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.
But, there are people who say that everything surrounding the most populated city in a metropolitan area (with the obvious exception of completely undeveloped areas) is a suburb of that largest city.
Yeah. In some cases, it's just plain ridiculous. There are actually people who consider Fort Worth a suburb of Dallas, even though they're both major cities.
I used to think it sounded wierd when someone would mention Albuquerque's suburbs even though we have a city population of over 500,000.When I think of suburbs I think of St.Louis,Chicago,Phoenix,Atlanta,Dallas and most bigger cities.
When I think of suburbs, I think of communities surrounding mid to large sized cities. I think that sometimes people who live in smaller cities will describe the outlying communities as "suburbs" to make their cities sound larger.
It's funny to see comments like "the suburbs of Rapid City." I think that in these types of instances, the term "bedroom community" is more appropriate.
I agree, smaller cities shouldn't refer to surrounding towns as "suburbs". They are really just neighboring towns, or like mentioned, 'bedroom communities.'
To me, "suburbs" are applicable in regards to surrounding separate areas of cities over 800,000. Somebody mentioned that LA, San Diego, have their own suburbs within the city itself. If that is meaning Century City, Hollywood, those are within city limits & I wouldn't consider them suburbs- more like city districts. However, the mayor of LA also oversees the San Fernando Valley which I agree are 'suburban' yet within city districts. LA is an exception of having city-limit suburbs (San Fernando Valley), that's what I'm trying to say.
Yeah. In some cases, it's just plain ridiculous. There are actually people who consider Fort Worth a suburb of Dallas, even though they're both major cities.
I'd be one to consider Ft.Worth a 'suburb' of Dallas- it is still a satellite city to its more prominent neighbor, even though in itself it can be quite autonomous, and has surrounding suburbs dependant on it. I wouldn't say it's ridiculous for one to consider Ft.Worth a suburb to Dallas. Out-of-towners often just lump the two together as if it was one anyway. That's what people do when thinking of metro areas.
What I've been thinking is that for a city to have suburbs that it should have a population of roughly 100,000 or more. The suburbs around it should have less so that there is no confusion as to which one is bigger.
I would consider Fort Worth and Long Beach Suburbs, even though they have large populations.
I'd be one to consider Ft.Worth a 'suburb' of Dallas- it is still a satellite city to its more prominent neighbor, even though in itself it can be quite autonomous, and has surrounding suburbs dependant on it. I wouldn't say it's ridiculous for one to consider Ft.Worth a suburb to Dallas. Out-of-towners often just lump the two together as if it was one anyway. That's what people do when thinking of metro areas.
Dallas-Fort Worth is a metroplex (a metropolitan with more than one central city).
I wouldn't say that Fort Worth is a suburb, because it could survive on its own without Dallas. Its population is huge (650,000), and it has plenty of industry independent from D.
I agree, smaller cities shouldn't refer to surrounding towns as "suburbs". They are really just neighboring towns, or like mentioned, 'bedroom communities.'
To me, "suburbs" are applicable in regards to surrounding separate areas of cities over 800,000. Somebody mentioned that LA, San Diego, have their own suburbs within the city itself. If that is meaning Century City, Hollywood, those are within city limits & I wouldn't consider them suburbs- more like city districts. However, the mayor of LA also oversees the San Fernando Valley which I agree are 'suburban' yet within city districts. LA is an exception of having city-limit suburbs (San Fernando Valley), that's what I'm trying to say.
Hollywood and Century City are fairly urban and not suburban in nature as they are very dense and I was not referring to those parts of LA. I was referring to mostly the valley; Canoga Park, Van Nuys, Northridge, etc...are all basically suburbs within the city of LA. And LA is not an exception when it comes to this, most cities that grew a lot after WWII have the same situation. Look at Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc... All of those cities have over a million people and those million+ people are not all living in an urban area. Most of them live in suburban areas within the large main city. Even NYC city has suburban neighborhoods with in it's city limits, i.e. Riverdale in the Bronx.
Look at the SF Bay Area. San Jose is much larger than SF both in size and population but many people see it as a suburb b/c of it's development, land use, density, etc... Despite SF being much smaller it is WAY more urban than San Jose. Then take Oakland, most don't refer to it as a suburb b/c it has urban areas in it. It's smaller than San Jose yet is more urban.
That is what I am trying to say, size doesn't really matter nearly as much as the type of development, land use, density, modes of transportation, etc....
Hollywood and Century City are fairly urban and not suburban in nature as they are very dense and I was not referring to those parts of LA. I was referring to mostly the valley; Canoga Park, Van Nuys, Northridge, etc...are all basically suburbs within the city of LA. And LA is not an exception when it comes to this, most cities that grew a lot after WWII have the same situation. Look at Phoenix, Dallas, Houston, San Antonio, etc... All of those cities have over a million people and those million+ people are not all living in an urban area. Most of them live in suburban areas within the large main city. Even NYC city has suburban neighborhoods with in it's city limits, i.e. Riverdale in the Bronx.
lets not forget the forgotten borough -- staten island. it's the only borough i did not go to when i was in nyc, and for good reason. it's out of the way
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.
