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.
Neither of these are particularly sub-urban. They're 50s style houses.
No one said they're suburbs, they said they're suburban.
We're going in circles, but I can't see how they can they be anything but suburban I don't see anything urban about them. I found a random street in University Hills:
When we talk about "urban" versus "sub-urban" in terms of urban structure, we need to remember we're talking about a scale rather than absolutes.
After all, while I would tend to agree with Nei's definition that, within the U.S., walkable residential areas with good access to mass transit are urban by definition, if you apply it consistently internationally, than the vast majority of settlements in Europe are cities, regardless of size, which doesn't seem quite right.
Then again, perhaps it is, given up until the industrial revolution, most European "cities" had a few tens of thousands of inhabitants, not the teeming metropolises of today. Even the larger cities operated as if they were hundreds of villages glued together, with people walking or riding a horse at best to their own local place of employment or business district, and seldom venturing to other neighborhoods.
Really, the development of what we call modern urban areas was only possible with the development of mass transit, which allowed what we now think of as central business districts to form, pulling a large portion of employment out of the neighborhoods and into the core. However, it also allowed the first suburbs to form - streetcar suburbs often within city limits - which by and large allowed the middle-class office workers in the CBD to commute to work.
The development of modern suburban areas, of course, was facilitated by the car within the U.S. Still, in other nations with different incentive structures (higher gas tax, continued commitment to mass transit, lack of race riots in the 1960s/1970s, this form of suburbanization happened much more weakly. Australia is probably the closest to the U.S., followed by Britain/Canada and then Europe.
While I continue to argue that how urban something is depends upon structural density, I don't think it's fair, as I think about it, to consider "suburban" the opposite of urban. Suburban instead to my mind is a question of how many people live in mainly residential area and commute to work. The larger the proportion of the population, and the longer commute they take, the more suburban the area is. This both covers wealthy, single-family home, autocentric suburbs like in the U.S., and poor, apartment-dominated, mass-transit focused suburbs in France and Sweden.
No one said they're suburbs, they said they're suburban.
We're going in circles, but I can't see how they can they be anything but suburban I don't see anything urban about them. I found a random street in University Hills:
in my 3 streetviews of urban, suburban and rural, those sections of Denver seem to match my suburban views well. Urban, not at all.
OK, I have to go pull weeds in my SUBURBAN garden, but we need a new word for "single family homes built after 1945" than "suburban". That seems to be the defacto definiton on this board, and it is incorrect.
After all, while I would tend to agree with Nei's definition that, within the U.S., walkable residential areas with good access to mass transit are urban by definition, if you apply it consistently internationally, than the vast majority of settlements in Europe are cities, regardless of size, which doesn't seem quite right.
Small cities can be urban, as well. I think it's correct to call many settlements in Europe "urban" and most settlements in the US "suburban". But Europe has plenty of lower density suburbs as well, just not as low density as American ones.
OK, I have to go pull weeds in my SUBURBAN garden, but we need a new word for "single family homes built after 1945" than "suburban". That seems to be the defacto definiton on this board, and it is incorrect.
I never used a year, but suburban seems like a good word for it. And it is incorrect why? How is it correct to group places University Hills or some of the other low density single family neighborhoods in a city with all those "urban" places I linked to? There is obviously a big difference between the two, and it is not the age, but density and layout It would make discussions on the board rather meaningless (and the "urban" vs "suburban" debates) if they were considered the same. Places with a similar density and form should be grouped together.
Generally, anytime I post in the city vs suburb debate (which are really debates on built form/density, so urban vs suburban) I'm referring to places similar to my urban links when talking about urban places and places like some of those Denver neighborhoods or my views for the "suburb" side.
I never used a year, but suburban seems like a good word for it. And it is incorrect why? How is it correct to group places University Hills or some of the other low density single family neighborhoods in a city with all those "urban" places I linked to? There is obviously a big difference between the two, and it is not the age, but density and layout It would make discussions on the board rather meaningless (and the "urban" vs "suburban" debates) if they were considered the same. Places with a similar density and form should be grouped together.
Generally, anytime I post in the city vs suburb debate (which are really debates on built form/density, so urban vs suburban) I'm referring to places similar to my urban links when talking about urban places and places like some of those Denver neighborhoods or my views for the "suburb" side.
