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.
"Is Pasadena a suburb of L.A., or a city?" is only a distinction if one considers cityhood and suburbhood to be mutually exclusive. If a place can be both a city and a suburb, there is no need to answer the question.
Urban areas or the core cities generally have a higher conintuous density. The suburbs have a continuity of lower density. An area like Tysons; though in the burbs is somewhere in between; it almost seems there needs to be another category as these places (DC is loaded with them as are many sunbelt cities) are not quite truly urban or suburban; typically they have a much smaller core with higher density and development and give way to lessor density in a smaller range. It almost feels areas such as these need a different category so to speak as neither urban or suburban really fit...
Last edited by kidphilly; 04-19-2011 at 08:49 PM..
The distinction evaporates if you understand that suburbs are also cities. It doesn't matter whether Pasadena started as a suburb or not--plenty of cities do these days, and plenty of those now have their own suburbs. And even western cities have rings of decreasing density, or at least intensity of use.
I think there needs to be some way to distinguish between locations that function in different ways, although I do think that in many contexts suburb versus city delineations are rather artificial. (and Pasadena didn't start as a suburb, but that's an aside...) And I don't think that the pattern of cities like Los Angeles have anywhere near the same pattern of rings of decreasing density that you find in the east. Sure, eventually as you get really far out development starts to fade out, but the patterns are still significantly different.
I think there needs to be some way to distinguish between locations that function in different ways, although I do think that in many contexts suburb versus city delineations are rather artificial. (and Pasadena didn't start as a suburb, but that's an aside...) And I don't think that the pattern of cities like Los Angeles have anywhere near the same pattern of rings of decreasing density that you find in the east. Sure, eventually as you get really far out development starts to fade out, but the patterns are still significantly different.
All else being equal, sure--except, of course, all else isn't equal. Downtown has a lower population because it was forcibly emptied like most downtowns. Areas with a lot of steep hills and deserts aren't built out due to geographic placement. Places like Vernon, Commerce and Industry deliberately exclude residential growth for economic/tax reasons.
uptown_urbanist: Pasadena did start as a suburb, during the first Los Angeles land boom. Sure, there was a mission there before, but it was basically a "boomburg" subsidiary to Los Angeles from the time it was platted out as a city and later incorporated. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
No, Pasadena did not start as a suburb. I think you've got your cities mixed up; the mission is in what is now San Gabriel. Pasadena was the Indiana Colony, and it was a bunch of Midwesterners who started citrus farms. The city's downtown started out at Fair Oaks and Colorado, which remains one of its primary intersections today. It definitely benefited from the arrival of the train, but it always functioned on its own, separate from Los Angeles. And Los Angeles itself wasn't really much of anything until the 1880s; I don't really think that such old and established cities like Pasadena can really be considered suburbs, either now or historically, or if they are, then there really needs to be more general usage categories to distinguish between different types of areas. Because I DO think that there is a distinction between a city and a suburb, although perhaps there is some in-between area for places like Pasadena, Oakland, etc. Pasadena's concerns are not the same as LA's, although they overlap; same thing with Oakland and San Francisco. What about, say, Baltimore, given its relationship to DC? A more extreme example, obviously, and with a different history, but at what point if cities are in the same mega-region, do we distinguish between the individual city and the region as a whole? (or San Jose and San Francisco)
Last edited by uptown_urbanist; 04-19-2011 at 10:56 PM..
Also, metropolitan areas can have more than one city, you know. No one thinks of Newark as a "suburb" of New York any more than St. Paul is a "suburb" of Minneapolis.
State lines create an invisible boundary. According to many people I know, I am not "allowed" to say I am from Philadelphia because South Jersey isn't in Pennsylvania.
Now, other cities have a different dynamic. People from Montgomery County, MD can say they are from DC because DC isn't in a state, it's "neutral." The North Jersey-NYC dynamic is different as well, because "New York" can refer to the city or the state, which complicates the issue.
"Allowed" and "neutral" are two of many different words I've heard used as to why my friends can like the Skins but I supposedly can't like the Eagles, for example.
Functional definition of central city, it should be the largest entity in the region, at least three times as large as any other. Other definitions, with many exceptions of course: Contains the major airport, most of the sports stadia, and the TV studios. In areas with rail transit, the major, often only, hub.
Not always the case, however.
In the article, DC is considered the "central city" and Fairfax would be the suburb (Tyson Corner is a nickname for a section of Fairfax, it's not an incorporated city).
The population of DC is 599,657. The population of Fairfax is 1,015,302.
Due to building restrictions, DC has no highrises. They are all in the surrounding suburbs. So are all of the airports, and the tv stations. It wasn't even the first place to be built--Alexandria VA was here long before they built DC.
Now, other cities have a different dynamic. People from Montgomery County, MD can say they are from DC because DC isn't in a state, it's "neutral."
I'm not sure I agree--DC seems like a completely separate political area, whether or not it was granted statehood. It may seem more connected to MD than to VA because they are geographically connected (whereas a major river separates DC from VA, and the regions are slightly different), and they were historically connected during the civil war (whereas VA was a southern state).
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.
