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.
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ColdAilment
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?
ColdAilment gives a good example of the idea that to say suburb = strip mall blah = suburb is not always accurate, and leaves a lot of territory uncovered. Here are a couple of other examples:
1) older residential areas that may have started as streetcar suburbs, and that often still have local commercial centers in a traditional downtown layout within walking distance for a significant portion of the population, and may have public transit service;
2) places that used to be independent small towns before a metropolitan area grew out to them, which still maintain much of the look of traditional small towns (quaint downtown areas, etc.), though they now function primarily as bedroom communities.
Just because one can't precisely define something, doesn't mean that it doesn't exist. People understand that there's a difference between a central city and a suburb. We know that New York City doesn't fall under the suburb label. We know that Scarsdale doesn't fall under the central city label. Unless one is writing an academic, quantitative study, it's usually not necessary to create a precise quantitative definition, but instead to describe what characterizes and differentiates a given type of place. And there will be borderline cases, whose classification may vary depending on what criteria one chooses to use.
It also depends on what one is using the information for. To differentiate central cities from suburbs? To differentiate different types of suburbs from each other? To illustrate the evolution of suburbs?
Tens of millions of Americans think they live in suburbs and would be rather upset if we told them that suburbs don't really exist, even if suburban non-existence might foster more resource conserving metropolitan development.
Then the author of the post below should have no problem defining the term I bolded in red by providing examples because he is using it as the discriminator between a city and a suburb. I would like to read what he thinks makes a city a city and a suburb a suburb.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cisco kid
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.
Are urban elements:
Mass transit - bus service, trains, taxis, etc.?
Cultural resources such as museums, theaters, libraries, etc.?
Public services such as a independent police/fire, full city services, hospitals, etc.?
If we use these features as the definition of a city, well then we have a problem because many surburbs, like the one I grew up in, the one I live in now, and the one I work for have many of these features. A suburb, if incorporated as an independent, legal entity, is a city (at least in California as far as I know). Unless there is a a legal hierarchy present that requires otherwise or the people of that city prefer to call their city something else (like the Town of Apple Valley), it is for all practical purposes - a city. Stating that a suburb is not a city is akin to saying that an apple is not a fruit but a watermelon is a fruit with the only significant physical difference between them is size and the similarities are many. They are both fruit.
In my opinion, the terms urban city (or core city) and surburban city are more appropriate than city and suburb, respectively.
Katiana, I agree, "suburban" should not be an all-purpose term of place-related abuse. People should talk about qualities and characteristics they like (or dislike): walkability, mix of uses, transit accessibility, public/private greenery, density, housing form. You can line them all up into a "classic" (1950's) suburb, but it doesn't always happen that way.
Cisco, some suburbs, especially those which originally developed along a streetcar line, or around a commuter rail, can be walkable and mixed use, at least in the center of town. I have a relative in South Orange, New Jersey, which started life as a 19th Century commuter rail suburb. So the center of town, known as the village, around the station, has stores, some small apartment buildings, a new townhouse development, an arts center etc. Moving away from the station you get into houses on quite large lots. I wouldn't exactly call the village urban, but it is walkable. You probably wouldn't want to live there car-free, but you might well be able to have one car for two adults, especially if one were commuting on the rail line.
Some newer suburbs are trying to foster these kinds of centers, which is tougher, but sometimes can be done. There are lots of people nowadays who want to live in more intense urban environments in center city downtowns. But there also people who want to live in intermediate environments, like around a suburban rail station. I think that the city environments will add and change more, but there should be different kinds of suburban housing options for people (e.g. some people who grew up entirely in suburbs) who want them.
I think Ohiogrl81 hit on the most salient points: Here's my attempt at a summary
Urban vs Suburban is in most people's perception encompassed by the following variables:
Built Environment: Size (geographic /population), Density, Gravity of built environment to a defined CBD, political boundaries of one form or another, and geographic-centric barriers.
