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.
You're wrong. Brooklyn was built as a suburb, and residents of Manhattan would quite eagerly say it's still a suburb.
Suburbia before socialized roads were a very different creature. We've said this over and over again, and the responses tend to be either denial or accusations that we're lying.
You're wrong. Brooklyn was built as a suburb, and residents of Manhattan would quite eagerly say it's still a suburb.
Suburbia before socialized roads were a very different creature. We've said this over and over again, and the responses tend to be either denial or accusations that we're lying.
I was just waiting with bated breath for someone to say this. (Well, actually, I was church, but who's keeping score?) The entire northwest quadrant of Denver was once a suburb called "Highlands". It was annexed in 1902, I believe. There is still a neighborhood called Highlands on the NW side.
Both the north side side and south side of Pittsburgh were once suburbs, called Manchester (still a neighborhood on the NS) and Birmingham. I don't know when they were annexed; long before my childhood.
Just recently (past few years) Omaha, NE annexed a city called Elkhorn.
I don't know when Brooklyn was annexed. Certainly a long time ago.
You're wrong. Brooklyn was built as a suburb, and residents of Manhattan would quite eagerly say it's still a suburb.
Suburbia before socialized roads were a very different creature. We've said this over and over again, and the responses tend to be either denial or accusations that we're lying.
Ok, but Brooklyin has over 36,000 people per square mile. That's far denser than urban cities like San Francicsco, Chicago, Philadelphia, & Boston. Only people in Manhattan would consider 36,000 people per square mile a suburb.
Ok, but Brooklyin has over 36,000 people per square mile. That's far denser than urban cities like San Francicsco, Chicago, Philadelphia, & Boston. Only people in Manhattan would consider 36,000 people per square mile a suburb.
Suburbs are about relationship to a city, not about density. Brooklyn was a suburb, now it's part of New York City. I used to live in Queens, I lived there when it was part of the city, before that it was a suburb, though. It just was, there's no argument about it. How it is now is based on the history of human events, not on a good word versus a bad word.
Almost ALL of current Philadelphia in fact used to be a suburb of the original, geographically very tiny city of Philadelphia.
And my city grew from 4 square miles to over 90. Annexation doesn't make a place no longer a suburb if it still fills a suburban role (a place where people live, and commute to their workplace somewhere else.) Katiana, haven't you already said that suburbs are sometimes very densely populated?
And my city grew from 4 square miles to over 90. Annexation doesn't make a place no longer a suburb if it still fills a suburban role (a place where people live, and commute to their workplace somewhere else.) Katiana, haven't you already said that suburbs are sometimes very densely populated?
I don't know if I've said that. I've said suburbs are often organized as cities, such as the one I live in. However, a section of a city such as New York is in no way a suburb. Once an area is incorporated into a city, it's part of that city, not a suburb of it.
I don't know if I've said that. I've said suburbs are often organized as cities, such as the one I live in. However, a section of a city such as New York is in no way a suburb. Once an area is incorporated into a city, it's part of that city, not a suburb of it.
I can't comment on Brooklyn, but I spent a large part of my childhood in Queens. And when people have to go to Manhattan, they specifically say they have to go to "the city". Sure, they're already in land that is geographically organized as the city, but there's a difference that they see in it, in addition to the historical differences.
Not that that proves anything except semantics. But I guess the whole topic is pretty much about semantics.
I don't know if I've said that. I've said suburbs are often organized as cities, such as the one I live in. However, a section of a city such as New York is in no way a suburb. Once an area is incorporated into a city, it's part of that city, not a suburb of it.
...Even if nothing physically changes about the suburb? Articles of incorporation, or annexation into a city, somehow magically make a suburb no longer suburban, even if it you don't change a single blade of grass?
How on Earth does that work?
And I thought you lived in a suburb?
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.