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.
This topic was inspired by the "Real city vs giant suburb" thread in CvC. Both form and function are in view here with respect to the terms "city" and "suburb."
Essentially, which cities do you feel are:
roughly 50% traditionally urban (prewar built environment), 50% postwar auto-oriented?
bedroom communities transitioning into economic/cultural hubs that are retaining more residents for work and leisure?
These are two separate questions with form and function being considered independently of each other, but it's fine to note examples where one is following or giving way to the other.
Shoreline, WA, immediately north of Seattle, was incorporated in 1996, graduating from its status as an informally designated unincorporated area in north King County. It's made up of a mix of older bungalows and '50s-80s ranch houses (and some apartments from both eras). Most of the town is on Seattle's street grid, but the majority of side streets lack sidewalks.
There are a handful of small commercial areas, but no real walkable "downtown core" like many of Seattle's other suburbs have. The thoroughfare streets are mostly small, just two lanes, but Aurora Ave is a prominent, traditional commercial "stroad". Two light rail stations are planned at 145th and 185th Sts NE, neither of them open yet.
This topic was inspired by the "Real city vs giant suburb" thread in CvC. Both form and function are in view here with respect to the terms "city" and "suburb."
Essentially, which cities do you feel are:
roughly 50% traditionally urban (prewar built environment), 50% postwar auto-oriented?
bedroom communities transitioning into economic/cultural hubs that are retaining more residents for work and leisure?
These are two separate questions with form and function being considered independently of each other, but it's fine to note examples where one is following or giving way to the other.
Columbus, OH immediately comes to mind.
They have a tight, urban pre-war core that made it a 10,000 ppsm city up until the 1960's. Its never had a reputation of being a destination or exciting place, but I doubt anyone could have characterized it as suburban prior to 1970. In the interest of "being a big city", they catered to corporations and suburbanites, losing their Amtrak station and all other rail.
Its "bedroom communities" would be places like Dublin I suppose.
So as it exists today, I'd say there are right on that 50/50 line. A core that still appears pretty city-like, with a newfound interest in a corporate-megaburbia identity.
Columbus definitely fits the bill of half urban, half suburban. In Columbus' case, the population of Franklin County (the county where Columbus is located) was 388,712 in 1940, 503,410 in 1950, and 1,321,414 as of 2021. So there is a decent built-up urban environment, but a ton of generic suburban development.
If you were to stand in downtown Columbus and limit yourself to going about 5 miles east or west, maybe 6 or 7 miles north, or 3 miles south, it would look like many Great Lakes cities, with a grid pattern for streets, fairly decent population density, walkable neighborhoods, etc. However, go any further, and it's miles of cul-de-sacs, strip malls, and office parks. A lot of those suburban areas from the 60s and 70s have not aged well. From the several times I've been there, Indianapolis has a similar setup.
The Hudson Waterfront in NJ are all true city suburbs. Edgewater is the epitome of it but then you also have parts of Fort Lee, Cliffside Park, North Bergen, West New York and Weehawken that all have that similar feel right along the water.
The Hudson Waterfront in NJ are all true city suburbs. Edgewater is the epitome of it but then you also have parts of Fort Lee, Cliffside Park, North Bergen, West New York and Weehawken that all have that similar feel right along the water.
Might as well throw Hoboken into the mix too.
I would say Hackensack is a great example of a mix between city & suburb as well. The Hudson waterfront is a great example, especially the Bergen County parts & Weehawken, I’d say Hoboken is more solidly in the camp of an urban city, in character it feels like an outer borough of NYC. Also West New York, Union City & Guttenberg are overall very dense & urban. New Rochelle & Stamford also are solid examples of a mix between city & suburb in my opinion.
Columbus definitely fits the bill of half urban, half suburban. In Columbus' case, the population of Franklin County (the county where Columbus is located) was 388,712 in 1940, 503,410 in 1950, and 1,321,414 as of 2021. So there is a decent built-up urban environment, but a ton of generic suburban development.
If you were to stand in downtown Columbus and limit yourself to going about 5 miles east or west, maybe 6 or 7 miles north, or 3 miles south, it would look like many Great Lakes cities, with a grid pattern for streets, fairly decent population density, walkable neighborhoods, etc. However, go any further, and it's miles of cul-de-sacs, strip malls, and office parks. A lot of those suburban areas from the 60s and 70s have not aged well. From the several times I've been there, Indianapolis has a similar setup.
Which really undermines the accepted conventional wisdom in places like Columbus and Indianapolis of "we were just a small town, now look this big city we're becoming."
The MSA"s were smaller, the city limits were tightly drawn around significantly populated, dense urban cores. Both have become less city-like and have not increased their name recognition despite bloating out their limits.
It would be interesting to see the population through the years of the original city limits of each. I believe Columbus was 35 square miles through the 1940's.
Which really undermines the accepted conventional wisdom in places like Columbus and Indianapolis of "we were just a small town, now look this big city we're becoming."
The MSA"s were smaller, the city limits were tightly drawn around significantly populated, dense urban cores. Both have become less city-like and have not increased their name recognition despite bloating out their limits.
It would be interesting to see the population through the years of the original city limits of each. I believe Columbus was 35 square miles through the 1940's.
The expanded municipal borders of non-Sunbelt cities like Columbus, Indianapolis, Louisville, Kansas City, etc. since the mid-20th century was in response to shrinking city tax bases in the wake of federal policies that favored suburban development and expansion at the expense of central city cores as well as decreasing household sizes. Urban density freefall was happening everywhere, regardless of cities' abilities to physically expand. So the next best option was to at least keep the municipal population trending in a positive direction and retain/attract as much economic development as possible.
Why do you say both Columbus and Indianapolis "have become less city-like" since the middle of the previous century? Wouldn't that be true of just about all U.S. cities when comparing the 1940-era versions of themselves to today's versions?
Why do you say both Columbus and Indianapolis "have become less city-like" since the middle of the previous century? Wouldn't that be true of just about all U.S. cities when comparing the 1940-era versions of themselves to today's versions?
It would be for some of course, but Columbus is an extreme example that can't conveniently be explained away with "everyone else did the same thing."
The LeVeque Tower, the most iconic skyscraper in Columbus was built in 1927 and they've only built one building taller since then. Despite claims of being "centrally located", they got rid of an Amtrak station, and today continue to reject even the most basic streetcar proposals that could potentially lay one inch of passenger rail down in the city.
All of the other cities in its orbit didn't go to such extreme lengths.
Of course Cincinnati messed up with freeways overtaking some of its core (supposedly miles of neighborhoods similar to Over the Rhine vanished), not sure about Cleveland but I'm guessing similar de-urbanization. The difference is, pre 1960 all three would have been considered urban, and today Columbus would really be the only one of the three considered suburban.
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.
