Cranberry to Expand Soullessness (Pittsburgh, Dormont: schools, camp, taxation)

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Lobick

This, of course, is my biggest peeve surrounding inhabitants of areas like Cranberry. They consider themselves part of the region, utilize amenities, etc. They are proud Pittsburghers...unless we start talking about regional taxation, municipal consolidation, etc; you know, collective solutions to the region's problems. It is then that those lines drawn on a map make all of the difference.

Plus, Cranberry is booming because we all subsidized its development by building the Parkway North.

Well-said.

[Kippy]

Originally Posted by Merge

I see that you are having difficulty with the distinction between an "exurb" and a "suburb"... perhaps this link will help:

Finding Exurbia: America's Fast-Growing Communities at the Metropolitan Fringe | Brookings Institution

In truth, many people have a hard time deciding where to draw the line between suburb and exurb. This is why you will often see an adjective in front of the term suburb, such as inner-ring suburb or street car suburb.

In my opinion, anything within a half-hour commute of the city is a suburb. For example, I consider Fairfax, VA and Bethesda, MD to be suburbs of D.C.; of course, you are free to disagree.

[UKyank]

Ah yet another I don't live in (insert city, suburb, state, etc) and don't like it there & you shouldn't either!


And droning on about a place like cranberry being unfairly subsidized by highway dollars - is that any different then the public funds that went toward canal construction, railroad construction, lock/dam construction etc that enabled Pittsburgh to go from a frontier outlier town to a city.

[doo dah]

Originally Posted by Lobick

This, of course, is my biggest peeve surrounding inhabitants of areas like Cranberry. They consider themselves part of the region, utilize amenities, etc. They are proud Pittsburghers...unless we start talking about regional taxation, municipal consolidation, etc; you know, collective solutions to the region's problems. It is then that those lines drawn on a map make all of the difference.

Plus, Cranberry is booming because we all subsidized its development by building the Parkway North.

You mean, they are takers, not makers?

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Copanut

And the most culturally relevant attraction in Cranberry is the Comtra Theater. I saw a production there starring Josie Carey that brought down the house.

Hmm... well maybe you could recommend one of their upcoming productions? Which would be the most "culturally-relevant" of their upcoming shows? Would it be Mary Poppins, Jesus Christ Superstar, or South Pacific?

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Kippy

In truth, many people have a hard time deciding where to draw the line between suburb and exurb. This is why you will often see an adjective in front of the term suburb, such as inner-ring suburb or street car suburb.

In my opinion, anything within a half-hour commute of the city is a suburb. For example, I consider Fairfax, VA and Bethesda, MD to be suburbs of D.C.; of course, you are free to disagree.

I'd say Cranberry pretty much fits the definition of "exurb" provided by the Brookings Institute I linked above.

Regardless, if you just apply the catch-all term "suburb" to a community, it provides no real sense of what that place is about. Comparing Cranberry to Penn Hills to Sewickley to Hampton to Wilkinsburg (which is also a "suburb" by your definition) isn't at all useful in a rational examination of the comparative qualities of these places.

[Kippy]

Originally Posted by Merge

I'd say Cranberry pretty much fits the definition of "exurb" provided by the Brookings Institute I linked above.

Regardless, if you just apply the catch-all term "suburb" to a community, it provides no real sense of what that place is about. Comparing Cranberry to Penn Hills to Sewickley to Hampton to Wilkinsburg (which is also a "suburb" by your definition) isn't at all useful in a rational examination of the comparative qualities of these places.

That is why God gave us the gift of adjectives. Why would I ever use just one noun to define an entire community?

One could also argue that Cranberry fits the definition of North American suburb found on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb

They are characterized by:

• Lower densities than central cities, dominated by single-family homes on small plots of land – anywhere from 0.1 acres[SIZE=2][24][/SIZE] and up – surrounded at close quarters by very similar dwellings.

• Zoning patterns that separate residential and commercial development, as well as different intensities and densities of development. Daily needs are not within walking distance of most homes.

