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.
But Philly to NYC is not the same as SF or Oakland to SJ, which simply doesn't even dip below 5K ppsm ...
The argument was never that the area between NYC and Philly is just as densely developed as SF to SJ...suburbs out East are much less dense than out West, with bigger lot sizes. The argument was that there IS development there. Montclair is the one who argues that the area is not developed or inhabited, cherry-picking national park space and routes that deliberately bypass development.
I don't believe NJ has the same topography. The area you picked is literally mountainous. Perhaps if NJ had the same topographic limitations, it would squeeze central Jersey development into a pattern more akin to that of SF to SJ, but in reality, central Jersey is highly developed exurbanity while SF-SJ is more dense uniformly along the way than almost every single city limits in this country.
I don't believe NJ has the same topography. The area you picked is literally mountainous. Perhaps if NJ had the same topographic limitations, it would squeeze central Jersey development into a pattern more akin to that of SF to SJ, but in reality, central Jersey is highly developed exurbanity while SF-SJ is more dense uniformly along the way than almost every single city limits in this country.
I don't know the population count for people that live in the area between SF and SJ, but in the Central Jersey area we are discussing, excluding densely populated North Jersey close to NYC and excluding PA side from Philly, there are 3.45 million people living in the "uninhabited area" according to Montclair, as per census estimates. If we are strictly talking city limits to city limits, there are ~8 million people in the broader area between NYC and Philly, excluding the cities themselves. The area we are talking about is obviously much larger in square miles than the strip of development between SF and SJ.
Between Daly City and E. Palo Alto, in San Mateo County, there are 758,581 people. Contiguously at quick count I can total 650,704 in 106.9 sq mi for an average density of ~6100 ppsm. Included in these area/population totals are sparsely populated mountainous areas just south of SF city limits as well as leafy green suburbs that are the wealthiest in this country (such as Atherton). This small area also contains 37 million sf of office space and untold R&D space (tracked separately), as well as San Francisco International. It is served partially by BART heavy rail and fully by one of the most heavily used commuter rail lines in the US. All told, this is bigger/denser than Portland, Denver, or Detroit and approaching Seattle. This doesn't get into northern Santa Clara County towns in the way of San Jose, which are essentially an unbroken continuation (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc...you would not know when you crossed county lines and thus MSAs). This area also contains the 49ers Levis Stadium, Moffett Field, Stanford, Stanford Shopping Center, San Jose Mineta International, and Great America amusement park. Behemoths like Google, Apple, Oracle, and Facebook are headquartered in this strip.
Daly City 7.66 106,094
Brisbane 3.096 4,282
Colma 1.909 1,792
South San Francisco 9.14 67,009
San Bruno 5.478 43,009
Millbrae 3.247 22,703
Burlingame 4.406 30,298
San Mateo 12.13 102,893
Hillsborough 6.19 11,413
Highlands-Baywood Park 1.807 4,027
Belmont 4.62 27,073
Foster City 3.76 32,754
San Carlos 5.54 29,803
Redwood City 19.42 82,881
North Fair Oaks 1.2 14,687
East Palo Alto 2.51 29,530
Menlo Park 9.79 33,309
Atherton 5.02 7,147
These are the numbers that get you there (650K in 107 sq mi).
This is all mirrored on the other side of the Bay where I get in Alameda County alone, not looking at places like Milpitas in northern Santa Clara county (which is 70K in 13.5 sq mi, or 5100 ppsm) I get 651,170 in 141.4 sq mi (4604 ppsm):
San Leandro 13.34 89,351
Hayward 45.32 154,612
San Lorenzo 2.76 23,452
Cherryland 1.197 14,728
Ashland 1.838 21,925
Fremont 43.62 228,758
Newark 13.88 44,723
Union City 19.47 73,621
Between San Mateo and Alameda Counties only, *between* SF/Oakland and Santa Clara County, contiguously, that's 1.85 million people in 348 sq mi. Very intense office space and other uses (airports, stadiums, malls, public transit, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't get anything close to that in most of Jersey. You only get that intensity of development with that many people until you get to Northern Jersey closer into NYC.
Not saying that Philly and NYC aren't connected by relatively continuous development. Again, I'd liken it from my experience to the drive between SF/Contra Costa County in the Bay Area to Sacramento. But to compare it to the strips of continuous development between SF/Oakland and SJ shows lack of perception or experience with one or both of these areas being discussed. Few places in the country, cities included, are as intensely developed as the suburbia between SF/Oakland and SJ. South FL is what is more comparable. LA is comparable, even larger. Northern Jersey or Westchester into SW CT is comparable. The entire state of NJ is not.
Few places in the country, cities included, are as intensely developed as the suburbia between SF/Oakland and SJ. South FL is what is more comparable. LA is comparable, even larger. Northern Jersey or Westchester into SW CT is comparable. The entire state of NJ is not.