Satellite cities: these I would characterize as a separate city at one time (usually pre 1930/ WW2) which then, due to growth patterns is either absorbed or woven / knitted into the larger metro whole, by most often suburban development patterns. These types of 'cities' are often characterized by a dominant employment center [say, one time industry specific, institutional specific (university, hospital, prison system), trade / commerce crossroads specific from the pre-auto dominant development era]
Nodal employment centers: these are suburban by nature, but dominated by the development along highways. These mostly developed from late 60's-70's to the present, primarily due to highway access constructed in outer beltways of major metro areas. Or in smaller metro area along a new hwy bypass route to expedite traffic through a formerly small/mid size city. I think more developers are attempting to give these 'pedestrian' qualities but the auto driven elements still define them. Seem to be characterized by the look of arrangements of metal / glass cacti and brush along a concrete desert. Lack density due to land price / construction cost / zoning regulations.
In large metropolitan areas one can usually visually differentiate a built environment suburban 'feel' or perception due to geographic barriers but it is no guarantee. The political jurisdiction boundaries, due to say county seats (or adjacent states) with the accompanying service structure can be an invisible dividing line. Finally, when the agglomeration of development overtakes the whole region you will find the multi node larger cities referenced as CMSAs: SFO- Oak - San Jose, Seattle - Tacoma, Chicago - Aurora - Gary, Dallas - Ft Worth, Phoenix - Tempe - Mesa etc...
So, to the original question, what is a suburb - is truly subjective in relation to built environment but in general has a satellite economic relationship with the larger metro dominant Central Business District. It can have characteristics of a Satellite older city which has since been absorbed or a one generation removed 'nodal employment center', often with the common development patterns most associate with suburbs mid / low height commercial, large ubiqiutous tracts of residential sameness (boxes little boxes) by a large scale developer sometime post WW2. It's primarily defined as an employment and economic activity gravity model.
Note, the most difficult to delineate urban / suburban fabric are those with components of built environment constructed predominantly within the last 50 years (all auto centric): Phoenix - Tempe - Mesa, being an example. It just seems to go on forever with same pattern.
I think Ohiogrl81 hit on the most salient points: Here's my attempt at a summary
Urban vs Suburban is in most people's perception encompassed by the following variables:
Built Environment: Size (geographic /population), Density, Gravity of built environment to a defined CBD, political boundaries of one form or another, and geographic-centric barriers.
Satellite cities: these I would characterize as a separate city at one time (usually pre 1930/ WW2) which then, due to growth patterns is either absorbed or woven / knitted into the larger metro whole, by most often suburban development patterns. These types of 'cities' are often characterized by a dominant employment center [say, one time industry specific, institutional specific (university, hospital, prison system), trade / commerce crossroads specific from the pre-auto dominant development era]
Nodal employment centers: these are suburban by nature, but dominated by the development along highways. These mostly developed from late 60's-70's to the present, primarily due to highway access constructed in outer beltways of major metro areas. Or in smaller metro area along a new hwy bypass route to expedite traffic through a formerly small/mid size city. I think more developers are attempting to give these 'pedestrian' qualities but the auto driven elements still define them. Seem to be characterized by the look of arrangements of metal / glass cacti and brush along a concrete desert. Lack density due to land price / construction cost / zoning regulations.
In large metropolitan areas one can usually visually differentiate a built environment suburban 'feel' or perception due to geographic barriers but it is no guarantee. The political jurisdiction boundaries, due to say county seats (or adjacent states) with the accompanying service structure can be an invisible dividing line. Finally, when the agglomeration of development overtakes the whole region you will find the multi node larger cities referenced as CMSAs: SFO- Oak - San Jose, Seattle - Tacoma, Chicago - Aurora - Gary, Dallas - Ft Worth, Phoenix - Tempe - Mesa etc...
So, to the original question, what is a suburb - is truly subjective in relation to built environment but in general has a satellite economic relationship with the larger metro dominant Central Business District. It can have characteristics of a Satellite older city which has since been absorbed or a one generation removed 'nodal employment center', often with the common development patterns most associate with suburbs mid / low height commercial, large ubiqiutous tracts of residential sameness (boxes little boxes) by a large scale developer sometime post WW2. It's primarily defined as an employment and economic activity gravity model.
Note, the most difficult to delineate urban / suburban fabric are those with components of built environment constructed predominantly within the last 50 years (all auto centric): Phoenix - Tempe - Mesa, being an example. It just seems to go on forever with same pattern.
So do political jurisdictions mean anything, or can a suburb be a residential area within the main city, or anything else the poster wants it to be at that point in time? We have people claiming there can be suburbs within the city limits of a large city.
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.
