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 really enjoy CityNerd and he sets out his own parameters which is fine but personally I don't really see any of the examples he gave as "suburbs that don't suck" as really suburbs. To me, all of them seem like neighbourhoods within the larger city or an older city that got swallowed up by a bigger one. Of course it's his channel so he can do whatever he wants.
Hopefully at some point he will do another such video but use only post-war suburbs which is what I think most of us think of when someone says they live in the suburbs. They may have a very small original town area but essentially they are just standard modern suburbs. It would be great to see such areas that have done modern development right.
In much of the Northeast and Chicagoland, you have this thing called the "railroad suburb."
As its name implies, it grew not around the car but rather around a station on a railroad that led into the nearby city. Thus it is very nuclear in form, usually with a Main Street or cluster of shops and businesses close to the train station and houses (and sometimes apartment buildings) surrounding the cluster. Some of the shops have offices over them, and some may have apartments.
These are eminently walkable, and many of them are among the most prized places to live within their regions — definitely preferred by many over, and a good number of them higher in status than, the newer, post-WWII auto-oriented suburbs that sprang up away from the rail lines.
You do, however, have the nuclei of such places elsewhere. In multi-county metros, they are often the county seats. These also predate WWII, and they usually have at their centers a cluster of shops and businesses surrounding the county courthouse. Houses surround this cluster, though if a railroad passes through it, you will find light industry along its tracks. Most of these are walkable, or at least in their centers. Some, like Independence, Mo., got overrun by the neighboring city's suburban expansion and thus have a walkable core surrounded by the autocentric monoculture.
But while I think we should cherish and build up such places, I share your curiosity about how CN might evaluate the newer suburbs, especially those like Carmel, Ind. or Bellevue, Wash., that gave themselves urbanity retrofits or built themselves walkable town centers from scratch. He would have to drop rail transit as a consideration for evaluating them, though.
JC and Hoboken aren't suburbs. Suburbs don't have a regional rail terminal(not station, terminal) with multiple rail lines. Nor does it have a population of over 250K with HIGH transit usage w/o a car.
Hoboken is definitely a suburb if the majority of residents commute to other places. You basically said suburbs don't exist in Europe or Asia. Most if not all Tokyo suburbs have rail lines and Paris as well is in a similar boat. Their still suburbs because they have a large commuting population.
Hoboken is definitely a suburb if the majority of residents commute to other places. You basically said suburbs don't exist in Europe or Asia. Most if not all Tokyo suburbs have rail lines and Paris as well is in a similar boat. Their still suburbs because they have a large commuting population.
Actually, NigerianNightmare makes a good point regarding Hoboken.
It's the "city" terminal for the Lackawanna regional rail network because the Lackawanna lacked the money to tunnel under the Hudson as the Pennsylvania did. Its Hoboken station predated the original Penn Station by three years (1907 vs. 1910), and it incorporates ferry slips for boats that would carry riders across the river to their final destination (these were ultimately rendered unnecessary by the completion of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad [now PATH] the year after the station opened).
IOW, Hoboken's railroad station was actually a transfer point rather than a final destination. And since the city didn't have a sizable employment or commercial center of its own (it has no college and its downtown is about scaled to its population), it does meet the definition of a suburb as opposed to an extension of the core city like Cambridge, Mass., is.
In much of the Northeast and Chicagoland, you have this thing called the "railroad suburb."
As its name implies, it grew not around the car but rather around a station on a railroad that led into the nearby city. Thus it is very nuclear in form, usually with a Main Street or cluster of shops and businesses close to the train station and houses (and sometimes apartment buildings) surrounding the cluster. Some of the shops have offices over them, and some may have apartments.
These are eminently walkable, and many of them are among the most prized places to live within their regions — definitely preferred by many over, and a good number of them higher in status than, the newer, post-WWII auto-oriented suburbs that sprang up away from the rail lines.
You do, however, have the nuclei of such places elsewhere. In multi-county metros, they are often the county seats. These also predate WWII, and they usually have at their centers a cluster of shops and businesses surrounding the county courthouse. Houses surround this cluster, though if a railroad passes through it, you will find light industry along its tracks. Most of these are walkable, or at least in their centers. Some, like Independence, Mo., got overrun by the neighboring city's suburban expansion and thus have a walkable core surrounded by the autocentric monoculture.
But while I think we should cherish and build up such places, I share your curiosity about how CN might evaluate the newer suburbs, especially those like Carmel, Ind. or Bellevue, Wash., that gave themselves urbanity retrofits or built themselves walkable town centers from scratch. He would have to drop rail transit as a consideration for evaluating them, though.
Well said.
When we travel, we always make it a point to experience a few of these railroad/pre-WWII suburbs. Something about them -architecture, street patterns, history- fascinates me. It’s almost like walking through a museum for me. Or like you’re a live participant in one of Normal Rockwell’s paintings, or a Leave it to Beaver episode.
I agree with y'all overall on the critique. I said a great parameter would be to have the suburbs have 50%+ of their population growth after 1950. This would give even old suburbs that retrofitted an older settlement pattern to fit more homes a greenlight as well.
The only city on the list with less than 50% of it's population in 1950 is New Westminster, which has added a lot of density for a suburb.
I also think objectively because he went by Population density, really obvious choices of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver suburbs are missing. Mississauga and Brampton have a denser than average settlement pattern and infill is far more common than the average American suburb. Mississauga arguably has the best suburban mall retrofit area, which makes up a substantial part of it's skyline today.
Actually, NigerianNightmare makes a good point regarding Hoboken.
