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.
I'd say that whether an economic center outside the principal city is a second principal city or a type of suburb depends at least in large part on commuting patterns. If city/town A is an economic center outside the historical principal city and has a substantial percentage of residents who commute to the metro area's core, then it is most likely more suburb than second principal city.
this map of job centers might interest you:
Only for DC, LA, NYC and Chicago. Doesn't show city limits but in some sense it works better that way:
This is a good example of differences in perception, and how this can stoke the debate over what constitutes a suburb. Unlike what you say here, I have no trouble considering a place a suburb if one of its significant functions is to be a bedroom community, no matter how densely populated it might be. Neither of us is necessarily right or wrong, but this is an example of the fact that there seem to be varied perceptions about what is meant by the term "suburb."
where I run trouble thinking about that is when a place is as dense as a typical neighborhood of the principal city (not say, the density of a neighborhood on the outer edge of a city, which are bound to be somewhat similar to those of adjacent communities). Cambridge, Somerville and perhaps parts of Brookline are good examples of these places for Boston. Hoboken, NJ is another example for New York City (Hoboken is similar to a typical density in Brooklyn though not Manhattan which is really atypical for the city but often thought as typical by out-of towners). Then for New York there a number of older satellite cities than are mostly would be below average in density for New York City but on the high side for a typical suburb. Since density doesn't really always follow place boundaries (Brookline is a good example, it seems to be almost two very different towns) rather than classifying by place it may make sense and take a look at where different different densities or development styles if that's what you're interested in. I made a 4-way breakdown of the NY metro with some comments about other cities here:
I did post two links about Aurora history. It has a freaking independent history as a military town! Why all the qualifiers?
And I looked at them. Aurora was tiny — it had a population 3,000 in 1940 and 10,000 in 1950 when it was an independent military town.
[quote[ Please tell me the history of Minneapolis/St. Paul and how they are so independent of each other (not that I mentioned them in comparison). One is on one side of the Mississippi River, one is on the other. Minneapolis is bigger, and many people refer to the whole area as "Minneapolis".[/quote]
From the numbers, while Minneapolis was always larger, they looked like they were usually within say, 50% of each other, rather one being 10x larger. They both each have their own downtown.
^^I am not going to debate Mpls/St. Paul v Denver/Aurora, b/c of course they're not the same. Nor do I have any interest in discussing DC/Baltimore. DC was a government-planned city that overgrew. I doubt the founders or anyone else ever envisioned it getting that big. Baltimore was there first.
However, I will point out that in Mpls/St. Paul, Dallas/Ft. Worth, etc that one city is significantly larger than the other and carries the name for the metro area. St. Paul at 285K is smaller than both Aurora, CO and Pittsburgh.
^^I am not going to debate Mpls/St. Paul v Denver/Aurora, b/c of course they're not the same. Nor do I have any interest in discussing DC/Baltimore. DC was a government-planned city that overgrew. I doubt the founders or anyone else ever envisioned it getting that big. Baltimore was there first.
However, I will point out that in Mpls/St. Paul, Dallas/Ft. Worth, etc that one city is significantly larger than the other and carries the name for the metro area. St. Paul at 285K is smaller than both Aurora, CO and Pittsburgh.
The Census naming convention--in metropolitan areas with multiple central cities--is to put the largest city (by population) first. Thus technically I live in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA, though I doubt many people think of it as that.
The Census naming convention--in metropolitan areas with multiple central cities--is to put the largest city (by population) first. Thus technically I live in the San Jose-San Francisco-Oakland CSA, though I doubt many people think of it as that.
I'm not talking about the census bureau, I'm talking about what people call a place. (The CB calls metro Denver "Denver-Aurora-Broomfield".) People say they're going to Minneapolis or Dallas. (Minnesota people do sometimes say "The Cities".)
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 01-18-2013 at 03:05 PM..
I'm not talking about the census bureau, I'm talking about what people call a place. (The CB calls metro Denver "Denver-Aurora-Broomfield".) People say they're going to Minneapolis or Dallas.
OK, but do they say they're going to Dallas if they're in fact going to Fort Worth?
I did post two links about Aurora history. It has a freaking independent history as a military town! Why all the qualifiers? Please tell me the history of Minneapolis/St. Paul and how they are so independent of each other (not that I mentioned them in comparison). One is on one side of the Mississippi River, one is on the other. Minneapolis is bigger, and many people refer to the whole area as "Minneapolis".
And time does march on. Aurora might have been much smaller at one time, but it's now 1/2 the size of Denver, bigger than Pittsburgh!
I see where you're coming from and am inclined to agree with you, to a point, Aurora over the course of its entire 110 year history has always outperformed Denver in growth percentages. Denver is over 50 years older, so it was established first and Aurora second.
Aurora and Denver are only 9 miles apart though, so it would seem from the very start of things that Aurora was a small town that grew up next to a much larger city. In its history Aurora has grown up to a very sizable population...however Aurora doesn't really have a proper big city downtown like a city of its size should have. Cities half the size of Aurora have more built up downtowns than Aurora does, so that kind of goes against it, and suggests Aurora is just a massive suburb to Denver.
Yet, its referred to as Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Aurora is one of the principal cities of this Metro area. So take what you will from it, on paper Aurora is its own city, in real life Aurora is a large suburb that supplies Denver with commuters.
Because when it is its own city with its own government, school districts, economy, etc, referring to it as a suburb seems to usurp its identity.
Around Chicago most suburbs have that, though most call themselves "villages" exactly the same except for the name. But try as they might they cannot escape the fact they are suburbs. They use the same airport as the city, watch the same TV stations and root for the same teams. Ever notice that when a team starts playing in a nearby city it keeps the name of the Central City? Corporate headquarters, but not manufacturing plants, thrive in a modern suburb. When a majority of the workforce in a smaller town is from the City, that is an unmistakable indication that it is a suburb.
I see where you're coming from and am inclined to agree with you, to a point, Aurora over the course of its entire 110 year history has always outperformed Denver in growth percentages. Denver is over 50 years older, so it was established first and Aurora second.
Aurora and Denver are only 9 miles apart though, so it would seem from the very start of things that Aurora was a small town that grew up next to a much larger city. In its history Aurora has grown up to a very sizable population...however Aurora doesn't really have a proper big city downtown like a city of its size should have. Cities half the size of Aurora have more built up downtowns than Aurora does, so that kind of goes against it, and suggests Aurora is just a massive suburb to Denver.
Yet, its referred to as Denver-Aurora-Broomfield, CO Metropolitan Statistical Area, and Aurora is one of the principal cities of this Metro area. So take what you will from it, on paper Aurora is its own city, in real life Aurora is a large suburb that supplies Denver with commuters.
No, IRL, people commute INTO Aurora to work at the health science center, Buckley Air Base, et al, and out of Aurora to work at various businesses in the metro Denver area. While there is no downtown, Colfax Avenue is sort of a 'main drag', and there is a city government complex, a performing arts center and other amenities. There are few stand-alone cities half the size of Aurora these days.
OK, Aurora has 144,000 employed residents, according to the Census. The Denver Regional Council of Governments shows 104,000 jobs as located within Aurora. So the jobs/employed residents ratio is about .7, showing a net out commute. So on the basis of employment it's not a bedroom suburb, but it's not a central city with a net incommute either. It's a little below jobs/housing balance.
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.
