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.
Please tell us your experience with living in a city.
None besides long visits, I've lived in multiple suburbs... Do my friends who grew up around me and moved to cities count, they tell me how much better it is and I've visited them first hand to see what they mean.
[quote=bg7;29035026]Mine sure did just happen, started off as a village in the 1670's. Organically developed into a suburb after they put the rail line through in the 1800's.
/QUOTE]
Then you don't live in any kind of suburb that is being talked about here - which is generally understood to be autocentric suburbs of the latter half of the 20th century. An no, none of them just happened. They were meticulously planned, plotted, permitted, parceled, and promoted.
None besides long visits, I've lived in multiple suburbs... Do my friends who grew up around me and moved to cities count, they tell me how much better it is and I've visited them first hand to see what they mean.
That is what I thought. You have never lived in the city. Visiting is not the same.
That is what I thought. You have never lived in the city. Visiting is not the same.
It is easy to meet people in the city, if I was living there the same thing would happen and I'd actually be able to develop bonds with the people I met. Suburbs I've been in different kinds, I feel extremely lonely and bored living in them, unless you are completely inept socially there is no way a city is more lonely.
Is there anything wrong with being more lonely or wanting a more secluded life, no not all... One of the selling points of suburbs is getting away from the hustle and bustle, granted all cities/suburbs aren't equal.
The "city" in my state is basically on "life support" so of course I'm blown away by a place like Chicago or NYC and the surrounding smaller towns. When I hear somebody say they lived in NYC and say it is very lonely there, it seems odd to me, especially how can they say you have to live there to know how lonely it is etc... I have a couple friends living there telling me how it is socially.
Is there anything wrong with being more lonely or wanting a more secluded life, no not all... One of the selling points of suburbs is getting away from the hustle and bustle, granted all cities/suburbs aren't equal.
The "city" in my state is basically on "life support" so of course I'm blown away by a place like Chicago or NYC and the surrounding smaller towns. When I hear somebody say they lived in NYC and say it is very lonely there, it seems odd to me, especially how can they say you have to live there to know how lonely it is etc... I have a couple friends living there telling me how it is socially.
"Lonely" has a more negative connotation than "secluded". Lonely implies, to me anyway, that the person would like to have more interaction with people. Secluded implies a personal preference. I don't know that people move to the suburbs to escape interactions with people; it may be more to escape the traffic, noise, etc and also to have some things one can't have as easily in the city, e.g. a single family house with a yard.
One can be lonely anywhere, but cities can foster loneliness b/c residents are more transient.
Then you don't live in any kind of suburb that is being talked about here - which is generally understood to be autocentric suburbs of the latter half of the 20th century. An no, none of them just happened. They were meticulously planned, plotted, permitted, parceled, and promoted.
Then I don't either. My suburb was an early port city. It was incorporated as a city before the State of California existed, had a pretty extensive streetcar network and was connected via rail to San Francisco as well as its port before that. If you look at other suburbs in the area, most are the same. Elk Grove was is a "stagecoach stop city" and not an auto-suburb. What is present day Roseville was also originally a stagecoach stop, when the railroad was built its name was changed to Junction before eventually incorporating as a city in 1909. West Sacramento was settled in the 1840s. Granite City (now Folsom) was a mining town before being connected to the railroad. Lincoln California, another railroad suburb. Rocklin, another gold rush and railroad suburb. Auburn, another gold rush and railroad suburb. Galt, stagecoach stop and later railroad suburb.
You'd have trouble finding what "is generally understood to be an autocentric suburb" anywhere in the Central Valley.
Then I don't either. My suburb was an early port city. It was incorporated as a city before the State of California existed, had a pretty extensive streetcar network and was connected via rail to San Francisco as well as its port before that. If you look at other suburbs in the area, most are the same. Elk Grove was is a "stagecoach stop city" and not an auto-suburb. What is present day Roseville was also originally a stagecoach stop, when the railroad was built its name was changed to Junction before eventually incorporating as a city in 1909. West Sacramento was settled in the 1840s. Granite City (now Folsom) was a mining town before being connected to the railroad. Lincoln California, another railroad suburb. Rocklin, another gold rush and railroad suburb. Auburn, another gold rush and railroad suburb. Galt, stagecoach stop and later railroad suburb.
You'd have trouble finding what "is generally understood to be an autocentric suburb" anywhere in the Central Valley.
No, they are almost all auto suburbs. Look at the population of Roseville, CA:
If 1950 is the start of autocentric development (you could argue over the correct dates, but for the purposes here I have to pick a date), the city had only about 6% population in the pre-auto era, the vast majority of the development is afterwards, and probably auto-centric. The old part is "railroad suburb" is minor. Mentioned another time, you referred to Hicksville as a railroad suburb. Only a small part of it is, the oldest sections right near the train station. The rest is typical postwar suburbia.
In contrast, Norwood, MA could arguably not be an auto-suburb; it's 1950 population is a bit over half its current population:
If 1950 is the start of autocentric development (you could argue over the correct dates, but for the purposes here I have to pick a date), the city had only about 6% population in the pre-auto era, the vast majority of the development is afterwards, and probably auto-centric. The old part is "railroad suburb" is minor. Mentioned another time, you referred to Hicksville as a railroad suburb. Only a small part of it is, the oldest sections right near the train station. The rest is typical postwar suburbia.
In contrast, Norwood, MA could arguably not be an auto-suburb; it's 1950 population is a bit over half its current population:
If "organic growth" is the criteria, it's in fact a railroad suburb/stagecoach suburb. Growth wasn't appreciably faster post-1950 than it was pre-1950. It was growing fast before, and it continued to grow fast after. The automobile didn't really impact Rosevilles growth. Anyway, we're now talking about an entirely different category. Simply because one city continues to grow rapidly doesn't mean it's less "organic growth" than another one the curls up and stops growing at all or even one that loses over half its population ala Detroit.
Auto-centric would then be places like say Mountain House. Or maybe Brentwood, which was mostly a small farming town for years and years until it all of a sudden popped up and grew. Then again, it's not like the introduction of the car had anything to do with Brentwoods growth either. It didn't really start growing until the '80s, well after the automobile. It's growth was just a natural progression of development moving further outward.
If "organic growth" is the criteria, it's in fact a railroad suburb/stagecoach suburb. Growth wasn't appreciably faster post-1950 than it was pre-1950. It was growing fast before, and it continued to grow fast after. The automobile didn't really impact Rosevilles growth.
I didn't use that criteria, I used the criteria of what era was most of its development from.
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.