It's the "city" terminal for the Lackawanna regional rail network because the Lackawanna lacked the money to tunnel under the Hudson as the Pennsylvania did. Its Hoboken station predated the original Penn Station by three years (1907 vs. 1910), and it incorporates ferry slips for boats that would carry riders across the river to their final destination (these were ultimately rendered unnecessary by the completion of the Hudson and Manhattan Railroad [now PATH] the year after the station opened).
IOW, Hoboken's railroad station was actually a transfer point rather than a final destination. And since the city didn't have a sizable employment or commercial center of its own (it has no college and its downtown is about scaled to its population), it does meet the definition of a suburb as opposed to an extension of the core city like Cambridge, Mass., is.
Ehh not so fast. Hoboken actually does have a college and a pretty good one at that. Stevens Institute of Technology, aka Stevens Tech, is a very well regarded university known for Engineering among other disciplines. It also has a cute little campus in one of my favorite parts of Hoboken up on Castle Point with nice skyline views of Midtown.
Now regarding this suburban/non-suburban line of thinking, Hoboken hasn't been considered an even somewhat traditional suburb of NYC since the 60's-70's when most of its residents (like the Sinatras) still made a living off the local economy. Since then it's gone through massive gentrification. Thankfully Hoboken still has great bones with the underlying remnants of yesteryear found throughout the natives, architecture and some great local establishments (Fiore's, Augustino's, etc). All that being said, nobody considers Hoboken a suburb. It's a small, mile square, vibrant city on the Hudson.
I agree with y'all overall on the critique. I said a great parameter would be to have the suburbs have 50%+ of their population growth after 1950. This would give even old suburbs that retrofitted an older settlement pattern to fit more homes a greenlight as well.
The only city on the list with less than 50% of it's population in 1950 is New Westminster, which has added a lot of density for a suburb.
I also think objectively because he went by Population density, really obvious choices of Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver suburbs are missing. Mississauga and Brampton have a denser than average settlement pattern and infill is far more common than the average American suburb. Mississauga arguably has the best suburban mall retrofit area, which makes up a substantial part of it's skyline today.
Do to annexations Canada it’s hard for those cities to make it. Since there are a ton of like 3sq mile “cities” plopped places in the US which inflate the population density and transit usage and such.
If Cambridge /Somerville we’re 103 Sq miles, you be adding likely Arlington, Medford, Belmont, Winchester etc and it wouldn’t be on the list (well maybe but like #10 not 1 and 6.)
I also don’t agree with the fact it has to be post war. Marblehead MA, Newton MA, Belmont MA, Arlington MA, Brookline MA, are pretty indisputably suburbs but do not hit the population growth criteria. I mean Hingham barely does. (11k to 24k). I’d really love for someone to argue Newton Massachusetts isn’t a suburb
Do to annexations Canada it’s hard for those cities to make it. Since there are a ton of like 3sq mile “cities” plopped places in the US which inflate the population density and transit usage and such.
If Cambridge /Somerville we’re 103 Sq miles, you be adding likely Arlington, Medford, Belmont, Winchester etc and it wouldn’t be on the list (well maybe but like #10 not 1 and 6.)
I also don’t agree with the fact it has to be post war. Marblehead MA, Newton MA, Belmont MA, Arlington MA, Brookline MA, are pretty indisputably suburbs but do not hit the population growth criteria. I mean Hingham barely does. (11k to 24k). I’d really love for someone to argue Newton Massachusetts isn’t a suburb
There’s not really an argument to make. Newton is absolutely a suburb.
I think Upper Darby Township for Philadelphia fits the video's criteria and wasn't mentioned. I suppose the township part might be confusing, but it does seem to be somewhat distinct and has a listing here even though it doesn't get a municipal from walkscore.
It's got a 85K population at a respectable 10K ppsqm density, the terminal station of a rapid transit station and stops for the Norristown High Speed Line light rail and two trolley lines.
Ehh not so fast. Hoboken actually does have a college and a pretty good one at that. Stevens Institute of Technology, aka Stevens Tech, is a very well regarded university known for Engineering among other disciplines. It also has a cute little campus in one of my favorite parts of Hoboken up on Castle Point with nice skyline views of Midtown.
Now regarding this suburban/non-suburban line of thinking, Hoboken hasn't been considered an even somewhat traditional suburb of NYC since the 60's-70's when most of its residents (like the Sinatras) still made a living off the local economy. Since then it's gone through massive gentrification. Thankfully Hoboken still has great bones with the underlying remnants of yesteryear found throughout the natives, architecture and some great local establishments (Fiore's, Augustino's, etc). All that being said, nobody considers Hoboken a suburb. It's a small, mile square, vibrant city on the Hudson.
Thanks for adding to my store of knowledge re: Stevens Tech.
No argument from me about Hoboken having strong bones, either.
I remember buying a book by — I don't remember; it was either a Jersey Journal reporter or a reporter for a paper in Hoboken that came out less often than daily — in the late 1980s titled "Yuppies Invade My Home at Dinnertime" that contained articles chronicling the clash between the newcomers and the oldtimers in Hoboken.
My recollection based on what one now finds in the vicinity of the PATH/NJT regional rail station is that the yuppies won (decisively: according to Census data, 80% of Hoboken residents have a bachelor's or higher degree). But like in the Ironbound in Newark, what went before remains present in places.
However: Based on mean journey-to-work time (ACS 5-year data, 2017-21: 38.2 minutes), most Hobokenites work outside it now. WFH, however, has probably caused this number to drop, maybe even sharply.
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.
