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 difference is that the vast majority of San Mateo County - i.e. almost everything west of highway 280 - is parkland/hillside. San Mateo County's actual developed area (the flatlands and lower hills east of 280) is higher density than the majority of the counties you listed with the exceptions of Hudson and Essex Counties.
Daly City, East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks are all 10,000+ ppsm, and most of the neighborhoods bordering 101 (the flatlands) in all peninsula cities are either 10,000+ or in the 8,000-10,000 range. Once you start going into the hills the density gradually drops, but the flatlands of San Mateo County are one of the densest suburban areas in the Bay Area.
I know San Mateo county well; similar to this much of the development in these counties are concentrated as well. The mountains along bay play a huge factor in the compression of development in this space. In the space here geography is not as severe in this regard.
But lets look at Bucks county for example; a density of 1,030 ppsm overall yet a significant majority of the population lives what is called Lower Bucks. So on the core path the townships that line space are:
Bensalem PA 3,000 ppsm
Croydon PA 4,000 ppsm
Feasterville PA 4,900 ppsm
Bristol Twnshp PA 3,500 ppsm
Bristol Borough PA 6,000 ppsm
Middletown Twsp PA 2,400 ppsm
Langhorne PA 4,000 ppsm
Fairless Hills PA 4,500 ppsm
Morrisville PA 5,700 ppsm
Then into Mercer where everyone seems to think there is this vast rural expanse. So here is the connected townships/cities along this path coming out of Bucks above
Trenton NJ 11,100 ppsm
Hamilton NJ 2,400 ppsm
Ewing NJ 2,300 ppsm
Lawrence NJ 1,300 ppsm (to me the least developed place along the whole expanse between NYC and Philly though Ewing also borders Princeton)
Princeton NJ 6,500 ppsm
Plainsboro NJ 2,000 ppsm
North Brunswick NJ 3,300 ppsm
New Brunswick 9,600 ppsm
For the most part fairly developed and I just went along one stretch though moving out further leave many places in the 1-4K ppsm range then to more consitent 700-1500 ppsm places with peak towns in the 6-10K range
So to do the same in San Mateo
Brisbane 418 (must be candlestick or something or mostly industrial I believe as this is just South of SF and an area obviously highly urban)
S San Francisco 7,000 ppsm
San Bruno 7,500 ppsm
Milbrea 6,600 ppsm
Burlingame 4,800 ppsm
San Mateo 3,700 ppsm
Belmont 5,600 ppsm
Foster City 1,500 ppsm
Redwood City 4,000 ppsm
Atherton 1,400 ppsm
Menlo Park 1,800 ppsm
Will apologize if I missed any areas along this path (tried to stay east of 280) but overall not that much different and the areas linked in the NYC/Philly path cover those areas everyone is calling rural, overall I dont see a ton of differences in these aggregates; though based on personal experience I do believe that the area between SF and SJ is more consistent; but these pure numbers show it is isnt exactly sparce in the former and has similar densities connecting as the space to the san mateo connections (and remember this is the path that people are calling out as the rural portion of the connection; the rest is far denser on the path)
Last edited by kidphilly; 03-31-2012 at 09:48 PM..
Don't feel like looking right now, but your numbers look very wrong....
Please do; I actually spent a fair amount of time looking all these up!
Also remember I have personally lived in Bucks County (my Brother lived in Mercer for a number of years and I still spend a decent amount of time/days at BMS and Novo Nordisk in Mercer as well) and San Mateo (plus still spend probably 10 or more days out at Genentech every year) just for reference
Will expect an acknowledgement of falsly calling my numbers wrong as well (however they may feel)...
Last edited by kidphilly; 03-31-2012 at 09:55 PM..
I know San Mateo county well; similar to this much of the development in these counties are concentrated as well. The mountains along bay play a huge factor in the compression of development in this space. In the space here geography is not as severe in this regard.
But lets look at Bucks county for example; a density of 1,030 ppsm overall yet a significant majority of the population lives what is called Lower Bucks. So on the core path the townships that line space are:
Bensalem PA 3,000 ppsm
Croydon PA 4,000 ppsm
Feasterville PA 4,900 ppsm
Bristol Twnshp PA 3,500 ppsm
Bristol Borough PA 6,000 ppsm
Middletown Twsp PA 2,400 ppsm
Langhorne PA 4,000 ppsm
Fairless Hills PA 4,500 ppsm
Morrisville PA 5,700 ppsm
Then into Mercer where everyone seems to think there is this vast rural expanse. So here is the connected townships/cities along this path coming out of Bucks above
Trenton NJ 11,100 ppsm
Hamilton NJ 2,400 ppsm
Ewing NJ 2,300 ppsm
Lawrence NJ 1,300 ppsm (to me the least developed place along the whole expanse between NYC and Philly though Ewing also borders Princeton)
Princeton NJ 6,500 ppsm
Plainsboro NJ 2,000 ppsm
North Brunswick NJ 3,300 ppsm
New Brunswick 9,600 ppsm
For the most part fairly developed and I just went along one stretch though moving out further leave many places in the 1-4K ppsm range then to more consitent 700-1500 ppsm places with peak towns in the 6-10K range
So to do the same in San Mateo
Brisbane 418 (must be candlestick or something or mostly industrial I believe as this is just South of SF and an area obviously highly urban)
S San Francisco 7,000 ppsm
San Bruno 7,500 ppsm
Milbrea 6,600 ppsm
Burlingame 4,800 ppsm
San Mateo 3,700 ppsm
Belmont 5,600 ppsm
Foster City 1,500 ppsm
Redwood City 4,000 ppsm
Atherton 1,400 ppsm
Menlo Park 1,800 ppsm
Will apologize if I missed any areas along this path (tried to stay east of 280) but overall not that much different and the areas linked in the NYC/Philly path cover those areas everyone is calling rural, overall I dont see a ton of differences in these aggregates; though based on personal experience I do believe that the area between SF and SJ is more consistent; but these pure numbers show it is isnt exactly sparce in the former and has similar densities connecting as the space to the san mateo connections (and remember this is the path that people are calling out as the rural portion of the connection; the rest is far denser on the path)
I can appreciate your effort, but its not accurate to say that Foster City has 1,500 persons per square mile when 16 of its 19 sq miles is water. lol
Also, many of these cities have large areas that are not built on due to zoning laws or natural restrictions.
