The Suburbs Are Cities (metro, suburban, crime, highway)

[wburg]

This post in the "Human Transit" blog post made me go "hm."

Human Transit: conservatives commit to federal funding of transit (in australia)

It's interesting to think about why urban issues that are bipartisan in Australia seem to become Democratic concerns in the US. In both countries, most of the population lives in urban areas, but there is a crucial difference in language that creates a difference in habits of thought. Americans think of big "cities" as separate from their "suburbs," and often use these terms as shorthand or euphemism for a range of other oppositions. (Only in America, for example, would a style of music associated with black people be called "Urban.") Americans also have the idea of a suburban center (what Joel Garreau calls an "Edge City') that clings to the outer orbit of a big city but can think of itself as unrelated to it. Hence someone in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, say, may be happier thinking of their metro area as "Northern Virginia" rather than "greater Washington DC."
Those word choices lead to a US political reality in which big cities -- narrowly defined in exclusion of their suburbs -- represent a minority of the population and thus attract the interest of only one side of the political divide.
By contrast, when Australians say "Sydney" or "Melbourne" they usually mean the entire urban area -- the continuous patch of lights that you see from an airplane. So people who live in what Americans would call the suburbs of Sydney think of themselves as living in Sydney. This way of speaking encourages them to accept that the problems of Sydney are their problems, whereas a resident of Tyson's Corner may feel quite removed from the problems of "Washington." When cities are understood in that inclusive way, it follows that most Australians live in cities, so naturally both sides of the political divide must care about them.

I often note that people separate "the suburbs" from "cities"--including me. Others tend to lump the suburbs in with "the country," referring to farmland or unimproved wild places, a comparison that seems inaccurate.

So, really, is the urban/suburban divide imaginary? If most of us live in suburbs now, what purpose does calling them anything other than "cities" serve--other than the change in their physical form and primary mode of transportation?

[killakoolaide]

Originally Posted by wburg

This post in the "Human Transit" blog post made me go "hm."

Human Transit: conservatives commit to federal funding of transit (in australia)


I often note that people separate "the suburbs" from "cities"--including me. Others tend to lump the suburbs in with "the country," referring to farmland or unimproved wild places, a comparison that seems inaccurate.

So, really, is the urban/suburban divide imaginary? If most of us live in suburbs now, what purpose does calling them anything other than "cities" serve--other than the change in their physical form and primary mode of transportation?

Good thread.

Cities tend to be different from their subrubs and should be distinguished, but not to th the point of stigmatization. The US feds should refine thier definition of what a metropolitan area is(exclude the rural undeveloped parts) give them all catchy names and invest in thier infrastructure, this country is primed for another industrial type revolution, but in order to do that it will have to modernize/metropolitanize it's urban areas.

[jade408]

I think it depends on if people are very connected to the city. Once the suburbs gained shopping and office parks there was no reason to go to the "city" since everything was right in your community.

In the Bay Area, for example, SF is called "the City" but I knoe plenty of people who live outside of SF, even in areas that are in very close proximity (10-15 miles) who never set foot in SF.

People who live on the in the middle of the SF Peninsula do not even make it north those 15 miles. (I think Oaklanders and Berkeleyites are more likely to go because it is a really eas trip via transit or car during non-commute hours. It is even a local call for many of us, but my neighbors who do not work in SF never go).

[Katiana]

Originally Posted by killakoolaide

Good thread.

Cities tend to be different from their subrubs and should be distinguished, but not to th the point of stigmatization. The US feds should refine thier definition of what a metropolitan area is(exclude the rural undeveloped parts) give them all catchy names and invest in thier infrastructure, this country is primed for another industrial type revolution, but in order to do that it will have to modernize/metropolitanize it's urban areas.

I think the feds just take the easy way out and include whole counties. Almost all of Denver's suburban counties have areas of rural/agricultural/mountain land that is in no way urban. These same counties have some fairly dense suburbs that border Denver.