Because they're all in the city! The residents of Uni Hills or Harvey Park would strenuously object to being called "suburbanites". Now the HP people might do more of their shopping over in Jefferson County simply b/c they're closer to the shopping areas of Jeffco than they are to similar areas in Denver. But all these kids go to city schools, the people use the city services such as parks and rec, etc. They live a fairly urban lifestyle, which, when you think about it, isn't much different from the urban lifestyle, e.g. "eat, work, sleep". My daughter lived in the University neighborhood for several years. It's near Uni Hills. It looked urban to me. You might note that Uni Hills is a fairly small area as well. Just sayin', it's not representative of the whole city. There is no reason that a "city" should not have single family houses as well as multi, no matter when they were built.
We don't all live in the northeast. Even Pittsburgh is a much less "urban" looking city (by these definitions) than say, Boston. To call a small town "urban" is a misrepresentation of the work, IMO.
Yeah I don't think most people here consider everything built after 1945 to be suburban, it just so happens that it's usually (but not always) the case.
Take North York Centre , a high density area along Yonge Street in Toronto. In the early 20th century, there was an interurban line running there, a few single family homes were built along it. The interurban line was dismantled, and in 1974 the subway was extended into the area.
The pre-1945 area would probably be considered suburban by most posters here. (admittedly many homes are newer, but the original ones are pre-1945) North York, Toronto, ON - Google Maps
Similarly, the neighbourhoods in downtown Toronto that were built where the railyards used to be would I think be considered urban by most here. The scale of the redevelopments there are very big, big enough not to be infill, but they are dense and pretty walkable.
This is the biggest redevelopment (Cityplace)
Even Mississauga Centre, which was farmland in the 60s (maybe even 70s?) is becoming quite urban. For now, I consider it semi-urban, since there are still a lot of buildings from the 70s-80s that I consider suburban like a shopping mall surrounded by parking lots, towers in the park and office parks. However, what is being built now is designed to be urban, and the plan is to build out the whole area in this way, turn the suburban arterials into boulevards and built light rail. Once that happens, I would consider it urban. Here's an example of the kind of buildings being built now.
From: Residences & Grand Res. of Parkside Village (MCC, Amacon, 45 + 2x 36s, EI Richmond) - Page 28
Because they're all in the city! The residents of Uni Hills or Harvey Park would strenuously object to being called "suburbanites". Now the HP people might do more of their shopping over in Jefferson County simply b/c they're closer to the shopping areas of Jeffco than they are to similar areas in Denver. But all these kids go to city schools, the people use the city services such as parks and rec, etc.
So? We're talking about how urban a place is, not whether they're in the city limits. I didn't say they were suburbanites, I said the built form is suburbanites. This is an urban planning forum, differences in built form and layout are important. All the Boston area links I showed didn't use city services, So what? If these are the only distinctions, any of city vs suburb debates hold almost no interest to me.
I've said a number of times I'm using urban, suburban, rural to mean density and form distinctions not city limits, and I'm not really interested in city limits, either.
Quote:
They live a fairly urban lifestyle, which, when you think about it, isn't much different from the urban lifestyle, e.g. "eat, work, sleep". My daughter lived in the University neighborhood for several years. It's near Uni Hills. It looked urban to me.
Well you can say the same about people living anywhere, urban or suburban. If that looks urban, what would looking suburban be? I don't see the big difference the way you put it. I guess we could quibble on what density is between urban and suburban.
My point is, the places I linked to as "urban" based on density alone deserve to be in a very different catergory than a University Hills place, which even if it's in the city limits and some of my places are not. The buildings are close together; on the street you'll see almost as many buildings as space between buildings. Many stores and services are a short walk away, there's a decent amount of pedestrians on the street. Many (or most) businesses can get away with not providing parking, as a car doesn't have an advantage for local trips so much. I assume this is not true of University Hills, at least it's rarely true of places I've seen of similar densities. So they are two very different types of places.
Quote:
We don't all live in the northeast. Even Pittsburgh is a much less "urban" looking city (by these definitions) than say, Boston.
Agree with the second statement. Some cities are more urban than others. Much of the US is not that urban; it's low density, especially for worldwide standards. Using the average American place to define "urban" seems like a poor choice. If we used the standards of some lower density American cities, the contrast between urban and suburban would be rather small, then.
Some are being rather obtuse about this. Municipal boundaries alone do not make a place urban or not. Urban and suburban describe the character of a neighborhood. That is almost certainly linked to land use, density and other factors.
http://goo.gl/maps/r6rk I'll add my example to the (so far) ineffective evidence. The google camera is straddling the city line. The row of homes is continuous. Because one side of the row is in the city does that make it urban? And because the other side is in an unincoporated area of a county, does that make it suburban?
The answer to both questions is no. Because municipal boundaries have nothing to do with it.
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.