In any event, there are only 2 very minor breaks between San Francisco and San Jose(city to city) as far as contiguous 5,000+ persons per square mile and its verifiable by looking at the 2010 Census Maps by the NY Times:
Otherwise, the entire 50 mile distance is 5,000+ppsm.
I can appreciate your effort, but its not accurate to say that Foster City has 1,500 persons per square mile when 16 of its 19 sq miles is water. lol
Also, many of these cities have large areas that are not built on due to zoning laws or natural restrictions.
In any event, there are only 2 very minor breaks between San Francisco and San Jose(city to city) as far as contiguous 5,000+ persons per square mile and its verifiable by looking at the 2010 Census Maps by the NY Times:
Otherwise, the entire 50 mile distance is 5,000+ppsm.
Fair enough (On the map and especially Foster City) as I said in my post I dont think the consistency is the same; nor the development pattern the same; though Atherton and Menlo Park are what they are (though all these places have things that can significantly diminish density; Bensalem for example has a large park and Ewing has a pretty large National Historic Park as does Lawrence actually; this lack of ability to build is NOT unique to these San Mateo municipalities; they exist in all I have shown). Oddly the UA cut line on the SF/SJ border is at a place of lower density than is the cut line on the UA between Philly and Trenton
Though when viewed this way while there is a consistent line (sans two small areas above 5K; the line is pretty narrow; there is a greater spread in the NY/Philly space but on the whole are more comparable in the aggregates than many believe are care to accept; the area is not some rural expanse as evidenced above by the continuous densities (and some of these townships are not small; some are 4 and 5 miles wide actually)
BTW do you use the NY Times maps and if so how do get the image to copy
Also do you have the map down in Atherton and Menlo Park (Seems your gap map is north of there; to be fair am pretty positive there would be lower density swaths albeit not that large in the Mercer area around Lawrence and Plainsboro); seems like two large incorporated areas with sub 2K average densities; and that is right where the SF (vai San Mateo) attaches to SJ.
Last edited by kidphilly; 03-31-2012 at 11:17 PM..
The difference is that the vast majority of San Mateo County - i.e. almost everything west of highway 280 - is parkland/hillside. San Mateo County's actual developed area (the flatlands and lower hills east of 280) is higher density than the majority of the counties you listed with the exceptions of Hudson and Essex Counties.
Daly City, East Palo Alto and North Fair Oaks are all 10,000+ ppsm, and most of the neighborhoods bordering 101 (the flatlands) in all peninsula cities are either 10,000+ or in the 8,000-10,000 range. Once you start going into the hills the density gradually drops, but the flatlands of San Mateo County are one of the densest suburban areas in the Bay Area.
You're totally right but the truth is these facts cut both ways and really help demonstrate what me and others are saying about the stretch between philly and NYC.
NJ is pretty damn flat, there's not a lot of water. There is little in the way of natural features that interfere with building. Because of this development throughout the area has no reason to constrict and rise to high densities.
I mean compare the stretch from San Fran to San Jose to the Stretch from NYC to Philly. As you yourself pointed out, there is hardly any room to build along that stretch with all the parks and elevation and the bay. Throughout most of the distance from San Fran to San Jose we're talking about less than a five mile wide span that people have to develop. Of course it's going to be dense!
NYC to Philly though? There's nothing but land to develop for miles and miles, and without that natural constriction development is thinner and more spread out.
The path of development from San Fran to San Jose is denser and more developed than NYC to Philly. No arguing that. But there are still 7million plus people living along that path. Just more spread out. The bay area has a higher density connection, but you must admit that achieving that type of density between philly and nyc with zero natural restraints necessitating it is much harder to achieve than the geographically mandated high density path in the bay area.
Actually just looked at the map and just South of the map you posted there is a much more significant gap than your image in San Mateo
Census Tracts 6114 (in Atherton at 1,245 ppsm), attaching to tract 6115 (also looks like Atherton at 1,657 ppsm) and 6117 (looks to include a significant park) at 1,522 represent a far more significant break and departure from the 5K you referenced and mapped directly on this connection between counties and MSAs
Though again I dont think the comparison is a good one between SF/SJ and NYC/Philly in the first place but there are far larger lower density breaks than your image which is tucked in very close to SF itself
There is lower density tract on the NYC Philly path; tract 3302 in Lawrence Township NJ at 851 ppsm (this is the low point and is bordered by a tract at 1,300 ppsm (this is the least developed portion and where I would have suspected it would be)
All others attached north are comparable to the density of the Atherton tracts actually and like the Bay connection then accumulate quickly back to the 4-8K range
And it keeps on going, and going, and going, and going, and going...
Bottom line: NYC-Philly is not as connected and do not identify with each other to nearly the same extent as SF and SJ. It's amazing that such an obvious fact of life can be argued against for 18 pages.
Hater.. But hey I guess if I lived in the Bay area I'd be intimidated by a NY/Philly conglomeration too.
I voted no by the way
Bay Area residents are largely quite content with themselves and their region. Plenty of data can be brought up that helps to explain why this is. Why should we be intimidated by anywhere else? On this website, it truly seems that it's a few of the Philly posters who have a giant bone to pick with the Bay Area.
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.
