, Cleveland Heights in Oakland is a desirable neigborhood 12 miles from Dowtown San Francisco and has a density of 13,000+ persons per square mile.
I just don't get these posts. People live like sardines in the Bay Area in thin strips of density between mountains and water and near the highway. I don't think you should be getting too excited about that. The density goes from very high to zero fairly quickly. Whenever I'm in California that always surprises me how development just comes to an end.
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
Which is why Im befuddled that I have to continue explaining to you that the Bay Area is farrrrr larger than Metro Philly.
If you've been here then you already know that the Bay Area is far more dense over a spread out area.
And as far as that pic which of a place that looks very close to Downtown Philadelphia, you accuse me of cherrypicking? LOL
Well, Cleveland Heights in Oakland is a desirable neigborhood 12 miles from Dowtown San Francisco and has a density of 13,000+ persons per square mile.
And as far as that pic which of a place that looks very close to Downtown Philadelphia, you accuse me of cherrypicking? LOL
Well, Cleveland Heights in Oakland is a desirable neigborhood 12 miles from Dowtown San Francisco and has a density of 13,000+ persons per square mile.
And also why the bay water influence with water is befuddling to me actually in the comparison. 13 miles means squat on the development footprint based on the layout (even your box is likely 50% or greater water for the Bay). Yes the burbs are more dense.
Riddle me this then, why are there far more people in a 25 radius of Philly (and that includes very little NY Metro propulation). They are built differently. I agree the Bay area functions as one spread out area with less people within its confines (some is geography realted, but that has both beneficial and non beneficial aspects on ths comparison.
I agree there are more affluent urban neighborhoods in SF as the city portion but also disagree that the Bay has a larger city feel, that is the point of the thread i believe. After NYC the Bay has the highest concentration of affluent urban neighborhoods, no arguments from me, but am not sure why that makes the city feel larger quite honestly. The SF/Oakland area is large no doubt and right there lined up on the water but again its CITY footprint is 33% smaller
On the metro areas i aslo disagree in that they are developed so differently that are hard to compare. And with two metros that collide here as in the Bay just on a larger scale (Philly > SF or SJ MSA and NYC > than Philly/SF/SJ combined). Now if you wanna go by Census line so be it but like you would likely argue that seperating SF and SJ as an MSA is a bit arbitrary in real world function this area has a similar Dynamic. From a metro standpoint continuously developed UA is a decent proxy, none are perfect but on that Philly resides in an area of 30 million people in a continuously developed UA. On DMA a media influence measure Philly is by far the 4th largest media market. No one measure tells the whole story. I also sense that many have minimal experience in the true urban footprint of Philly if their experience is only Cherry Hill to Center City.
The expanse of the bay is much more linear, Philly is more blob oriented with a linear extension North and South. Honestly one thing on the Bay is even in the developed parts I always feel like i can be out of it in a matter of minutes or just a few miles, there many parts of Philly where that just is not the case. That may actually be a great thing for the Bay as the very quick access to the areas undeveloped most definately can be a plus but making it feel like a larger city it does not to me.
Lastly although at 13K, the image actually doesnt look city to me, more a hybrid (again not good or bad, that is subjective but conjuring a big city feel a highway with great homes on a hillside does not make me feel uber urban in any way. It could pass for parts of malibu in some ways and again by no means a bad thing.
And on far larger even by CSA standards Philly is 6.5 million without Mercer (with is 6.8) versus 7.5. Add in areas as close if not closer than the milage spread on the Bay like A/B 900K or AC 300K (Total of 8 million surprisingly the DMA population number) and it is easily in the range without any NYC population (The census has already stated they through a loophole erroneaously moved Mercer to NYC). The numbers I discuss are not stretches either as all are close enough to be in Philly media market which is a proximity measure whereas the bay has a large enough spread to have two seperate media markets.
People putting Houston near the top of their list makes me laugh. Houston has something like 3,500 people per square mile. My apt building has more than that. My list:
1) NYC
2) LA
3) Chicago (though to be honest, if you flipped 2 and 3, I wouldn't care, as they're very close)
4) The much-disputed Philly
5) Death match between SF and Boston
Lastly although at 13K, the image actually doesnt look city to me, more a hybrid feel
Yes and Im still waiting to find out about anywhere 12 miles from Downtown Philadelphia that is even hybridesque?
And that's my point, Philadephia is larger than San Francisco but its Metro Area is not larger or more 'city' than the Bay Area. Not in person, not on paper, not in statistics and not in maps.
Ive already made the case for that more than sufficiently.
Furthermore, San Francisco is the de facto center of the megalopolis that surrounds it:
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.
