U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Urban Planning
 [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)
 
Old 08-13-2015, 10:59 PM
 
Location: Illinois
963 posts, read 444,353 times
Reputation: 266

Advertisements

Would any of the following be considered satellite cities or suburbs?

Oakland, CA (of San Francisco)
Fort Worth, TX (of Dallas)
DeKalb, IL (of Chicago)
Madison, WI (of Milwaukee)
Colorado Springs, CO (of the Denver area)
Aurora, CO (of Denver)
Riverside, CA (of Los Angeles)
Clarksville, TN (of Nashville)

London, Ontario, in Canada (of Toronto)
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-14-2015, 12:00 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,406 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by It is 57 below zero View Post
Would any of the following be considered satellite cities or suburbs?

Oakland, CA (of San Francisco)
Fort Worth, TX (of Dallas)
DeKalb, IL (of Chicago)
Madison, WI (of Milwaukee)
Colorado Springs, CO (of the Denver area)
Aurora, CO (of Denver)
Riverside, CA (of Los Angeles)
Clarksville, TN (of Nashville)

London, Ontario, in Canada (of Toronto)
Oakland, Fort Worth and Madison are neither suburbs or satellite cities.

Aurora is a suburb of Denver. It would not have existed without Denver and prior to the military build up for WW2, it was a tiny town. It has grown faster than Denver because it has unlimited land both east and south. Most of its growth and appeal is because it is cheaper than Denver and has land available. It has never had its own historic CBD other than Colfax Ave with is 90% strip malls. The redevelopment of Fitzsimons Army Hospital into the CU Health Center has made it a major employment center.

Colorado Springs is neither a suburb or satellite city of Denver. It has its own history and economy. Until 1965, when I-25 was completed over Monument Hill, it was a 2-3 hour drive depending train schedules and weather. Even today there is quite a bit of undeveloped ground between CS and Denver.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-14-2015, 09:26 PM
 
6,418 posts, read 10,859,723 times
Reputation: 6687
Quote:
Originally Posted by It is 57 below zero View Post
Would any of the following be considered satellite cities or suburbs?

Oakland, CA (of San Francisco)
Fort Worth, TX (of Dallas)
DeKalb, IL (of Chicago)
Madison, WI (of Milwaukee)
Colorado Springs, CO (of the Denver area)
Aurora, CO (of Denver)
Riverside, CA (of Los Angeles)
Clarksville, TN (of Nashville)

London, Ontario, in Canada (of Toronto)
Clarksville would not be considered a satellite city or suburb of Nashville. There is a fair bit of interaction between the two, and they share a TV market (all stations in Nashville, of course), but as a city, it definitely has a distinct and separate identity.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2015, 02:56 PM
 
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
155 posts, read 191,447 times
Reputation: 183
After years of exploring various cities on Google and Bing Maps, I have come up with these definitions:

Metro Anchor = A city with an important central business district; a city that greatly influences growth of the metro area.

Satellite = A town in close proximity to a metro anchor, but primarily grew by itself without much help from the metro anchor.

Suburb = A municipality that grew primarily because of its proximity to a metro anchor.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2015, 09:15 PM
 
Location: Philaburbia
32,371 posts, read 59,807,408 times
Reputation: 54016
Quote:
Originally Posted by It is 57 below zero View Post
Would any of the following be considered satellite cities or suburbs?

Oakland, CA (of San Francisco)
Fort Worth, TX (of Dallas)
DeKalb, IL (of Chicago)
Madison, WI (of Milwaukee)
Colorado Springs, CO (of the Denver area)
Aurora, CO (of Denver)
Riverside, CA (of Los Angeles)
Clarksville, TN (of Nashville)

London, Ontario, in Canada (of Toronto)
Did you consult a map before posting, or did you just pull these names out of your ... um ... head? Just because two cities are in the same state or province does not make one a suburb of another.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2015, 04:51 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,513 posts, read 9,049,534 times
Reputation: 5008
Quote:
Originally Posted by PeopleAreStrange View Post
After years of exploring various cities on Google and Bing Maps, I have come up with these definitions:

Metro Anchor = A city with an important central business district; a city that greatly influences growth of the metro area.

Satellite = A town in close proximity to a metro anchor, but primarily grew by itself without much help from the metro anchor.

Suburb = A municipality that grew primarily because of its proximity to a metro anchor.
Also sometimes there are just sister cities, or twin cities. Not saying you're wrong, but they ought to be included as well. Dallas and Fort Worth, Minneapolis and St. Paul, Baltimore and D.C., Oakland and San Francisco.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2015, 10:30 PM
 
Location: Liminal Space
1,018 posts, read 1,234,362 times
Reputation: 1294
I would say there are three core definitions of a city, and a few secondary characteristics:

1) Commuting - City A is a suburb of City B if many or most workers who live in City A commute to City B. (Probably the most prevalent "common sense" notion of what a suburb isamong laymen e.g. those who don't hang out in Urban Planning forums).

2) Historical - City A is a suburb of City B if City A's growth depended on City B's growth. In other words, City A wouldn't be there or would have only a small fraction of its current population without City B.

