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.
A couple of weeks ago there was a thread that posed the question whether it was all right to say you were from a city if you lived in one of its suburbs. One post said something to the effect that a suburb is part of a city, so it made sense if you lived in a suburb to say you lived in the parent city. This post was challenged by others insisting that the city is the city and the 'burbs are the 'burbs and never the twain shall meet.
Still, physically, metro areas involve a great deal of economic integration between their individual communities, and collective populations of people who travel throught those metro areas as they go about their daily lives. I know that many city residents consider it a badge of honor to live right in the city, but let's try to be analytical about the question on this thread. In practical terms, is a metropolitan area really all one city? In what ways yes, and in what ways not?
In the case of Philadlephia you aren't talking just about city vs suburbs you are also talking about competition amongst 3 different states(PA NJ DEL). IMO each state tries to keep its own identity. In the case of Delaware they have their own progressive successful city in Wilmington that they gravitate to. The highly republican Phila suburbs dont have much in common with democratic Philly. In fact imo South jersey has a closer bond with Philly than the Pa suburbs do. Its all very discombobulated here.
Other major cities within 1 state may have a different opinion eg Houston,Atl Pho etc but it would be hard to get everybody in the Philly metro on board together. Other than the sports teams and TV stations there isnt much comraderie here.
I'd say yes for Chicago. Just because you happen to live in one of 235 different, connected, suburbs doesn't mean we don't all exist in Chicagoland.
I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be 7 million people chilling out on all sides of the city of Chicago if the city didn't exist.
What if the city had just annexed like crazy 100 years ago and we had one city of 10 million people?
I see the city and suburbs as effectively neighborhoods within one well defined urban area.
I think our 11 commuter lines that fan out in all directions from the city, along with 6 expressway/tollways that also fan out in all directions from the city really do a lot as far as pulling the urban area together.
No, there are many people who sprawl out to the far bounds of the metro to live in a further out county to escape paying taxes which help pay for infrastructure and other things in the city. Many still work in the city, but take their taxes home to spend in their newer, and more spaced out urban sprawl communities. They are not part of my city, and I even wish I didn't have to share the Earth with these wasteful, un-environmental, greedy, jackasses.
Of course, in all respects except official jurisdiction of governing bodies. For example, the most important radio station in Kansas City has a location and mailing address in Westwood, Kansas, pop 1,533. The fact that it is not in "Kansas City" does not detract at all from the fact that it is a Kansas City station.
I do it when someone doesn't know the area... I say Lodi, NJ, and if they don't know that i try saying "near Paterson".. and sometimes that doesn't help, so then i say "NEAR NYC"
usually they get it from there.. but if they don't then thats a different issue
A prominent developer made an interesting observation regarding metro Atlantans the other day on TV...
He said he had noticed that when people from metro Atlanta traveled anywhere else in the U.S. or abroad, when asked they would generically say they were "from Atlanta". However, if they were traveling within Georgia (state wide) they would specify the name of the suburb such as "Roswell" or "Smyrna" and not say they were from Atlanta.
He wasn't sure if it had something to do with the hate-hate relationship the city has with the rest of the State and it makes metro residents paranoid, or some other reason, but it does seem to happen that way as the norm here.
I'm going to say yes, at least in the Boston area. I feel like the suburbs all look to Boston and we all feel like we are a part of it, whether or not we live directly within the city limits.
I'd say that, at least as far as Chicago is concerned, there's a pretty big divide between the city and the suburbs. While I totally understand someone from Naperville, while out of state or out of country, telling people they live in Chicago, it's certainly not the same. That's why people use terms like "Chicagoland" for the metro. Similar, but not the same.
Where this gets foggy is with "inner ring" suburbs that feel very similar to the city, but technically aren't. In Chicago, places like Evanston and Oak Park come to mind.
Still, at the end of the day, the city is the city and the burbs are the burbs. The twain SHALL meet under the umbrella we call the metro area. That's why the term "metropolitan area" exists.
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.
