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 01-16-2013, 09:23 AM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Well, a while back people were insisting that the typical suburban lot was 1/4 acre, in other words, about 11,000 sq. ft. I agree that is not the reality here in Denver, or, from what I've seen, in many parts of the west, but it seems common "back east" for suburban lots to be quite large.
A few posters did. I did not. Plenty of suburban lots are 7000 square feet, some are smaller, some are bigger. Of the two houses I lived in, one lot was slightly bigger than 5000 square feet, another was one acre.

Quote:
I would add, 25% of Chicago's housing is housing for a LOT of people, about 674,000 to be exact.
I said 25% of housing units. Single family homes typically have more people per household, so the population living in single family homes would be more than that. See, detail and nuance!


Quote:
When people discuss, "what makes people leave the city for the suburbs?" what is one of the prime answers? The schools.
This is true, but why should development patterns be irrelevant? Sure, "city" is a legal entity but "city" usually implies a place that is heavily built up and people living close together. I'm much more interested in discussing urban design not education, if were I'd post in the Education forum not the Urban Planning forum.

Quote:
In fact, I was reading one of these Urban Planning blogs and some dipstick urban planner said (as some have said on this board) that he didn't think schools were an important concern in urban planning until, ta da, HIS kids started school.
Well yes, realisitically, until I have children the quality of the local schools is nearly irrelevant to where I choose to live.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Development patterns frequently change with the political boundaries.
This is true, I linked to a previous post where I said that in great detail, did you read it? But if you're interested in development patterns, why not group by development patterns, as I did here (types I-IV):

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27749556-post155.html

Quote:
There needs to be a definition that most of us can agree on. We can't talk about suburbs without this. Just look at this thread.
Again, I offered mine several times and you rejected it because you didn't suburb and suburban referring to two completely different things.

And people keep giving example of why a simple definition can't work, this isn't health science. The point of definitions is to help each other understand each other not to have endless dispute. The attachment to labels is a bit silly. As Carlite, said: you can distinguish between built form or you can distinguish between political boundaries. As long it's clear what the poster is mentioning, what's the issue?
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-16-2013, 06:58 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,992 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33058
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
A few posters did. I did not. Plenty of suburban lots are 7000 square feet, some are smaller, some are bigger. Of the two houses I lived in, one lot was slightly bigger than 5000 square feet, another was one acre.



I said 25% of housing units. Single family homes typically have more people per household, so the population living in single family homes would be more than that. See, detail and nuance!




This is true, but why should development patterns be irrelevant? Sure, "city" is a legal entity but "city" usually implies a place that is heavily built up and people living close together. I'm much more interested in discussing urban design not education, if were I'd post in the Education forum not the Urban Planning forum.



Well yes, realisitically, until I have children the quality of the local schools is nearly irrelevant to where I choose to live.



This is true, I linked to a previous post where I said that in great detail, did you read it? But if you're interested in development patterns, why not group by development patterns, as I did here (types I-IV):

http://www.city-data.com/forum/27749556-post155.html



Again, I offered mine several times and you rejected it because you didn't suburb and suburban referring to two completely different things.

And people keep giving example of why a simple definition can't work, this isn't health science. The point of definitions is to help each other understand each other not to have endless dispute. The attachment to labels is a bit silly. As Carlite, said: you can distinguish between built form or you can distinguish between political boundaries. As long it's clear what the poster is mentioning, what's the issue?
Re: the bolds-

Yes, I'm a troglodyte. I can't understand nuance. You got me pegged.

You know, someone once told me, on this forum, that my own circumstances were irrelevant. While I found that rude and insulting, I do think one needs to look outside oneself. The cities are never really going to make a comeback in any kind of a big way if the school issue isn't resolved.

I don't even remember what your definition was. Probably anything built after 1945 west of the Hudson River is a suburb.

How do you distinguish between built form? Isn't the beauty of the city supposed to be "diversity"? There are many areas within blocks of each other that have different built form. The issue is that people call whatever they don't like a suburb!
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 07:37 PM
 
Location: Mishawaka, Indiana
6,513 posts, read 9,049,534 times
Reputation: 5008
This thread has taken on a whole new face from what I originally started...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 07:43 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment View Post
This thread has taken on a whole new face from what I originally started...
Sorry. You did seem interested in political boundaries. We should restart back to the OP's question. Restating (correct me if wrong):

What make a suburb with a large population different from a "city" of similar or less population? And what about two sizeable cities near each other.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 08:14 PM
 
2,493 posts, read 2,193,406 times
Reputation: 3351
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The cities are never really going to make a comeback in any kind of a big way if the school issue isn't resolved.
The issue is that people call whatever they don't like a suburb!

