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.
Well, the census has it definition of MSA, but it doesn't try to define "suburb". And commuting patterns aren't the whole story. The various towns around the D.C. Beltway and along the I-270 corridor are all considered D.C. suburbs, but for a time (and perhaps still) the commuting patterns were more suburb to suburb than they were suburb to city. Still, it's clear that D.C., and specifically the Federal Government, is a large part of their reason for being.
The industrial suburbs of places like Pittsburgh and Philadelphia (e.g. Norristown and Conshohocken) were job centers, but still suburbs. So commuting patterns aren't everything; these towns were dependent on their central city in a different way.
The New York area is a total mess. Is Jersey City a suburb of New York? How about Hoboken? What about Newark? Are the small towns adjacent to Newark suburbs of Newark? Where does West Windsor Township (roughly halfway between Philadelphia and New York) fit in? How about White Plains?
ColdAilment: Yes, to be a suburb (as distinct from "suburban" in character) a place has to operate independent of the city. Otherwise it's just part of the city. They can still be part of a larger entity, just not the principal city; for instance Silver Spring, Maryland is an unincorporated part of Montgomery County, MD and functions as a suburb of D.C.
This is sort of right, the Census talks about in central cities and outside central cities. Outside central cities in metropolitan areas is usually talked about by non-Census analysts as "suburbs," but suburb is not a term of art for the Census.
I think of places like Jersey City, Newark, and Hoboken as secondary cities within their metropolitan area. That's not a term of art either, but Jersey City, Newark, and White Plains are considered to be central cities within the New York metro area. To me, if a place gets up above a certain density, and has a certain urban form, it doesn't really make sense to call it a suburb anymore.
I don't know the story in West Windsor, but there certainly are places in the Bay Area which have commuters going to both San Francisco and San Jose, and really Oakland too. If one wants to see that these places are "suburbs of" something, they're suburbs of more than one place.
Don't get confused that suburb means car centric city and is post ww2.
Suburbs have been around for long time way before cars it just the idea of not living in the down town area.
The problem with any city or suburb being car centric is planning of post ww2 , If all the cities in the US burned down we will just build cities and suburbs again but it be very car centric.
If some where in the US they found gold and oil many people will move there now and build cities and suburbs but it be car centric .
In end it does NOT matter what city or suburb is what matters is areas build after ww2 are car centric.
The New York area is a total mess. Is Jersey City a suburb of New York? How about Hoboken? What about Newark? Are the small towns adjacent to Newark suburbs of Newark? Where does West Windsor Township (roughly halfway between Philadelphia and New York) fit in? How about White Plains?
This also crossed my mind! The area around New York City is so densely populated, which city is a suburb and which city is the principal city? Very confusing.
This also crossed my mind! The area around New York City is so densely populated, which city is a suburb and which city is the principal city? Very confusing.
Good exmple of good old suburbs would be New York is Brooklyn , The Bronx and Queens but none of them are car centric suburb.
I was born in Aurora in the 1950s and it was a very separate city from Chicago.
Many miles of farmland between them and very few people commuted from Aurora to Chicago.
Chicago grew westward to the point that the suburbs of Chicago have reached Aurora.
Aurora best fits the definition of a satellite city.
I was born in Aurora in the 1950s and it was a very separate city from Chicago.
Many miles of farmland between them and very few people commuted from Aurora to Chicago.
Chicago grew westward to the point that the suburbs of Chicago have reached Aurora.
Aurora best fits the definition of a satellite city.
Has Aurora always been as well to do as it is today?
if it has the typical qualities of a suburb, its a suburb. doesn't matter if its bigger or smaller than the city. if its just made up of a bunch of strip malls and single family homes, has little or no walkability, etc...then its a suburb. doesn't matter if the population is 1 thousand or 1 million. if it has few or no urban elements I don't see how you could call it a 'city.' regardless of its size.
if it has the typical qualities of a suburb, its a suburb. doesn't matter if its bigger or smaller than the city. if its just made up of a bunch of strip malls and single family homes, has little or no walkability, etc...then its a suburb. doesn't matter if the population is 1 thousand or 1 million. if it has few or no urban elements I don't see how you could call it a 'city.' regardless of its size.
And what about cities that are 50,000 people and are the largest in a 200 mile radius? Is it just one big suburb in the middle of nowhere?
And what about cities that are 50,000 people and are the largest in a 200 mile radius? Is it just one big suburb in the middle of nowhere?
I would call that an extremely boring place to live.
Last edited by cisco kid; 01-14-2013 at 05:50 PM..
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.