The best Northeast comparison might be NYC out to Westchester and SW CT (Norwalk ish) or the south shore of Long Island to Babylon. Both have long stretches of moderate densities, Long Island has less variation and tends not to have as much older cities, so I'd say it's closer. But not as many offices, tends to be more residential.
and are you suggesting the whole border of SF/SJ is? or the developed area, because you posted of images out by the pine barrens and Fort Dix which arent developed and I never said they were, their not in the developed area
The border of the San Francisco and San Jose urban areas is the San Mateo / Santa Clara county lines. There's no obvious development difference on either side.
Between Daly City and E. Palo Alto, in San Mateo County, there are 758,581 people. Contiguously at quick count I can total 650,704 in 106.9 sq mi for an average density of ~6100 ppsm. Included in these area/population totals are sparsely populated mountainous areas just south of SF city limits as well as leafy green suburbs that are the wealthiest in this country (such as Atherton). This small area also contains 37 million sf of office space and untold R&D space (tracked separately), as well as San Francisco International. It is served partially by BART heavy rail and fully by one of the most heavily used commuter rail lines in the US. All told, this is bigger/denser than Portland, Denver, or Detroit and approaching Seattle. This doesn't get into northern Santa Clara County towns in the way of San Jose, which are essentially an unbroken continuation (Palo Alto, Sunnyvale, Santa Clara, etc...you would not know when you crossed county lines and thus MSAs). This area also contains the 49ers Levis Stadium, Moffett Field, Stanford, Stanford Shopping Center, San Jose Mineta International, and Great America amusement park. Behemoths like Google, Apple, Oracle, and Facebook are headquartered in this strip.
Daly City 7.66 106,094
Brisbane 3.096 4,282
Colma 1.909 1,792
South San Francisco 9.14 67,009
San Bruno 5.478 43,009
Millbrae 3.247 22,703
Burlingame 4.406 30,298
San Mateo 12.13 102,893
Hillsborough 6.19 11,413
Highlands-Baywood Park 1.807 4,027
Belmont 4.62 27,073
Foster City 3.76 32,754
San Carlos 5.54 29,803
Redwood City 19.42 82,881
North Fair Oaks 1.2 14,687
East Palo Alto 2.51 29,530
Menlo Park 9.79 33,309
Atherton 5.02 7,147
These are the numbers that get you there (650K in 107 sq mi).
This is all mirrored on the other side of the Bay where I get in Alameda County alone, not looking at places like Milpitas in northern Santa Clara county (which is 70K in 13.5 sq mi, or 5100 ppsm) I get 651,170 in 141.4 sq mi (4604 ppsm):
San Leandro 13.34 89,351
Hayward 45.32 154,612
San Lorenzo 2.76 23,452
Cherryland 1.197 14,728
Ashland 1.838 21,925
Fremont 43.62 228,758
Newark 13.88 44,723
Union City 19.47 73,621
Between San Mateo and Alameda Counties only, *between* SF/Oakland and Santa Clara County, contiguously, that's 1.85 million people in 348 sq mi. Very intense office space and other uses (airports, stadiums, malls, public transit, etc).
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you don't get anything close to that in most of Jersey. You only get that intensity of development with that many people until you get to Northern Jersey closer into NYC.
Not saying that Philly and NYC aren't connected by relatively continuous development. Again, I'd liken it from my experience to the drive between SF/Contra Costa County in the Bay Area to Sacramento. But to compare it to the strips of continuous development between SF/Oakland and SJ shows lack of perception or experience with one or both of these areas being discussed. Few places in the country, cities included, are as intensely developed as the suburbia between SF/Oakland and SJ. South FL is what is more comparable. LA is comparable, even larger. Northern Jersey or Westchester into SW CT is comparable. The entire state of NJ is not.
again I didnt say the same density but now the same development as the Bay to Sacramento? Seriously?
and there are very wealthy areas and a lot of malls and offices/reseacrh facilities in this corrider as well (the likes of BMS, JNJ, Novo Nordisk, Dow Jones, Merrill Lynch, Black Rock etc.)
again am not saying at the same density but now are you serious in comparing this to the development between the Bay and Sacramento, wow
Also you do realize that the area in question is one of the highest income areas in the country and has a very large office and research set of facilities. Especially considering its not the core its the space in between but now you suggest similar to the Sac to the bay connection, umm ok...
The border of the San Francisco and San Jose urban areas is the San Mateo / Santa Clara county lines. There's no obvious development difference on either side.
am not disputing that, nor is there between Morrisville PA and trenton etc. There is a river so a sort of barrier albeit small but if rivers stop development is Jersey City and Manhattan non continuous or Philly and Camden or DC and Arlington or Combridge and Boston etc.
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.
