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.
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.
I should hope I am not one of them; read back what I have wrote
my responses are context of claims that the area between NYC and Philly is not developed; on being the same I have stated many times it is not; but less because of the differences in development and more because they are distinct places; unlike the Bay area which is one area. End of day though it is one area compared to two; just so happens these two are very populated and overlap; that is what it is
Not even close. Philly is much more of a city than san jose could ever dream of being. San jose is a giant suburb. A better comparison would be LA & SD vs NYC & Philly but even than its apples and oranges. The east and west coasts are so different in almost every signle way imaginable, they might as well be 2 different countries.
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)
These were the ones you left out for east of 280:
Daly City 13,000 ppsm (101,123 people)
East Palo Alto 11,000 ppsm (28,155 people)
North Fair Oaks 12,000 ppsm (14,687 people)
This is the only irregularity (west of 280) I can think of:
Broadmoor 9,300 ppsm (4,176)
And that's because it's basically an extension of Daly City.
And also, while cities like Menlo Park and RWC might be low density as a whole, they have multiple large high-density neighorhoods:
Bellehaven, Menlo Park (9,400 ppsm, 6,290 people)
The Willows, Menlo Park (8,300 ppsm, 7,229 people)
Stambaugh-Heller, Redwood City (9,700 ppsm, 6,118 people)
Central Park, Redwood City (11,200 ppsm, 6,992 people)
Middlefield, Redwood City (9,500 ppsm, 6,312 people)
Downtown, Redwood City (9,000 ppsm, 9,133 people)
Friendly Acres, Redwood City (8,800 ppsm, 8,005 people)
Redwood Oaks, Redwood City (10,000 ppsm, 6,110 people)
Palm Park, Redwood City (13,200 ppsm, 10,522 people)
All of which are in the flatlands. When you look at neighborhoods with sub 5,000 populations, more of these crop up:
Mezes Park, Redwood City (12,400 ppsm, 1,287 people)
Dumbarton, Redwood City (15,700 ppsm, 1,166 people)
And etc. The only truly low density communities in the peninsula are Atherton, Hillsborough, Woodside, etc. (i.e. the extremely wealthy areas).
The geography in the peninsula creates extreme fluctuation in density within its cities that largely doesn't occur in the counties between Philly and NYC; there's generally less neighborhood density fluctuation in said northeastern counties than there is here. In many ways, this is an apples to oranges comparison.
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
In other words, your not willing to let go of the fact that the area between NY and Philadelphia is nowhere near as built up as the area between San Francisco and San Jose.
Why do you punish yourself so?
At Atherton the 5,000+ census tract which connects North to South is 6116, which has a density of 7,020
Furthermore, Atherton is not farmland or undeveloped. This is the middle of the widest part of town that is not 5,000+ppsm
The near contiguous 5,000+ppsm that exists in San Mateo County connecting SF to and into Santa Clara County does NOT exist btwn NY and Philadelphia, not even close, not even on the same planet, or universe. Even Trenton's density is very small in size compared to Peninsula towns.
And all of this should come as no surprise either as San Francisco is the 2nd most densely populated urbanized area after Los Angeles, and contiguous density is how urbanized areas are determined.
Did you actually read what I wrote; I agreed it is more consistently/continuously developed; and also the development is not the main reason they are not comparable in the first place. Both are highly developed; this is larger gap in Mercer agree; I posted to show the people who call a 20 mile mile long nearly rural expanse absolutely does not exist. I also showed other areas not as dense that you excluded while still saying they are more consistently developed along this narrow path. LA is the monster of continuity actually not the narrow swath along the bay nor the path in central Jersey.
and here is the low density area in the gap people are discussing; actually similar to your images loaded with million (many multi million dollar homes) albeit larger lots and greater tree coverage.
but agree they are not comparable but it far less because of density and more because they are actually two distinct areas far moreso than are SF and SJ and this is far more the reason they are dissimilar
And my point is that there is not void of development and especially not job centers or even population along this path, albeit is spread more at lower density but not a vast rural expanse
Last edited by kidphilly; 04-01-2012 at 02:23 PM..
Wow... this fighting about density statistics between philly an bay area posters is one of the saddest things I have ever seen on an internet forum, lol and that is saying A LOT.
Wow... this fighting about density statistics between philly an bay area posters is one of the saddest things I have ever seen on an internet forum, lol and that is saying A LOT.
Basically people who dont have a life. Stick around longer and witness a new SF vs Philly thread unfold. Happens almost everyday and its the same posters averaging 50 posts per thread
LOL it comes down to the same 2 people competing with each other to become the next king of cd
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.
