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.
Let x be mileage to city center. Take (90-x)/90 multiply by center city population. If the population of that city exceeds this it escapes being a suburb. Aurora is, I believe, 10 miles from central Denver. It would have to have about 600K people not to be a Denver suburb.
Aurora IL is 40 miles from downtown Chicago. It would need well over a million people to not be a suburb. I think this is a good rule of thumb.
There are technicalities to this rule you are using, there are towns that have been swallowed up by a bigger city's suburbs. In Portland, Oregon City and even Milwaukie are their own small towns that happen to be within the suburbs surrounding Portland.
Let x be mileage to city center. Take (90-x)/90 multiply by center city population. If the population of that city exceeds this it escapes being a suburb. Aurora is, I believe, 10 miles from central Denver. It would have to have about 600K people not to be a Denver suburb.
Aurora IL is 40 miles from downtown Chicago. It would need well over a million people to not be a suburb. I think this is a good rule of thumb.
This is mumble-speak. Aurora is its own city just as Fort Worth is its own city. Oregon City is its own city and was incorporated earlier than Portland. I doubt residents of Louisiana, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and New Mexico, would accept being characterized as "sub-states" of Texas or Nevada and Oregon to be "substates" of California. "Suburb" is a pejorative/prejudicial term and the urbanistas can't even come up with a consistent definition.
Let x be mileage to city center. Take (90-x)/90 multiply by center city population. If the population of that city exceeds this it escapes being a suburb. Aurora is, I believe, 10 miles from central Denver. It would have to have about 600K people not to be a Denver suburb.
Aurora IL is 40 miles from downtown Chicago. It would need well over a million people to not be a suburb. I think this is a good rule of thumb.
Aurora has a common border with Denver, on Denver's east side. Just FYI. So maybe they're "twin cities" like Minneapolis and St. Paul, Dallas and Ft. Worth, Champaign and Urbana.
The point is that everything isn't there. These downtowns usually have an abundance of restaurants and frou-frou stuff, but few or no clothing stores, hardware stores, household goods stores (such as Target).
Perhaps we expect too much of downtown, because in most cities it is the only dense/urban area? It occurs to me that with TOD (Transit Oriented Development) or "faux urbanism" we could get other, less specialized urban areas…ones with grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. Initially, these would likely be chains, but that is the most you can expect from new construction.
Would villages count? I ask, because you can have a town of a different name having suburban development built around a village of a different name, but they are a part of the same school district. You see this in NY State and the village can act as a de facto center. These villages may not have everything, but some have quite a bit or close to having a little bit of everything like this village: Brockport, NY Community Videos - Welcome Village of Brockport NY - Home Page
I imagine a TOD or "faux" downtown becoming a village.
Something to consider is that there is a traditional old model of a metropolitan area, in which a city is surrounded by bedroom suburbs whose residents work in the city, and likely also go to the city for a lot of their shopping and entertainment.
I live in the suburbs west of Boston, in a town which shares an edge city economic center with an adjacent town. The two towns together combine for a population of about 100k. That edge city area is a significant commuting destination. I've tried to picture all of the area's malls, strip malls, office parks, warehouse stores, suburban hotels, and major tech centers compressed into a traditional downtown, and I picture the downtown of a solidly mid-sized city, or at least a larger small city. However, this is not a traditional downtown. It's a completely edge city kind of place, with feeder roads and asphalt prairie expanses of parking lots. By some standards this automatically means that these towns are large suburbs, not cities.
When you look at the smaller economic centers within these towns, it continues to be a bit tricky to decide whether these are two cities. Both still have their old downtowns, dating back to before the edge city area developed. One downtown has gotten shabby, but it still looks like a downtwon. The other downtown is nice and attractive, with cozy eateries and quirky little shops.
Neither downtown has much in the way of businesses that serve everyday needs. Most of the grocery stores, banks, drugstores, hairstyling places, etc., are located in small commercial zones scattered throughout the neighborhoods of both towns. Keep in mind, though, that many independent, non-suburban towns at present have downtowns that feature restaurants and specialty shops, with the more basic needs served by larger stores along main streets out some distance from downtown. These two towns west of Boston that share that edge city area simply follow a pattern that has become more or less the norm in decent-sized towns, whether they are suburbs or stand-alone towns.
In form, many would refuse to call these towns cities, even small cities, because the primary economic center they share has a very suburban form, rather than looking like a traditional downtown. But then, there are those two old downtown areas. Even the local commercial zones scattered through the neighborhoods vary in appearance. Some have a typically suburban-looking mix of small shopping centers and buildings with parking lots in front spread along main streets. Others look like small downtown areas.
Whether you consider these two towns suburbs or small cities depends on what you consider. In appearance, they are large suburban towns, though there are some local exceptions to this in the form of the two old downtown areas and the neighborhood commercial zones with the small downtown look. In terms of function, these towns combine to form what is essentially a single small city that forms the economic hub of, and is an important commuting destination for, one section of the Greater Boston area which effectively functions as a small metropolitan area within a large metro area.
General pattern-downtown specialized, while everyday needs are dealt with elsewhere.
Notice that the alternatives to downtown vary from urban like forms to suburban like forms.
Perhaps we expect too much of downtown, because in most cities it is the only dense/urban area? It occurs to me that with TOD (Transit Oriented Development) or "faux urbanism" we could get other, less specialized urban areas…ones with grocery stores, hardware stores, etc. Initially, these would likely be chains, but that is the most you can expect from new construction.
Most suburban areas have such commercial areas now.
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.
Initially, these would likely be chains, but that is the most you can expect from new construction.
downtown
