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.
Yes, you guys seem to define everything built after WW II as "suburban". So newer cities, or cities in the sunbelt that greatly increased in population after the war are considered "suburban". No matter that the population had more than doubled since then, and household size decreased. Plus, buildings are much "greener" now, but you guys don't seem to care about that.
The technical, specialized definition of urban has to do with walkability and until very recently, practically all postwar development in this country has been auto-oriented. Sure we care about green buildings, but that's irrelevant when it comes to such buildings being pedestrian-oriented or auto-oriented.
The technical, specialized definition of urban has to do with walkability and until very recently, practically all postwar development in this country has been auto-oriented. Sure we care about green buildings, but that's irrelevant when it comes to such buildings being pedestrian-oriented or auto-oriented.
There is a real difference between the East coast and basically every other city in the country.
It is almost impossible to find a 7.6 sq mile area that has 167,000 people like Everett/Chelsea/Somerville does in intown areas of cities not names Boston, Philly, DC, NYC, SF, LA, Chicago let alone suburbs.
The technical, specialized definition of urban has to do with walkability and until very recently, practically all postwar development in this country has been auto-oriented. Sure we care about green buildings, but that's irrelevant when it comes to such buildings being pedestrian-oriented or auto-oriented.
Could you document this definition and document that practically all post war development has been auto oriented? Also why green is irrelevant. I know a lot of urbanists go ape-**** over old, uninsulated buildings, particularly houses that eat up a lot of energy.
Your meaning, not mine. And yes, this is the United States of America, not the United States of 2Easy.
If there is anything not lost on me in this and a gazillion other threads on this subject, its that the word 'suburb' no longer has any specific meaning among the populace. So you can drop the condescension.
A suburb is a non core city municipality that functions as a bedroom community for the center city.
A suburb can not exist with city limits of a core city of a metropolitan area.
The debate over what a suburb is goes into the realm of what exactly is the line between a Suburb and a secondary city. Everyone thinks St Paul is a secondary core city and everyone would think of Aurora, NY has a suburb of Buffalo but there is a messy middle when a clearly subordinate municipality is also a significant job center (Cambridge, MA, Arlington VA, etc)
There is a real difference between the East coast and basically every other city in the country.
It is almost impossible to find a 7.6 sq mile area that has 167,000 people like Everett/Chelsea/Somerville does in intown areas of cities not names Boston, Philly, DC, NYC, SF, LA, Chicago let alone suburbs.
If you include Malden to those 3 Boston area suburban cities, you have 219,000 people in only 15 square miles. All 4 have overall densities of at least 11,000/sq. mi.
Could you document this definition and document that practically all post war development has been auto oriented?
Read material written by urban planners and proponents of smart growth and you'll easily see that walkability, density, high transit usage, etc are concepts tightly associated with urbanism. Here's but one piece where you see this:
Quote:
L.A. developed as a suburban city and as a car city, and New York didn’t. New York developed as an urban city from its get-go. As density grew, they began to build high-rise residential. That density was always part of the city. People looked for the ease and convenience of apartment living. Millennials want urbanity and they want density and ease of living...
New Yorkers are in such an urban environment, and I think people want to go about and be part of it. And, I think people are less afraid to go out into the environment. People that move to L.A. are not necessarily urban people to start, and I think that people that move to New York are looking for density.
You'll also see terms like walkable urbanism or traditional urbanism for the sake of greater specificity, but it's common to see the term urban itself correlated with walkability and density.
As far as most postwar development being auto-oriented, honestly this is pretty evident on its face, especially if you're familiar with history. Postwar policies that enabled mass suburbanization in the areas of transportation (FHA), homebuilding, urban renewal, etc were unprecedented and caused a massive building boom in the U.S., with new zoning regulations requiring single-use districts. Here are some articles that document this history in great detail:
Also why green is irrelevant. I know a lot of urbanists go ape-**** over old, uninsulated buildings, particularly houses that eat up a lot of energy.
I said green buildings have nothing to do with urbanism. A green building can be located in a dense, walkable area or in a low-density, auto-oriented area. And old buildings can be modernized to be more energy-efficient. As a matter of fact, it is typically more efficient to modernize a historic structure than to build a new energy-efficient building from the ground up: https://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/smar...oric-buildings
There is a real difference between the East coast and basically every other city in the country.
It is almost impossible to find a 7.6 sq mile area that has 167,000 people like Everett/Chelsea/Somerville does in intown areas of cities not names Boston, Philly, DC, NYC, SF, LA, Chicago let alone suburbs.
Last I checked, the three in bold were not on the east coast.
For me Density doesn't matter to whether a place is a suburb or not. A place cane have 100,000 ppsm and if the majority or upwards of 40% lets say of it's population are commuting to another city/town/ place it is a suburb period. I use this definition because if you apply this same thing to other countries like Nigeria for example their are areas that are 20,000 ppsm were everyone is commuting to a central part of Lagos. I personally believe their is no sort thing as a density cap when it comes to suburban. For example since we often include Canada in here, it would be hard not to include Canadian suburbs which are often very dense vs. American suburbs
Mississauga and Surrey are good examples of massive and partially urban suburbs.
Last I checked, the three in bold were not on the east coast.
Yeah but their suburbs don't have large areas of 15kppsm. Even SF only has 1 Suburb around 15kppsm.
The intown neighborhoods do match but the suburban ones do not.
Boston has about 18sq miles with a density of 16kppsm+ outside city limits.
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.