I was going to stay out of this discussion, because there is no black and white definition, but many shades of grey. People should try using "urban" and "suburban" as adjectives instead of nouns. Try describing the particular realities of a specific space instead of applying one of only two labels.

Although I agree many urban and suburban school systems have issues, I believe many cities are making a big comeback without solving every problem for everyone. Many parents of school age kids actually stay in the city thru the school years.

I know that my own circumstances are irrelevant, BUT, I plan on living 90 years +/- and only 12 of those years will I have a school age child. I have to consider what works best for ALL 90 years.

YMMV
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 09:13 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,509 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Sorry. You did seem interested in political boundaries. We should restart back to the OP's question. Restating (correct me if wrong):

What make a suburb with a large population different from a "city" of similar or less population? And what about two sizeable cities near each other.
Restated this way, to me, it's really about density and housing form. Let's say municipality A has 100,000 people in 10 square miles, for a density of 10,000 people per square mile. In municipality A, the most common housing form is low rise apartments, but there also a few highrises, some townhouses, and some detached houses. Municipality B also has a population of 100,000, but in 20 square miles, for a density of 5,000 people per square mile. Most of the housing in municipality B is single family detached houses, with some townhouses, and a small area of apartments. Let's assume that neither of them are the primary central city of their metropolitan area

I will tell you that municipality A is a lot more urban than municipality B, which demonstrates a suburban form.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 09:16 PM
nei nei won $500 in our forum's Most Engaging Poster Contest - Thirteenth Edition (Jan-Feb 2015). 

Over $104,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum and additional contests are planned
 
Location: Long Island / NYC
45,987 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
And what if B is the primary city containing the metro's downtown and A does not?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 09:30 PM
 
1,015 posts, read 1,541,509 times
Reputation: 746
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
And what if B is the primary city containing the metro's downtown and A does not?
If B was the primary city with the main metro downtown, it would almost certainly have a larger population than A. Situations where the central city is less dense than than other cities in the metro area are unusual, but not unheard of. Los Angeles is not as dense as Santa Monica, West Hollywood, and some other communities in the region. They're much smaller than the city of Los Angeles, but they are denser on average, because they're consistently dense, while the city of Los Angeles is dense in certain areas.

In the case you describe, I'd say that B was the central city of the metropolitan area but that A had a more urban character.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-16-2013, 10:29 PM
 
5,772 posts, read 13,724,871 times
Reputation: 4583
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carlite View Post
Restated this way, to me, it's really about density and housing form. Let's say municipality A has 100,000 people in 10 square miles, for a density of 10,000 people per square mile. In municipality A, the most common housing form is low rise apartments, but there also a few highrises, some townhouses, and some detached houses. Municipality B also has a population of 100,000, but in 20 square miles, for a density of 5,000 people per square mile. Most of the housing in municipality B is single family detached houses, with some townhouses, and a small area of apartments. Let's assume that neither of them are the primary central city of their metropolitan area

I will tell you that municipality A is a lot more urban than municipality B, which demonstrates a suburban form.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
And what if B is the primary city containing the metro's downtown and A does not?
Or what if neither A nor B is the metro area's principal city, but substantial portions of both A's and B's populations commute to the metro area's core?
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-17-2013, 04:40 PM
 
5,767 posts, read 10,299,438 times
Reputation: 3813
As others note, there's no exact definition, and to some extent, you get to choose your own. If you want to take things to the limit, then you could argue that every metro area only has one "primary" or "core" city, and that everything else is just a suburb.

But people get pretty furious when you say that Baltimore is a DC suburb, San Jose is a San Francisco suburb, Ft. Worth is a Dallas suburb, St. Paul is a Minneapolis suburb, Durham is a Raleigh suburb, St. Petersburg is a Tampa suburb, Hamilton is a Toronto suburb, Ann Arbor is a Detroit suburb, Akron is a Cleveland suburb, and so on.
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