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.
when a municipality suddenly expands to cover its own suburbs (in all senses of the word), it would be odd to suddenly not call yesterday's suburbs suburbs anymore, even if a centralized government manages public safety and so on.
+1:
Quote:
Originally Posted by stanley-88888888
but it was annexed to n.y.c. About 100 years ago; whereas somerville seceded from charlestown (boston) about 150 years ago.
That's a good point so by that metric the four boroughs other than Manhattan would technically be suburbs even though they are within the city. See, once you go down that slope there really isn't much left in this country there aren't that many truly urban areas.
That's a good point so by that metric the four boroughs other than Manhattan would technically be suburbs even though they are within the city. See, once you go down that slope there really isn't much left in this country there aren't that many truly urban areas.
That would also be exactly the same for Los Angeles.
That's a good point so by that metric the four boroughs other than Manhattan would technically be suburbs even though they are within the city. See, once you go down that slope there really isn't much left in this country there aren't that many truly urban areas.
I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying. They’re saying that whether an area is urban or not should be judged by its characteristics not whether it’s inside or outside city limits.
I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying. They’re saying that whether an area is urban or not should be judged by its characteristics not whether it’s inside or outside city limits.
I don't think there's any disagreement on that point; after all, this thread is all about suburbs that are characteristically urban. And on the flip side, there are neighborhoods within central cities that are characteristically suburban.
I don't think there's any disagreement on that point; after all, this thread is all about suburbs that are characteristically urban. And on the flip side, there are neighborhoods within central cities that are characteristically suburban.
Agreed. I intended to include the flip side with the “or not” bit.
I said that I was done but I do think that there’s the whole noun/adjective thing causing confusion. Everyone agrees that a neighborhood inside a major city can be suburban, but few would call such a place a suburb if its within the city limits.
I don’t think that’s what anyone is saying. They’re saying that whether an area is urban or not should be judged by its characteristics not whether it’s inside or outside city limits.
And just what are the "urban" and "suburban" characteristics?
Agreed. I intended to include the flip side with the “or not” bit.
I said that I was done but I do think that there’s the whole noun/adjective thing causing confusion. Everyone agrees that a neighborhood inside a major city can be suburban, but few would call such a place a suburb if its within the city limits.
That would also be exactly the same for Los Angeles.
My point exactly every city in the country. lol
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.