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.
if it has the typical qualities of a suburb, its a suburb. doesn't matter if its bigger or smaller than the city. if its just made up of a bunch of strip malls and single family homes, has little or no walkability, etc...then its a suburb. doesn't matter if the population is 1 thousand or 1 million. if it has few or no urban elements I don't see how you could call it a 'city.' regardless of its size.
Just because one can't precisely define something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. People understand that there's a difference between a central city and a suburb. We know that New York City doesn't fall under the suburb label. We know that Scarsdale doesn't fall under the central city label. Unless one is writing an academic, quantitative study, it's usually not necessary to create a precise quantitative definition, but instead to describe what characterizes and differentiates a given type of place. And there will be borderline cases, whose classification may vary depending on what criteria one chooses to use.
It also depends on what one is using the information for. To differentiate central cities from suburbs? To differentiate different types of suburbs from each other? To illustrate the evolution of suburbs?
Tens of millions of Americans think they live in suburbs and would be rather upset if we told them that suburbs don't really exist, even if suburban non-existence might foster more resource conserving metropolitan development.
Just because one can't precisely define something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. People understand that there's a difference between a central city and a suburb. We know that New York City doesn't fall under the suburb label. We know that Scarsdale doesn't fall under the central city label. Unless one is writing an academic, quantitative study, it's usually not necessary to create a precise quantitative definition, but instead to describe what characterizes and differentiates a given type of place. And there will be borderline cases, whose classification may vary depending on what criteria one chooses to use.
It also depends on what one is using the information for. To differentiate central cities from suburbs? To differentiate different types of suburbs from each other? To illustrate the evolution of suburbs?
Tens of millions of Americans think they live in suburbs and would be rather upset if we told them that suburbs don't really exist, even if suburban non-existence might foster more resource conserving metropolitan development.
I know you haven't been posting on this forum long, but I tried to get a common definition of "suburb", so that when we discussed suburbs we were all on the same page, and many people did not want to commit. They want "suburb" to mean whatever they don't like, as Ohiogirl81 said earlier in this thread. That's what I meant. It was sarcasm, sort of.
I know you haven't been posting on this forum long, but I tried to get a common definition of "suburb", so that when we discussed suburbs we were all on the same page, and many people did not want to commit. They want "suburb" to mean whatever they don't like, as Ohiogirl81 said earlier in this thread. That's what I meant. It was sarcasm, sort of.
And I offered one, and people didn't agree. Some things aren't clear cut and a simple definition is impossible as one poster said earlier:
I've seen your viewpoint expressed by many on this forum. However, when actually discussing suburbs, it does seem to come down to political boundaries.
I'm sure many forum discussion do involve political boundaries, though IMO often needlessly. This thread started based on political boundaries. But many of the discussions here involve just development patterns where political boundaries are a side issue, and many of the city vs suburb arguments are really about development types not whether a place is in the limits of the principal city.
And I offered one, and people didn't agree. Some things aren't clear cut and a simple definition is impossible as one poster said earlier:
I offered a defintion of suburb, too, and people didn't agree, particularly the "anti-suburb" faction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
I'm sure many forum discussion do involve political boundaries, though IMO often needlessly. This thread started based on political boundaries. But many of the discussions here involve just development patterns where political boundaries are a side issue, and many of the city vs suburb arguments are really about development types not whether a place is in the limits of the principal city.
Development patterns are influenced by municipal ordinances, e.g. lot size, setbacks, land donated to open space, etc, so political boundaries do make a difference. Some people feel any home built after 1945 (except maybe the one they live in) is "suburban" no matter where it is. Some people feel any residential neighborhood is "suburban". It would be nice if we could come to some common definition.
I offered a definition of suburb, too, and people didn't agree, particularly the "anti-suburb" faction.
Yes, I disagreed it as well, mostly for being too simplistic. A common agreement is impossible, as we've seen on many threads.
Quote:
Development patterns are influenced by municipal ordinances, e.g. lot size, setbacks, land donated to open space, etc, so political boundaries do make a difference.
but if you're interested in changes in development, it makes more sense to talk about where development patterns changes rather than where the political boundaries are.
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.