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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-15-2013, 11:59 AM
 
2,553 posts, read 2,004,178 times
Reputation: 1348

Advertisements

Hard to say. Both look like older-style compact suburbs.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-15-2013, 01:20 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dayton Sux View Post
Urban is a euphemism for "black".
Not in Denver. It's not even a euphemism for "Hispanic" here.

Quote:
Originally Posted by darkeconomist View Post
At best, I think we would end up with a gradation from hyper-urban (Hong Kong) to emptiness (most of Nevada), eg, the urban-rural transects. Defining urban and suburban seems an exercise is futility. One is always defined as not the other, and always as a comparison of one example place to another.
I agree with darkeconomist!

The density thing is a little wierd, too, if you can have rural inhabitants inside the city limits. Everyone knows that's not rural. I think there is more agreement on what rural is than on what urban and suburban are. There are some very dense small towns, too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 01:25 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
The density thing is a little wierd, too, if you can have rural inhabitants inside the city limits. Everyone knows that's not rural. I think there is more agreement on what rural is than on what urban and suburban are.
Umm, I would think it's rural. Ditto with the census bureau. Rural is rural. Here's the rural Kansas City example mentioned earlier:

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=kansa...168.37,,0,0.51
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 01:35 PM
Status: "Summer!" (set 16 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,988 posts, read 102,554,590 times
Reputation: 33053
^^You would!

To me, rural is like the place I lived in Champaign County, Illinois, St. Joseph Twp, where I could see the cornfields from my living room window. (I lived north of I-74.)

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...ed=0CC8Q8gEwAA

Your picture looks very rural, but on the big map I see there's a lot around it such as a dog park, softball complex, etc. Some western cities do have a lot of undeveloped land in their city limits. I suppose that could be called rural.

Last edited by Katarina Witt; 08-15-2013 at 02:10 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 02:57 PM
 
56,551 posts, read 80,847,919 times
Reputation: 12490
Another example of rural areas within city limits is Rome NY. It is the second biggest city in the state in terms of land, but has only about 34,000 people currently(peaked at 55,000 or do). It has a more dense inner section/district and a more rural outer section/district. https://maps.gstatic.com/m/streetvie...670146784,,0,0

https://maps.gstatic.com/m/streetvie...514769588,,0,0

Welcome to the City of Rome, NY - Official City Site
Rome, New York - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 03:02 PM
 
Location: Pittsburgh, PA (Morningside)
12,416 posts, read 11,917,166 times
Reputation: 10536
Parker is Pennsylvania's smallest city, with a population of 840 in 2010.

Does this look urban?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-15-2013, 07:59 PM
 
56,551 posts, read 80,847,919 times
Reputation: 12490
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschaton View Post
Parker is Pennsylvania's smallest city, with a population of 840 in 2010.

Does this look urban?
It looks like a very small town/village.

Here's another comparison: 191 Genesee St
Auburn, NY 13021
http://goo.gl/maps/qkb59

99 Pine St
Cohoes, NY 12047
http://goo.gl/maps/BcGXP
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-16-2013, 07:28 AM
 
Location: Monmouth County, NJ & Staten Island, NY
407 posts, read 407,411 times
Reputation: 661
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
Agreed, though at some point a place would be obviously urban, though it would end getting based on background. For the NYC metro, I defined 4 levels:

By density, it looks the NYC metro could be divided this way:

I) Manhattan, blocks of 5-6 story buildings with no setback, often with mid-rise buildings mixed in. Some neighborhoods have high rises as well. A road lined with stores on the first floor of these buildings are almost always within 1-2 blocks away. Parts of the West Bronx is at a similar density.

II) Outer Borough subway neighborhoods. Mostly from 40,000 - 75,000 people per square mile, much of the building stock is attached 3-4 story attached homes with some higher (see above) and lower density housing mixed in.

III) Outer borough neighborhoods away from the subway. Lower density sections aren't too different from older inner-ring suburbs and are often thought as "suburban", especially by those living in parts I & II. Much of it is detached homes, but still denser and with more apartment buildings and attached homes than developments further out. Only transit is buses and low frequency commuter rail, but still has high transit usage for American standards.

IV) Newer, lower density suburbia, almost all outside the city limits. Detached homes have larger lots than (III), many older suburbs belong with (III).

