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.
I think would depend on how big the city is and what is considered a suburb, even. For instance, Watertown NY which only has about 26,000 people doesn't have any suburbs in terms of developments, but there are a couple of villages that are almost adjacent to the city of Watertown. Some might call those villages suburbs, but other might not due to the nature of the adjacent communities.
Well Singapore is a city/country, so I don't think it has any suburbs.
I'm not sure what the deal is with Hong Kong. Since it was a British province for so long, I don't think there were ever commuters coming from outside the city. It is located near another major city, Guangzhou, so I'm sure any suburbs in the area belong to that city.
Every city in the world has suburbs--whether they're separate municipalities or distinct districts. Now they all don't look the same. Hell, they all don't look the same here in the US either. But yes, all cities have suburbs.
San Antonio is a city with >1 mil people and the metro area is almost entirely SA proper. Don't know if it "counts" though since it is not a super-dense urban environment.
VENICE
kinda like that photo (nice 0ne) - but even they have suburbs... right across the lagoon.
Also, one could make an argument that San Francisco (including So. SF) is a standalone city, with all those other cities around it being burbs of San Jose and Oakland...
Last edited by treedonkey; 07-10-2009 at 04:23 PM..
Kinda like that photo (nice 0ne) - but even they have suburbs... right across the lagoon.
Technically, I think they're all the same administrative division.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treedonkey
Also, one could make an argument that San Francisco (including So. SF) is a standalone city, with all those other cities around it being burbs of San Jose and Oakland...
No, there are still a ton of towns closer (geographically and mentally) to San Francisco.
San Antonio is a city with >1 mil people and the metro area is almost entirely SA proper. Don't know if it "counts" though since it is not a super-dense urban environment.
All of these are suburbs of San Antonio:
* Alamo Heights
* Balcones Heights
* Castle Hills
* Cibolo
* China Grove
* Converse
* Cross Mountain
* Elmendorf
* Fair Oaks Ranch
* Grey Forest
* Helotes
* Hill Country Village
* Hollywood Park
* Kirby
* Leon Springs
* Leon Valley
* Live Oak
* Lytle
* Olmos Park
* Schertz
* Scenic Oaks
* Selma
* Shavano Park
* Somerset
* St. Hedwig
* Terrell Hills
* Timberwood Park
* Universal City
* Von Ormy
* Windcrest
No, there are still a ton of towns closer (geographically and mentally) to San Francisco.
I said someone could make an ARGUMENT for that. Just apparently not with you.
It's true that every large city has areas around it that could probably be considered suburbs by one definition or another.
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.
