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.
Actually besides the outer areas on Long Island, KONY is right. New York City doesn't really have suburbs in New Jersey. Jersey City & Newark among other cities in New Jersey are all cities of their own, principle cities at that. There is literally nothing suburban like about Jersey City & Newark.
Maybe the side on Connecticut, but I doubt a heavy population is there over New Jersey for the metropolitan area.
I agree with other cities on that list of people who predominantly live in suburbs over their principle cities but New York City is actually an exception to that rule, New Jersey has their own cities which are not at all suburbs. They are more likely known as satellite cities.
I thought the person who posted the list just listed cities where, in the metro the principle city had less people than the cities outside the principle city (which is what suburbs mean btw.
Suburb doesn't have to mean not urban. It is most often not urban but suburbs simply means cities or neighborhoods outside a central city.
In the US suburbs have come to mean many different things though. so I guess that is a cause for the confusion
My bad, residents in that area refer to it as 3rd ward so it's what usually comes to my mind when I think 3rd ward.
yeah it is part of the greater 3rd ward area. Most of what was Third ward is now Midtown. 3rd ward used to stretch from Alabama all the way north to the Pierce elevated highway area
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,034,220 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by WestbankNOLA
My bad, residents in that area refer to it as 3rd ward so it's what usually comes to my mind when I think 3rd ward.
I think you and I are thinking two very different things.
I know KONY was and I was trying to refute this logic-
Quote:
Originally Posted by waronxmas
Yes, it is true that most people in every city live in the suburbs. Just going off of MSAs....
Boston Metro Population: 4,588,680
City population: 645,169
Suburban population: 3,943,511
Percentage of people living in the suburbs: 85.93%
Chicago Metro Population: 9,580,567
City population: 2,851,268
Suburban population: 6,729,299
Percentage of people living in the suburbs: 70.23%
D.C. Metro Population: 5,476,241
City population: 599,657
Suburban population: 4,876,584
Percentage of people living in the suburbs: 89.04%
Philadelphia Metro Population: 5,968,252
City population: 1,547,297
Suburban population: 4,420,955
Percentage of people living in the suburbs: 74.07%
New York Metro Population: 19,069,796
City population: 8,391,881 Suburban population: 10,677,915
Percentage of people living in the suburbs: 55.99%
Now granted, NYC does have a far more equal share of people living in the city versus those who live in the burbs, but even with that most people live in the suburbs. If were to do this by NYC's CSA population, the difference would be even more stark since the suburbs would grow by about 3.5 million people.
That is not adequate because New York City is surrounded by swaths of satellite cities across the Hudson that all play an effect on it's metropolitan numbers.
That's why I was trying to point out that New York City is a special case, because most of those people that the quote above classified as "people who live in suburbs" don't live in suburbs. Because they live in their own stand alone cities like Newark & Jersey City, and others like that, to the point where majority of the people in Metro New York City do not live in "suburbs" but actual stand alone cities.
And in my definition- Dallas, Fort Worth, New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston... etc, those are cities.
Places like Greenwich, Connecticut or Katy, Texas or Naperville, Illinois those are suburban cities/suburbs.
Jersey City & Newark, Hoboken and all the other standalone satellite cities aren't suburbs at all. Thus that logic (in the quote above) for New York City is not accurate because that would be like saying 1/6th the people (Dallas 1.3 million/6.4 Million DFW residents = 1/6th of population "almost around there") in DFW Metroplex live in the actual city, the rest in the suburb, which is not true because that would mean Fort Worth got counted as a suburb.
I think you and I are thinking two very different things.
I know KONY was and I was trying to refute this logic-
That is not adequate because New York City is surrounded by swaths of satellite cities across the Hudson that all play an effect on it's metropolitan numbers.
That's why I was trying to point out that New York City is a special case, because most of those people that the quote above classified as "people who live in suburbs" don't live in suburbs. Because they live in their own stand alone cities like Newark & Jersey City, and others like that, to the point where majority of the people in Metro New York City do not live in "suburbs" but actual stand alone cities.
And in my definition- Dallas, Fort Worth, New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston... etc, those are cities.
Places like Greenwich, Connecticut or Katy, Texas or Naperville, Illinois those are suburban cities/suburbs.
Jersey City & Newark, Hoboken and all the other standalone satellite cities aren't suburbs at all. Thus that logic (in the quote above) for New York City is not accurate because that would be like saying 1/6th the people (Dallas 1.3 million/6.4 Million DFW residents = 1/6th of population "almost around there") in DFW Metroplex live in the actual city, the rest in the suburb, which is not true because that would mean Fort Worth got counted as a suburb.
How many people from those satellites head into "the City" for work though?
I think you and I are thinking two very different things.
I know KONY was and I was trying to refute this logic-
That is not adequate because New York City is surrounded by swaths of satellite cities across the Hudson that all play an effect on it's metropolitan numbers.
That's why I was trying to point out that New York City is a special case, because most of those people that the quote above classified as "people who live in suburbs" don't live in suburbs. Because they live in their own stand alone cities like Newark & Jersey City, and others like that, to the point where majority of the people in Metro New York City do not live in "suburbs" but actual stand alone cities.
And in my definition- Dallas, Fort Worth, New York City, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Chicago, Houston... etc, those are cities.
Places like Greenwich, Connecticut or Katy, Texas or Naperville, Illinois those are suburban cities/suburbs.
Jersey City & Newark, Hoboken and all the other standalone satellite cities aren't suburbs at all. Thus that logic (in the quote above) for New York City is not accurate because that would be like saying 1/6th the people (Dallas 1.3 million/6.4 Million DFW residents = 1/6th of population "almost around there") in DFW Metroplex live in the actual city, the rest in the suburb, which is not true because that would mean Fort Worth got counted as a suburb.
You are right on that, he should have said outside the central city in the metro
Well everybody got it but you. Why would you compare a city proper to 3 metros and try to use the same analogy. Yes he was wrong, but everybody understood what he was trying to say.
Everybody that doesnt know any better got it. Saying most people that LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY lives in suburbs is grossly misleading thats absolutely ridiculous
You are right on that, he should have said central city
I understand what he's saying, but if a large percentage of the people in those stand alone cities go to work in the core city, then that satellite city is basically a developed suburb. I'm not saying that's the case, but if it is....
Everybody that doesnt know any better got it. Saying most people that LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY lives in suburbs is grossly misleading thats absolutely ridiculous
No, some people just don't see the point in pointing out the obvious. Now, if that makes you feel better you can roll with that.
I understand what he's saying, but if a large percentage of the people in those stand alone cities go to work in the core city, then that satellite city is basically a developed suburb. I'm not saying that's the case, but if it is....
yeah I said that about 3 posts up. suburbs may be urban themselves. Suburbs don't mean unurban
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.