While it's soley by density, the breaks between each group feel a bit obvious., though the lower end of III is a bit ambiguous.
Just thought I would add, excellent classification of NYC and the surrounding areas, don't think I could have said it better myself lol. That being said (as you'd probably already know) my neighborhood is pretty much exactly a type III, with more type IV influence than say Riverdale, Whitestone or Marine Park as we don't have any subway lines at all (Staten Island Railway doesn't count) and very little if any high rise development around here. I've always said that its like regular suburbia in form, just more compact and dense.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2013, 09:15 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
^^You would!

To me, rural is like the place I lived in Champaign County, Illinois, St. Joseph Twp, where I could see the cornfields from my living room window. (I lived north of I-74.)

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-...ed=0CC8Q8gEwAA
seems like you associate rural with farming more than I do as in this post:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana View Post
Yeah, I don't quite get that about the CB. I've known of a people to farm inside the city limits of small cities, but I don't think that's happening in KC.
I've seen plenty of rural, mostly in Upstate NY and New England, where in both especially the latter, a lot of the rural land is unfarmed. And I tend to associate rural land with at least some hills, though that's obviously not true in Illinois.

Quote:
Your picture looks very rural, but on the big map I see there's a lot around it such as a dog park, softball complex, etc. Some western cities do have a lot of undeveloped land in their city limits. I suppose that could be called rural.
I didn't zoom out much when I posted that link. Maybe saying that spot is right on the edge of rural/urban is the best way to put it?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-27-2013, 05:24 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
45,985 posts, read 41,937,844 times
Reputation: 14804
Quote:
Originally Posted by KeepRightPassLeft View Post
Just thought I would add, excellent classification of NYC and the surrounding areas, don't think I could have said it better myself lol. That being said (as you'd probably already know) my neighborhood is pretty much exactly a type III, with more type IV influence than say Riverdale, Whitestone or Marine Park as we don't have any subway lines at all (Staten Island Railway doesn't count) and very little if any high rise development around here. I've always said that its like regular suburbia in form, just more compact and dense.
Thanks! Part of the way I came up with this idea is riding the LIRR from near my parent's house into the city. Some rather sudden changes are apparent.

I had in mind Type III would be anywhere not near a subway (with perhaps a few exceptions), so the neighborhoods you mentioned would fit equally well with Staten Island. Though the southern part of Staten Island that I saw (Tottenville?) is likely lower density than most of it, verging on Type IV. When I read that post, I was mainly thinking more deeply about the more "urban" parts of the metro, mainly the city proper. But thinking more about the burbs, Type IV should be split into two types, one I'll still call Type IV

(1) Type IV contigously built up suburbia. Few large lots, continuous development of mostly single-family homes, little breaks. More likely to have local transit, but most will avoid it unless going into the urban core
(2) Type V broken suburbia with many "large lot" sections and some relatively undeveloped sections. Less built up system of arterials due to lower density

The change between (1) and (2) is obvious for Long Island, around Syosset on the northern part and somewhere near Islip on the south shore. I suspect in other directions in the NYC suburbia there's proportionally more Type V and less Type IV. Going back to Type III, which is some ways harder to separate from Type IV, more so than the other categories because the boundary is a bit of an arbitrary density boundary than any other obvious style difference. Take a look at the figure on page 7 of this pdf:

http://www.rpa.org/pdf/RPA_tomorrows_transit.pdf

Assuming it's accurate, it shows a large portion of the city was undeveloped as of 1930. The remainder of the city that was developed afterwards is what I had in mind as Type III: lower density, more auto-oriented, with little having subway access as the older parts of the city, but still denser than most newer development outside the city limits. I remember driving noticing a rather drastic change within a mile of the city border, even if housing stock age didn't change much. Looking at the map, there's also a lot of development (southern Westchester, North Jersey, coastal CT) outside the city limits already existing by 1930. Also much less dense than the older development within the city limits and no subways, similar to the newer Type III. Those should count as Type III as well, but they'll feel different than the newer Type III. I'm overgeneralizing, but in many cases, the newer Type III neighborhoods often are a bit better off, with higher quality schools than the older ones, even the older ones are outside the city limits. The older ones tended to be working-class industrial areas which faced decline. Too many exceptions to say accurately. In any case, saying city limits = bad schools is not always the best predictor, other factors may be more relevant.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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
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