U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 03-16-2008, 12:59 AM
 
Location: NWArkansas/Seattle
395 posts, read 1,250,324 times
Reputation: 160

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by SWB View Post
You both realize that NWA gave us Wal-Mart and Little Rock gave us Mike Huckabee, right? Just checking.
*laughs* Good one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-16-2008, 12:59 AM
 
Location: Yakima, Washington
216 posts, read 889,743 times
Reputation: 85
My area fits this description. Metro of over 200,000. But there is no core city, but 3 main cities clustered around the river. Though there is talk of becoming one big city(thus becoming a large town w/o suburbs) all 3 cities refuse to work together as the small town politicians would lose their power in one big city. There fore, the area can't reach its full potential, and its like a giant suburb to nowhere. (Tallest building in two of the main cities are housing projects)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 06:10 AM
 
47 posts, read 122,486 times
Reputation: 30
Guy's you go far away from topic. I am trying to figure out any advantages or disadvantages of such construction - suburbs without core vs core without suburbs (though both with same population).

It seems like in suburbs without core each city will try to keep its independence (because official don't want to lose their power or smth else) and each city fighting for being better than another, i am not sure if this good or bad though, you think it would evolve better if it was single town?

What are other disadvantages it has, like wages and real estate prices etc. differ a lot in each suburbs that build big area without core? Is there any advantages to this construction (especially for opening your own business)?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: Twin Cities, Minnesota
3,940 posts, read 13,336,486 times
Reputation: 2213
The Front Range Urban Corridor in Colorado is a pretty good example of what you are looking for. Of course, Denver is a large city with about 500,000 people but the entire Front Range stretches from Wyoming to Southern Colorado with Denver as the central hub.

Some shortcomings of grouping a bunch of large towns together is that roads do not connect properly, zoning is difficult, expansion is expensive, and school districts can be confusing. Some positives is that there is an abundance of undeveloped areas and countryside is present. Park systems and lakes are usually better and crime is lower because there is no really specific 'bad' area. Fort Collins, Longmont, Westminster, and Boulder are constantly ranked as some of the best places to live in the US. Colorado Springs is too. Plus, Denver is a large enough central city to accomodate big events.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 11:46 AM
 
Location: Chicago
287 posts, read 917,588 times
Reputation: 185
Quote:
Originally Posted by ProperMan View Post
What would be the difference between big city and chain of small cities of same population as one big city?
E.g. City of like 200-300k no small towns around (or they are very very small).
and
Area where a lot of small cities are located very close together like 50k + 60k + 40k + 70k + 50k, no big towns around?
Honestly I can't really think of an example of an urban core without suburbs so I don't have a concrete example. I'd imagine with a unified government it would be more efficient than a cluster of large towns/small cities for the reasons other posters have mentioned.

Also forgive me if there's a concrete number on this, but I've always thought most places with 40k-60k were towns. Is my perspective on this totally messed up by being from New England where places with larger populations want to stay towns so they don't have to give up town meeting?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 07:40 PM
 
Location: Yakima, Washington
216 posts, read 889,743 times
Reputation: 85
Does Jacksonville have suburbs?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-16-2008, 08:42 PM
 
Location: Charlotte, NC (in my mind)
7,946 posts, read 15,040,567 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by mustang34 View Post
Does Jacksonville have suburbs?
Yes it does, it has quite a few.

I don't think Amarillo, TX (pop ca. 200,000) has any, or if it does its very few.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top