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.
It's obviously going to vary (a single family built on a farm in 1950 is clearly not suburban, for example), but for what it's worth, I've never seen a neighborhood of post-war single family homes (in this home) that I don't consider to be suburban in form.
It was built in the early 1950s, it has a commercial street that's somewhat of a highway strip and main street hybrid, although I would say closer to main street.
This one is a bit newer (50-60s), now the retail is setback but still in the narrow shopfront format with floors on top, and located in the middle of the community instead of at the edge. Willowdale, Toronto, ON - Google Maps
At least around here, the changes have been fairly gradual, with homes getting further apart, and from 2 stories to bungalow (until 2 stories started coming back in the 70s), the front setbacks increased, garages started appearing (around the 60s), and retail went from rows of simplistic, uniform, 2 storey shops (early 20th C.) to 2 storey shops with a narrow row of parking (50s-60s) to more typical stripmalls (60s-80s) to larger big box retail clusters and bigger stripmalls. Density has been pretty constant from around 1920 to present day.
The neighborhood memph listed as most would consider urban did your criteria listed. And I explained it further detail later.
Some places have much better public transportation than others. People type fast, use hyperbole. If the suburbs where a poster is from don't have sidewalks, why would they say otherwise?
Anyway what does all the "defend suburbia" have to do with the thread? We were discussing what it takes from a place to feel "urban"? Must we go to "defend suburbia". There have been posters (not as often the anti-suburb posters, I'll admit) that have made hyperbolic comments about cities, too though I have no interest in listing them.
Anyhow, since I feel that was totally off-topic, and you complained elsewhere that people weren't that interested in discussing rural (I agree, but what would you expect in an urban planning forum) I'll add my own off-topic I think is much more interesting. Let us all look pretty photo rural places (all taken by ME! )
Now, let us all argue whether the 2nd photo is urban, suburban or rural.
But I'd say it's rural. Small town in the middle (seemingly) of nowhere? None of the above?
Kat, do you prefer red or white?
Red for me. Not picky, though. Maybe it depends on what the red is and what the white is. I like where this discussion is going! Reps, OhioGirl.
It's getting late, so I won't go into detail tonight--we'll see whether I'm so inclined another time--but it does strike me that we've been looking quite a bit at settlement form, appearance, etc., in the last few pages. It occurs to me that function is important as well when it comes to determining the type of settlement. A large part of what makes suburbs suburbs is that a lot of residents commute. (Okay, people living in cities, small towns, and rural areas commute as well, but it tends to be a primary or at least significant function of suburbs to serve as bedroom communities.) To a great degree, areas with substantial bedroom commuter populations are suburbs pretty much by definition. Older small cities located within metro areas but outside the city, such as Nei described earlier might seem difficult to place. So might large commercial centers. I'd generally have no trouble categorizing these places as being generally part of suburbia, though, since many of them still will have a larger percentage of long- or middle-distance commuters in their populations than you'll find in central cities.
I suspect that it's generally the case that even a densely populated small city surrounded by suburbia, if it is not enough of a commuter destination to qualify as a second primary city for its metro area, will have a significant number of residents who commute around the metro area and into the main city. Functionally this fits the notion of a suburb, even if you might look at the landscape and think, "urban."
Another point to consider is that many of those large commercial centers in generally suburban locales are centers of retail activity, existing primarily to serve the needs of those living in the surrounding suburban areas. They really have little connection to the principal city other than being located in its suburbs. Thus such areas would also fit into the broad category suburbia.
Interesting that the Denver Zoning has a definition of "Suburban" as it applys to properties within the city limits.
"Separation of different uses" and "Placement on lot" are two things I had not thought of reading this discussion,
but from MY experience these are very distinct differences.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TechMike
They're definitely suburban neighborhoods. Despite being within the city limits, they contain many of the same characteristics as other suburbs.
They define suburban as: Section 3.1.1 GENERAL CHARACTER
The Suburban Neighborhood Context is characterized by single-unit and multi-unit residential, commercial strips and centers, and office parks. Single-unit residential consists typically of Suburban House forms with street-facing garages. Multi-unit building forms are typically separated from single-unit residential and consist of clustered Garden Court, Town House, and occasional mid- and high-rise Apartment forms. Commercial buildings are typically separated from residential and consist of Shopfront and General forms. Single-unit residential uses are primarily located away from residential and commercial arterial streets. Multi-unit residential and commercial uses are primarily located along arterial and collector streets.
