OK dude. Whatever you say. You live in Arizona, and I live/work in Manhattan and visit Philly often, but you're the expert on all things Philly/NY. :rolleyes:

No, he was doing equally as bad with that.

Why compare a metropolitan Phoenix suburban office park to downtown Phoenix in regards to San Jose? I'm confused.

Of course Phoenix has "suburban office parks" just like every single other city in America.

Oh yeah now that's the good stuff.

http://d1osaz8037wly2.cloudfront.net.../92c3/full.jpg

No, some places are actually very comparable. See: Phoenix, the IE, San Jose, Las Vegas, etc. You are simply attempting to compare places that are in no way comparable.

Why would I need to live in New York or Philly to have been there and know the history of both.

Another garbage argument to tack on to my long list of substandard intellects on this forum.

"K dude. Whatever you say. You live in New york, and I live/work in Phoenix and visit Las Vegas/LA often, but you're the expert on all things LA/Phoenix"

Weird when your argument is so shit that It can be used against you literally moments later.

To his perspective from the desert, NYC and Philly might look alike. Parts of Center City are kinda New York'ey. Both old, cold, dense and angry.

You're right.

You live in Arizona, thousands of miles away from New York or Philadelphia, and are therefore are much better equipped / informed to speak on development patterns along the northeast corridor than someone who actually lives there.

Also - Phoenix is much more comparable to the city of Los Angeles than Phoenix is comparable to San Jose, the IE (Riverside + San Bernardino), Las Vegas, etc.

What was I thinking? :rolleyes:

EXCEPT for the part about me having LIVED IN Los Angeles for 10 years.

And you were saying? :rolleyes:

Exactly. And Seattle looks just like San Antonio, since they both have one of those Space Needle-looking thingamajigs.

“Dude just trust me I lived there” is not a persuasive argument

It’s just you trying to pull credibility out of your ass instead of demonstrating why nyc and philly aren’t comparable

Don't try to misdirect things. It's not about comparing them.

You used Philly & NY as an analogy to Phoenix & LA because in your understanding Philly & NY share similar development patterns like Phoenix & LA share similar development patterns.

I'm here to tell you that Philly & NY do not in fact share similar patterns when considering them from an urban development perspective. The simple fact of very different topographies guaranteed that from early on. New York is a collection of coastal islands. Philadelphia is an interior lowland plain. Philadelphia grew dense, but also had the room, and was able to sprawl out very early on. New York grew dense, but did not have the room, and therefore it did not sprawl out early in the manner that Philly did... NY became denser and denser.

You know what Sun Belt loves? It's when outsiders from places like Detroit and Pittsburgh tell Sun Belters how it really is.

Man alive, they're pretty woke. LOL.

"Costal islands" Its not as if Long Island nor Manhattan are "small" they offered thousands of square miles of flat coastal lands.

Both NY and Philly Spill out on to the relatively flat coastal plain that makes up most of New Jersey, while New York (what would become new York) sprawled out on to the flat area of the absolutely massive Long Island, the Island nature of the mouth of the Hudson is hardly a reason to claim Philly and NY are Unique.

The Rivers and waterways around New York are small and placid and traversable from its earliest days with small paddle boats just as people easily crossed and went up the Delaware river.

New York does not have the geographic constraining impacts of places like Seattle or San Francisco nor does it string out on barrier islands like Miami. Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn the core "new york" areas, are likely as big, if not bigger than Philadelphia city limits in terms of flat accessible land.

Manhattan is probably only around 20 square miles or so.

New Jersey near NYC is not flat at all.

NY did NOT sprawl out onto Long Island at an early point like Philadelphia sprawled out into its countryside. Development was along the shorelines (namely Brooklyn) and their were small settlements and farms and swamps and marshland on Long Island.

The rivers and waterways around New York are FAR from "small and placid" as you claim. The Hudson is around a mile to mile and a half wide near Manhattan and becomes a tidal estuary at its lower extent. North of Manhattan it is 2-3 miles wide. East River is also tidal estuary, that is 3/4 mile wide. Both can have very strong currents.

And this is really all besides the point. Philadelphia, as a planned agricultural and industrial town, built out from early on. New York, as an island ocean trading port, built up from early on.


You're just all kinds of wrong over the place here, man.

I'm glad you mentioned that because these straits are rather dangerous and certainly not placid.

^ This.

In fact, certain stretches of Jersey (Rte. 3 Eastbound through Clifton, for example) are so hilly, they offer a vantage point that makes for some of the most striking views available of the Manhattan and Jersey City skylines.

Yes the world class natural port of New York harbor is a dangerous current which is why people have settled their long before European colonists. Those risky flows are perfect for building a port before the advent of propellers.



You guys really ought to try harder.

Eh, I would say that Philly and NY have somewhat similar development patterns. Of course NY is much denser, bigger and more apartment-oriented, but the metropolitan development patterns aren't THAT much different.

A town on the Main Line doesn't look that different from Westchester/Fairfield, South Philly doesn't look that different from Brooklyn, Rittenhouse Square could vaguely be some core neighborhood of NYC, etc. Of course if you know the two cities well the differences are obvious, but to outsiders Philly is kind of a grittier NYC mini-me.