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.
That would be nuts and meaningless. Here, the entire state is divided into incorporate municipalities. No one here would claim Massachusetts is devoid of suburbs. There's a large difference in layout, density and architecture among other things between places that are more "urban" and those that aren't. And the municipalities that are older cities tend to have certain similarities, demographic patterns and yes, often worse schools.
Then as pointed out by another poster, the political subdivision boundaries have nothing to do with the definition of suburb.
Loaded question. I think the areas that urbanophiles on this forum deride as "suburb" are far more preferable than the hamster-style housing they wish to impose on people. Generally speaking, the term "suburb" is typically used in conjunction with "sprawl" and identified as something to be derided or eliminated. Moreover the term "suburb" by its own lexicography means "beneath" or "less than" - all from the perspective of some elitist view as to how the world should be. Why "urban" be the root with respect to how things are measured? Your urban areas are subrural.
Let's ban the word "submarine" because it takes the elitist view that watercraft that go underwater are "less than" those that don't.
Seriously though, there's absolutely no reason why I should stop using a word just because it makes some random person think I'm an "elitist." If I started using "subrural," then others would think I'm elitist against cities. Can't please everybody.
Last edited by stateofnature; 09-09-2015 at 01:22 PM..
Loaded question. I think the areas that urbanophiles on this forum deride as "suburb" are far more preferable than the hamster-style housing they wish to impose on people. Generally speaking, the term "suburb" is typically used in conjunction with "sprawl" and identified as something to be derided or eliminated. Moreover the term "suburb" by its own lexicography means "beneath" or "less than" - all from the perspective of some elitist view as to how the world should be. Why "urban" be the root with respect to how things are measured? Your urban areas are subrural.
In the context of this thread, suburban would be less than urban, "subrural" would be less than rural, and would be uninhabited landscape: desert, forest, savannah, etc. You're the one assuming "sub" is a judgment of value.
Using another somewhat local example: Lakewood, Ohio is a suburb of Cleveland. (and yes, it's incorporated) Yet, I believe its population density is higher than Cleveland's. (I'm not going to look it up right now) Some might argue that this would make Lakewood more urban than Cleveland, but it's still a suburb, because its total population is less, and most of its residents commute to Cleveland for work.
And, returning to your first statement:
Quote:
I think the areas that urbanophiles on this forum deride as "suburb" are far
more preferable than the hamster-style housing they wish to impose on people.
I'll respond with: I think the areas that suburbanophiles on this forum deride as "hamster-style housing" are far more preferable than the suburban sprawl they have been imposing on people for the last 60 years.
Using another somewhat local example: Lakewood, Ohio is a suburb of Cleveland. (and yes, it's incorporated) Yet, I believe its population density is higher than Cleveland's. (I'm not going to look it up right now) Some might argue that this would make Lakewood more urban than Cleveland, but it's still a suburb, because its total population is less, and most of its residents commute to Cleveland for work.
A tangent: I'm unfamiliar with Cleveland. But usually when a suburb is denser the central city municipality, it's because:
1) The suburb contains mostly residential neighborhoods while the city has more industrial and commercial land (or just uninhabited land for various reasons), dragging down the residential density.
2) The city has a large area containing residential neighborhoods of a variety of densities, while the suburb is small in area and is denser than many residential neighborhoods in the city but less dense than some others
3) The center city has had severe population decline, while the suburb has not
For example, Somerville near Boston is somewhat denser than Boston. It has less non-residential land than Boston, and most neighborhoods in Somerville have about the same density. Boston has sections quite a bit denser than Somerville — the densest neighborhoods in the Boston metro are in Boston proper. Boston's density numbers are dragged down by non-residential land and relatively low density neighborhoods in the outskirts.
A tangent: I'm unfamiliar with Cleveland. But usually when a suburb is denser the central city municipality, it's because:
1) The suburb contains mostly residential neighborhoods while the city has more industrial and commercial land (or just uninhabited land for various reasons), dragging down the residential density.
2) The city has a large area containing residential neighborhoods of a variety of densities, while the suburb is small in area and is denser than many residential neighborhoods in the city but less dense than some others
3) The center city has had severe population decline, while the suburb has not
For example, Somerville near Boston is somewhat denser than Boston. It has less non-residential land than Boston, and most neighborhoods in Somerville have about the same density. Boston has sections quite a bit denser than Somerville — the densest neighborhoods in the Boston metro are in Boston proper. Boston's density numbers are dragged down by non-residential land and relatively low density neighborhoods in the outskirts.
Since I believe Lakewood was historically more dense than Cleveland, I think it's because it has more residential neighborhoods with some commercial interspersed, whereas Cleveland has much more land dedicated to industrial and business uses.
About the only thing consistent among urbanophiles is that "suburb" describes something they don't like. When it comes to actually providing an objective definition of "suburb", however, the "objectivity" typically disappears . . .
Enough about how "urbanophiles" define a suburb. I'm curious about your definition. You've offered some thoughts about what is not a suburb in your view (e.g., incorporated municipality), but I've still got only a vague picture at best of what you believe a suburb is. It would enhance the discussion if people knew your definition of a suburb, so they can compare this to their own concept.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IC_deLight
If it is an incorporated municipality or city then why refer to it as a suburb? It is a city in its own right.
As Nei has pointed out, this would mean that most communities in New England (all in southern N.E.) could not be suburbs. If no incorporated place is a suburb, that means that Boston, Providence, and Hartford, to name a few cities, have no suburbs. Does that really make sense?
To use an example, the incorporated community near Boston where I grew up has a history as an independent town which dates back more than 300 years. Yet today, this town is almost entirely residential in character and function, with the vast majority of its residents commuting to work in Boston, the urban inner core adjacent to Boston, or around the Greater Boston metro area. To me, this residential/commuting function makes this town a suburb of the nearby larger city.
I'll respond with: I think the areas that suburbanophiles on this forum deride as "hamster-style housing" are far more preferable than the suburban sprawl they have been imposing on people for the last 60 years.
"They" have not imposed anything on people. Hamster style housing, bad schools, bad crime rates, etc. drove them to a better place for them. You're free to live in your Habitrail - and difficult to see what your complaint is about people that have chosen to live elsewhere whether they were attracted to the place they live or driven from the place you live.
As Nei has pointed out, this would mean that most communities in New England (all in southern N.E.) could not be suburbs. If no incorporated place is a suburb, that means that Boston, Providence, and Hartford, to name a few cities, have no suburbs. Does that really make sense?
Why wouldn't it make sense? What doesn't make sense is the compunction to label another political subdivision of the state as "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.
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.