3) Size - City A is a suburb of City B if City B is nearby and larger. Seems simplistic, but works in some cases (for example: the Census Bureau defines a "San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area" even though all but three of the other fourteen cities in the county have a net in-commute from San Jose - e.g. more people commute from San Jose to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, etc. etc. than the other way around, and some of those cities were established at the same time).

I call the three above core definitions because any are sufficient by themselves to define a city as a suburb. The following are secondary characteristics, which are generally derivative of the first three:

4) Cultural Draw - People from City A head to City B to see a play, go to a museum, attend a sport event, eat at the best restaurants, etc. The concentration of these attractions is usually the result of City B being the economic center, having a larger population and/or being older.

5) Diversity - Cities are generally thought to have more cultural diversity. This is generally the result of being the economic center (hence attracting many different types of people to do various jobs), being larger (the more people you have, the more different kinds of people you tend to have), and historical factors specific to 20th century America (immigrants tended to settle in specific communities within cities; from the 1940s to 1980s white flight was a significant factor).

6) Built Environment - The "urban/suburban environment" differences that are the subject of endless debates on this forum tend to result from cities being older, larger, and with more economic activity than suburbs.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2015, 11:26 PM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,724,871 times
Reputation: 4583
Default Satellite

I doubt that you'll find 100 percent agreement on these terms. Regarding the term satellite city, it's my understanding that there's a fair amount of general agreement that a satellite city usually has a history of developing as an independent city, and remaining as such until the suburbs of a larger city grow out to the satellite.

Then there is another suburban economic center, the edge city. From what I've read, an edge city is usually considered to be an economic center that shows a suburban form, being characterized by feeder roads and large parking lots. An edge city also has a distinctly suburban feel in the kinds of economic activity present, with many of the major economic centers being malls and office parks.

An edge city is distinguished from a satellite city by its history of development. While a satellite city exists independently as a city until a large city's metro area grows out far enough to envelop the satellite, an edge city develops as a result of suburban expansion, with economic activities that serve the needs of a growing suburban population.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-17-2015, 11:42 PM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,724,871 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by bentobox34 View Post
I would say there are three core definitions of a city, and a few secondary characteristics:

1) Commuting - City A is a suburb of City B if many or most workers who live in City A commute to City B. (Probably the most prevalent "common sense" notion of what a suburb isamong laymen e.g. those who don't hang out in Urban Planning forums).

2) Historical - City A is a suburb of City B if City A's growth depended on City B's growth. In other words, City A wouldn't be there or would have only a small fraction of its current population without City B.

3) Size - City A is a suburb of City B if City B is nearby and larger. Seems simplistic, but works in some cases (for example: the Census Bureau defines a "San Jose Metropolitan Statistical Area" even though all but three of the other fourteen cities in the county have a net in-commute from San Jose - e.g. more people commute from San Jose to Palo Alto, Mountain View, Sunnyvale, etc. etc. than the other way around, and some of those cities were established at the same time).

I call the three above core definitions because any are sufficient by themselves to define a city as a suburb. The following are secondary characteristics, which are generally derivative of the first three:

4) Cultural Draw - People from City A head to City B to see a play, go to a museum, attend a sport event, eat at the best restaurants, etc. The concentration of these attractions is usually the result of City B being the economic center, having a larger population and/or being older.

5) Diversity - Cities are generally thought to have more cultural diversity. This is generally the result of being the economic center (hence attracting many different types of people to do various jobs), being larger (the more people you have, the more different kinds of people you tend to have), and historical factors specific to 20th century America (immigrants tended to settle in specific communities within cities; from the 1940s to 1980s white flight was a significant factor).

6) Built Environment - The "urban/suburban environment" differences that are the subject of endless debates on this forum tend to result from cities being older, larger, and with more economic activity than suburbs.
Good stuff here. I do think there are occasional exceptions to some of these. Regarding diversity, some suburbs are exceptions to the white-bread feel people often associate with suburbia.

Also, while the large museums, concert halls, and such are usually located within metro areas' anchor cities, some major sports venues are located in the 'burbs. Despite the trend toward building newer sporting centers in central cities, Gillette Stadium and the baseball and football stadiums in Arlington, TX, are examples of suburban major-league sports venues.

Sometimes suburban stadiums will also be used for rock concerts, adding another exception to the idea that the big cultural and entertainment events always happen in "the city."

In general, though, I think Bentobox34's suggestions do capture some of the key points regarding which places are which in the city-suburb relationship.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-19-2015, 01:37 PM
 
Location: Queen Creek, AZ
5,203 posts, read 7,880,068 times
Reputation: 2714
I know many people consider a downtown skyline to determine urban vs. suburban status, however, to me what is far more important is how unified the city is with the core city.

For example, there have been two proposals (one in the early 1990s and another in the early 2000s) for Mesa, Arizona (which is almost universally considered a suburb of Phoenix) as well as the East Valley cities and towns of Chandler, Gilbert, and Queen Creek (with the early 1990s proposal also including Tempe and Guadalupe) to secede from Maricopa County and form its own county.

On the other hand, there have never been any proposals as far as I know for Long Beach, California to secede from Los Angeles County despite its denser downtown skyline, thus Long Beach is more unified with Los Angeles than Mesa is with Phoenix.
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.


 
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 > General Forums > Urban Planning
Similar Threads
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