Back to the OP's question. People who live within ~10-15 miles of Denver tend to say they're from Denver. Now, true, as some have said about SF, many don't go into Denver maybe but a couple times a year, to the zoo, some sporting event, etc. Farther than that, and people usually say the name of their burb, e.g. Louisville, Golden, Castle Rock, etc. However, the suburbs have more in common with their city than they do with rural areas.

[Chango]

Originally Posted by wburg

So, really, is the urban/suburban divide imaginary? If most of us live in suburbs now, what purpose does calling them anything other than "cities" serve--other than the change in their physical form and primary mode of transportation?

I guess the only real reason so we can continue to delude ourselves into thinking we don't live in cities.

[jade408]

One thing I find pretty funny is that Oakland is considered a "suburb" of SF, but it is a city with it's own suburbs. Things are definitely weird in the Bay Area. People generally say they are from the Bay Area, and you need to prod to get actual cities. They tend to follow with: east bay, south bay and occasionally the Peninsula. People do say they are from San Jose even though they are from the 'burbs.

[hurricaneMan1992]

A major difference here in the US is that local governments usually have more power. Many suburbs are incorporated into towns, cities, and villages with their own commissions, police and fire rescue, and often separate school districts. Further, some suburbs are in completely different States (like NoVA and NYC suburbs). Cities in the US are also more segregated, which further reinforces the artificial borders between city/suburb, and even between neighboring suburbs.

[AJNEOA]

Good post wburg. I think the divide between the city and the burbs has more to do with the development type (including timeframe), because of the difference in amenities and lifestyle. Cities typically contain more thorough public transit, walkable communities and a more even spread of stores, restaurants, etc. Because of the difference in components within each lifestyle, the city and the suburbs have a conflict of interest. They fail to work as a single unit when they disagree, creating a divide. One wants highways, one wants rail; one wants stricter segregated zoning, the other wants mixed-use development. Obviously, this is not the case for all suburbs and all cities.

It's almost as if cities that are dominant of their respective metro areas have an easier time working with the surrounding communities. The burbs that are trying to escape their cities (because maybe there's blight/crime, and it's not a strong "center), seem to want to erase the city from existence. This is probably more common in older cities, where they've reached their peak, and then started to decline (especially industrial cities).

Also, to back my theory up, I'd argue that many southern cities with more suburban development within city limits probably get along with their suburbs better because they have more in common.

Again, this is my own theory. Feel free to tear it apart.

[Caladium]

The example the article gave of Tysons Corner, VA feeling separate from DC is not really a fair example of the typical American suburb, because they are in separate states and have some very real differences as a result.

DC and Nova share some things, such as airports. OTOH, things like the mayoral race in DC don't affect us much, since he is not our mayor. We don't even share the same election days. Our laws are different. Gay marriage is legal in DC, not VA. You can openly carry a gun in VA but will be arrested if you take that gun across the Potomac. Etc. In addition relatively few people live in the western burbs of Virginia and work in DC--there are some, but most work in Virginia. In the more typical city/suburb there are more suburbanites who work in the central core city.

Although there are many people who live in Nova who might say they live "In DC" you're also likely to find people like me who grew up here and have always felt I lived "next to DC" not in it.

It was an interesting article, I just did not think that was a good example. Also, since Tyson's is not incorporated, it's one area that truly is labelled "suburban" and not "city" even though it's mostly highrises and is quite dense. You have to be incorporated to be a city.

[wburg]

Originally Posted by jade408

One thing I find pretty funny is that Oakland is considered a "suburb" of SF, but it is a city with it's own suburbs. Things are definitely weird in the Bay Area. People generally say they are from the Bay Area, and you need to prod to get actual cities. They tend to follow with: east bay, south bay and occasionally the Peninsula. People do say they are from San Jose even though they are from the 'burbs.

Oakland was originally built as a suburb of San Francisco, just as Brooklyn was originally a suburb of Manhattan. Oakland also had other uses as the Pacific port for the Southern Pacific. One should also note that the 19th century "suburb" bears little resemblance to the 20th/21st century variant.