Quote:
Originally Posted by pj3000
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.
|
"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.