Section 3.1.2 STREET AND BLOCK PATTERNS
The Suburban Neighborhood Context consists of an irregular pattern of block shapes surrounded by curvilinear streets within a modified or non-existent grid, with cul-de-sacs and typically no alleys. Block shapes and sizes vary. The typical block pattern includes attached sidewalks (though sidewalks may be detached or non-existent), street and surface parking, and generous landscaping between the street and buildings.
Section 3.1.3 BUILDING PLACEMENT AND LOCATION
Single- unit residential buildings typically have consistent, deep front setbacks and varying side setbacks and building orientation. Multi-unit residential buildings typically have deep front setbacks and wide side setbacks. Commercial buildings may have varying orientation and typically have deep front and side setbacks to accommodate landscaping and parking.
Section 3.1.4 BUILDING HEIGHT
The Suburban Neighborhood Context is characterized by low scale buildings except for some mid- and high-rise multi-unit residential and commercial structures, particularly along arterial streets.
Section 3.1.5 MOBILITY
The Suburban Neighborhood Context has a higher reliance on the automobile with some access to pedestrian and bicycle facilities and the multi-modal transportation system.
Fairly accurate and comprehensive definition if you ask me. A solid definition of suburbs, at least in the Denver area.
I would like to see an actual link to this. I think it's been taken out of context. Well, obviously it has, but I'd like to see the "rest of the story".
It was built in the early 1950s, it has a commercial street that's somewhat of a highway strip and main street hybrid, although I would say closer to main street.
This one is a bit newer (50-60s), now the retail is setback but still in the narrow shopfront format with floors on top, and located in the middle of the community instead of at the edge. Willowdale, Toronto, ON - Google Maps
At least around here, the changes have been fairly gradual, with homes getting further apart, and from 2 stories to bungalow (until 2 stories started coming back in the 70s), the front setbacks increased, garages started appearing (around the 60s), and retail went from rows of simplistic, uniform, 2 storey shops (early 20th C.) to 2 storey shops with a narrow row of parking (50s-60s) to more typical stripmalls (60s-80s) to larger big box retail clusters and bigger stripmalls. Density has been pretty constant from around 1920 to present day.
Interesting to see some of the differences. Yes, I'd still say (just from those pictures and a little google walking) that those are more what I think of as leaning towards suburban in form, although not as much as the Denver example.
The post-war primarily single family homes in neighborhoods in Minneapolis (where I grew up and have lived off and on) all have some commercial strips -- in some cases commercial nodes left over from the last gasps of the streetcar days, and in other cases older commercial corridors that had existed in some form prior to the new housing. Next to those neighborhoods are the areas that are now inner-ring suburbs, and some of them look fairly similar to the Toronto examples.
I think where things get complicated is that there's such a range in both "urban" and "suburban" as adjectives.
Some are saying huge swaths of Denver don't look "urban". I'm so done with that stuff.
What's wrong with that? I thought we were just trying to figure out how various people define suburban and urban. Neither description is a slur or an insult. Obviously people come to this with different perspectives depending on where they live/have lived.
Reminds me of a heated topic a month or so back on the Twin Cities forum about whether or not an area surrounding the mall in an outer suburb was "walkable" or not. Obviously that's another term that means different things to different people, and it was both fascinating and helpful when we had finally had some photos and specific intersections to discuss; it made clear that (a) yes, we were talking about the same location, and (b) some people looked at that location and said, essentially, yes! that's the epitome of walkable, and (c) others believed the exact opposite. There wasn't really a right or wrong answer, so following nei's advice, the best bet seems to just try to be descriptive. (same thing goes when talking about different kinds of "urban" or "suburban" areas; while I think the University Hills area looks "suburban," it also looks a very different sort of suburban than does, say, a 1990s subdivision with large lots and sidewalks, just as there are different types of urban neighborhoods, say the contrast between the Inner Richmond and the Tenderloin in San Francisco, for example.)
This thread should be renamed "banging your head against the wall."
You got that right!
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.
)