• A greater percentage of whites and lesser percentage of citizens of other ethnic groups than in urban areas. However, Black suburbanization grew between 1970 and 1980 by 2.6% as a result of central city neighborhoods expanding into older neighborhoods vacated by whites.[SIZE=2][25][/SIZE][SIZE=2][26][/SIZE][SIZE=2][27][/SIZE]

• Subdivisions carved from previously rural land into multiple-home developments built by a single real estate company. These subdivisions are often segregated by minute differences in home value, creating entire communities where family incomes and demographics are almost completely homogeneous.[SIZE=2][citation needed][/SIZE].

• Shopping malls and strip malls behind large parking lots instead of a classic downtownshopping district.

• A road network designed to conform to a hierarchy, including culs-de-sac, leading to larger residential streets, in turn leading to large collector roads, in place of the grid pattern common to most central cities and pre-World War II suburbs.

• A greater percentage of one-story administrative buildings than in urban areas.

• Compared to rural areas, suburbs usually have greater population density, higher standards of living, more complex road systems, more franchised stores and restaurants, and less farmland and wildlife.

Since Brookings is your think thank of choice, look at the maps in this Brookings' study: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/lucy.pdf It appears that the researchers considered far flung areas outside each city to be suburban. However, to be fair, the study is from 2001 before exurb became such a buzz word (even though it has been around for quite some time).

[Copanut]

Originally Posted by Merge

Hmm... well maybe you could recommend one of their upcoming productions? Which would be the most "culturally-relevant" of their upcoming shows? Would it be Mary Poppins, Jesus Christ Superstar, or South Pacific?

They charge more for musicals, I guess they have to rent the speakers.

[Merge]

Originally Posted by Kippy

That is why God gave us the gift of adjectives. Why would I ever use just one noun to define an entire community?

One could also argue that Cranberry fits the definition of North American suburb found on Wikipedia:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suburb


They are characterized by:

• Lower densities than central cities, dominated by single-family homes on small plots of land – anywhere from 0.1 acres[SIZE=2][24][/SIZE] and up – surrounded at close quarters by very similar dwellings.

• Zoning patterns that separate residential and commercial development, as well as different intensities and densities of development. Daily needs are not within walking distance of most homes.

• A greater percentage of whites and lesser percentage of citizens of other ethnic groups than in urban areas. However, Black suburbanization grew between 1970 and 1980 by 2.6% as a result of central city neighborhoods expanding into older neighborhoods vacated by whites.[SIZE=2][25][/SIZE][SIZE=2][26][/SIZE][SIZE=2][27][/SIZE]

• Subdivisions carved from previously rural land into multiple-home developments built by a single real estate company. These subdivisions are often segregated by minute differences in home value, creating entire communities where family incomes and demographics are almost completely homogeneous.[SIZE=2][citation needed][/SIZE].

• Shopping malls and strip malls behind large parking lots instead of a classic downtownshopping district.

• A road network designed to conform to a hierarchy, including culs-de-sac, leading to larger residential streets, in turn leading to large collector roads, in place of the grid pattern common to most central cities and pre-World War II suburbs.

• A greater percentage of one-story administrative buildings than in urban areas.

• Compared to rural areas, suburbs usually have greater population density, higher standards of living, more complex road systems, more franchised stores and restaurants, and less farmland and wildlife.

Since Brookings is your think thank of choice, look at the maps in this Brookings' study: http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/census/lucy.pdf It appears that the researchers considered far flung areas outside each city to be suburban. However, to be fair, the study is from 2001 before exurb became such a buzz word (even though it has been around for quite some time).

Ok... I hear you on the question of semantics. But following your logic regarding the "30 minute commute rule"- how do you reconcile Wilkinsburg, McKeesport, Swissvale, New Ken, Dormont, Rankin, and Braddock, etc. to conform to your Wikipedia definition of "suburbs"? It just doesn't make sense to lump Cranberry in with these "suburbs" of Pittsburgh.

The word "suburb" loses all utility when we employ such broad definitions...

[szug-bot]

Originally Posted by Merge

The word "suburb" loses all utility when we employ such broad definitions...

I agree - anymore, I might call some neighborhoods in the city proper as "suburban", because there is a significant, consistent, lower density than normal. And, places like Avalon and Belleview I would reluctant to call "suburbs", because they are fully urbanized!