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.
I explained in my post earlier. Obviously plenty of activities are still done in private.
What I meant was you'll see more people outside going about their daily business, conversing with others, playing or lounging in a public park, etc.
Well, I'm not so sure about that. I have enough exposure to Denver to say that I don't see much of that except downtown, and in the neighborhood shopping areas to a lesser extent. You really don't, even there, see people talking to anyone other than their companions, unless they're drunk or angry and yelling at someone, or talking to a paid person, e.g. at a restaurant or a store. You will see the same thing in a mall; people are just inside. Several parks in Denver are almost always peopled, but the little parks in the neighborhoods are usually empty, or have maybe 1-2 people there, or people walking through with their dogs.
What do you mean by that? What do urbanites do that is more "public"? Not every urban dweller eats out in a restaurant 3 meals a day every day. Nor do I ever see people putting their TVs out in the street in Denver to watch them. Few discipline their kids in public, or do intimate activities in public.
I think he means a place that has a more "public" character. Here are obvious examples of a "public" and "private" neighborhood.
I kinda get what you're saying, but I think that would disqualify a lot of obviously urban areas from that definition.
True enough, but urban isn't a yes/no sort of thing, it's a spectrum. A dense streetcar suburb within a city feels more urban than an autocentric suburb (both in terms of built form and liveliness), but it feels less urban than a commercial downtown in a small northeastern city.
In contrast, I think of suburban as being strictly a built form question. There's no cultural attributes that suburbs have which cities don't. So suburb isn't exactly the opposite of urban - it's a collection of built forms which tend to result in less pedestrian culture, which results in a less urban feel overall.
According to the census bureau, suburbs are a part of an urban area. But no, no, no, say some on this forum. If you live in a single family house, you're living in the suburbs, even if you live within the city limits! And the suburbs are a different form of life, generally considered a lower form. And so forth.
As has been explained 100 times
Areas can be suburban (adjective) in form, that is, low density, autocentric and spread out, regardless of their geopolitical definition.
"The suburbs" (plural noun) generally refer to municipalities, incorporated or not, outside of the city limits. With different and "better" schools.
Much of the city of Denver is suburban in form, as is true in many US cities.
Areas can be suburban (adjective) in form, that is, autocentric and spread out, regardless of their geopolitical definition.
"The suburbs" (plural noun) generally refer to municipalities, incorporated or not, outside of the city limits. With different and "better" schools.
In other words, "suburbs" can mean anything the poster wants them to mean. Generally used on this forum to describe an area with housing built since the arbitrarily chosen date of 1945. This is generally "understood" by those on a higher plane to mean single family housing, as some actually think little multi-family housing has been built since then.
I think he means a place that has a more "public" character. Here are obvious examples of a "public" and "private" neighborhood.
Well, the street you showed in Chevy Chase is very residential, but if you pan the map a little bit, you see a park with people riding bikes, businesses, etc.
The "very urban" example is not a residential neighborhood, so it's not quite the same comparison. There are residential neighbohoods in many cities that look similar to Chevy Chase.
In other words, "suburbs" can mean anything the poster wants them to mean. Generally used on this forum to describe an area with housing built since the arbitrarily chosen date of 1945. This is generally "understood" by those on a higher plane to mean single family housing, as some actually think little multi-family housing has been built since then.
Personally, I don't use that definition. Streetcar suburbs are suburbs, IMHO, they are just suburbs which were built with the planned transit being rail based, rather than automobile based.
What makes a suburb a suburb is its built form was designed to segregate housing away from jobs.
Urban neighborhoods were built throughout history with the understanding that virtually everyone would walk to work. As a result, they all showed a mixture of residential, small shops, and major employers. As the industrial revolution started, these "other employers" became mills and other large industrial employers.
In the initial parts of the industrial revolution, the old model stayed. This is why in the oldest neighborhoods in the Northeast and Midwest, you'll find a mixture of housing for the wealthy and poor, as well as storefronts and old industrial buildings. Everyone walked home from their jobs, be they factory workers or local bankers, so all neighborhoods essentially worked as small interconnected cities bumped against one another.
This changed with the railcar. The wealthy and middle classes didn't need to live close to work any more. Since at that time the mill neighborhoods were sooty, dirty, treeless messes, they abandoned the mixed-use neighborhoods en masse during the last part of the 19th century. They settled in quiet, residential areas which were a short rail drive away from their place of work. These areas might have had some neighborhood shopping, but on the other hand, transit made it easy to shop in downtown department stores as well, so it wasn't a given.
Regardless, the streetcar suburb was the prototype of the modern suburb. It contained universal single-family housing, excluded major employers (who would be loud and dirty), and accorded status to living in a leafy, somewhat isolated area. The autocentric post-WW2 suburb had its own characteristics (driveways, windier roads, much lower quality building materials), but it was basically a variation on a theme which was already set. Ironically, with deindustrialization, the reasons the gentry moved out of traditional urban neighborhoods to begin with vanished, which is part of why they have become attractive areas once again.
In other words that have nothing to do with the post to which I responded, and indicate that it wasn't read, "suburbs" can mean anything the poster wants them to mean. Generally used on this forum to describe an area with housing built since the arbitrarily chosen date of 1945. This is generally "understood" by those on a higher plane to mean single family housing, as some actually think little multi-family housing has been built since then.
Well, the street you showed in Chevy Chase is very residential, but if you pan the map a little bit, you see a park with people riding bikes, businesses, etc.
Suburbs can have parks. "Private" doesn't mean you won't see anyone outside doing anything ever. It just means that it's relatively low-key. Compared to an urban neighborhood (i.e., Dupont Circle or Georgetown), you see few pedestrians on the street. The streets are not "active" in an area I would define as "suburban."
Quote:
Originally Posted by Katiana
The "very urban" example is not a residential neighborhood, so it's not quite the same comparison. There are residential neighbohoods in many cities that look similar to Chevy Chase.
It doesn't have to be a residential neighborhood. The point was that you have a neighborhood that's very much within the public sphere (Times Square) and a neighborhood that's not. Is there anyone else here that disagrees?
Well, I'm not so sure about that. I have enough exposure to Denver to say that I don't see much of that except downtown, and in the neighborhood shopping areas to a lesser extent. You really don't, even there, see people talking to anyone other than their companions, unless they're drunk or angry and yelling at someone, or talking to a paid person, e.g. at a restaurant or a store. You will see the same thing in a mall; people are just inside. Several parks in Denver are almost always peopled, but the little parks in the neighborhoods are usually empty, or have maybe 1-2 people there, or people walking through with their dogs.
When I meant having a conversation, I meant with companions. I haven't been to Denver, nor am I saying cities = public. My point was seeing more people out on the street = feel more urban to me, feel people = not so urban. Irrelveant whether it is in a city's limit or not.
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.
Obviously plenty of activities are still done in private.
