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.
Otherwise known as "edge cities" or industrial suburbs--cities focused almost entirely on commercial and job-center presence, to the point where they have little or no population.
Home to 2500 business and 80,000 jobs--but the population density is only 18 people per square mile! Trying to define Industry as "urban" is nearly impossible--there are wilderness areas with higher population density!
Is an edge city a "suburb" in the same way as a residential suburb? Not necessarily--but they are a residential suburb's necessary complement.
#2 is as OhioGirl said; a small town in the middle of nowhere. It's rather compact, though there are normal houses around the brick buildings but it ends quickly without much sprawl, being surrounded by hills helps. It used to be a mill town centered around the dam. Now it's kinda touristy, but it's also the only sizeable town with services for a long distance in any direction (except 10 miles to the east, where there's a much bigger town). Deerfield River flooded the town badly last August from Hurricane Irene. I was in a lunch (sandwich / pizza / etc) place and a local was saying how the insurance was contesting her basement damage claim until they got proof it was hurricane caused flooding! Shelburne Falls isn't a legal government entity, it's just the name for the built-up area. The part on the west bank of the Deerfield is in the town of Buckland, east side town of Shelburne. One of the more compact small towns I've seen in the US, but not as extreme as European ones like this:
And north less dense with wider roads, but houses are still close together (Bailleul, 14k) armentieres - Google Maps
In Europe too, the typical density of urban, suburban and rural communities decreases as one heads north.
I'm always surprised when I see 5-level apartment buildings in villages/small towns when I'm in Spain.
You won't see this in more northern countries, even France, quite amazing for such a little community: haro rioja - Google Maps
On the other hand, I find that Flanders, in Belgium, have a bit of an American east coast feel (albeit being denser and having smaller lots overall). Despite being 7.5 times denser than the Rioja region, its "urban" fabric is much less dense.
City and village centres are dense but surrounded by a mess of single-family homes. Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate between suburban and rural areas. People usually build their homes next to a rural road till it's lined with houses over its whole length. One can drive several dozens of kms without really feeling in the countryside. Still the place cannot be labelled as suburban, as meadows and crops are everywhere.
Some of the upscale northeastern suburbs of Antwerp offer very low density housing: antwerp - Google Maps
The difference with Netherlands is striking. North of the border, everything is planned and almost only rich people can own detached houses. Therefore, despite similar density levels, Netherlands feels less packed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
There is still a large density contrast in suburb vs city in Europe.
Picked two extremes but the difference is clear. The Paris suburb is built around a train station and looks very walkable, though there are highways as well.
Suburbs in some parts of Europe (for example, Spain) are mostly apartment buildings, but they tend to be less mixed use and more accommodating to automobiles than the older urban parts, so there is some difference.
That suburban lane you picked is a rather average single-family house street. The pedestrian density is typically low and every household owns a car or two, at least for errands and vacations. Quite a few will got to work via suburban rail, mostly people working in Paris city proper. People working in distant suburbs will commute by car. Bike use is rather low. Is it different from the least dense parts of American cities in these fields?
Here's an average municipality in the inner suburbs:
Even in the social housing neighborhoods, density is much much lower than in Paris centre due to the numerous parking lots and "parks". I guess you would call it urban?
Some more "projects" (notice the not-so-high density despite the 10+ storey buildings) rueil - Google Maps
Housing development - maybe the only one solidly suburban in the American sense in the bunch? The narrow street is still unistakably European. rueil - Google Maps
This sort of proved my point about suburban and urban being two different scales for measuring things. I have no doubt that Wburg or another west-coast poster would look at the Parisian suburb and say it was "urban," as it looks like most western neighborhoods outside of the CBD. Roughly the same built density serves "urban" needs in in the U.S. and "suburban" ones in France.
I think so too. Conversely, no one in france would call areas like this urban.
Quote:
I do note, however, that few houses in the French suburb seem to have driveways. In my own mind the presence or absence of driveways and garages is a big marker of the difference between low-density "urban" and high-density "suburban" within the U.S.
Most houses have some sort of driveway in front of the garage, but it is less practical because of the huge fences. Still many people who commute by car everyday use them. A lot won't bother though, and will just park their cars straddling on the pavement or lateral park when possible. It sure isn't the norm in suburban America, but as you said regarding density, standards are different in other parts of the world.
In Europe too, the typical density of urban, suburban and rural communities decreases as one heads north.
I'm always surprised when I see 5-level apartment buildings in villages/small towns when I'm in Spain.
You won't see this in more northern countries, even France, quite amazing for such a little community: haro rioja - Google Maps
Yea, that is an odd combination to me, it looks like the housing is nothing but apartment buildings. The Southern French one looks very dense as well, but it looks like it there are houses a few blocks away.
Quote:
On the other hand, I find that Flanders, in Belgium, have a bit of an American east coast feel (albeit being denser and having smaller lots overall). Despite being 7.5 times denser than the Rioja region, its "urban" fabric is much less dense.
City and village centres are dense but surrounded by a mess of single-family homes. Sometimes it's difficult to differentiate between suburban and rural areas. People usually build their homes next to a rural road till it's lined with houses over its whole length. One can drive several dozens of kms without really feeling in the countryside. Still the place cannot be labelled as suburban, as meadows and crops are everywhere.
Yea, I agree there's some American feel to the Belgium streets, especially with the big homes.
Quote:
That suburban lane you picked is a rather average single-family house street. The pedestrian density is typically low and every household owns a car or two, at least for errands and vacations. Quite a few will got to work via suburban rail, mostly people working in Paris city proper. People working in distant suburbs will commute by car. Bike use is rather low. Is it different from the least dense parts of American cities in these fields?
I liked the green hills behind the houses. I like the look, but they all do look rather similar in color, though there are subtle details in shape between each house. I assumed that suburb is considered rather desirable?
I would consider it suburban as I said before, but it looks like lower densities than that are common in some sections (though definitely not all) of many American cities, especially outside of the Northeast, which caused a rather heated debate.
Quote:
Even in the social housing neighborhoods, density is much much lower than in Paris centre due to the numerous parking lots and "parks". I guess you would call it urban?
Yes, but obviously less urban than Paris itself. Neat looking, too. I assume high rises in general are limited to "social housing" for the poor?
Looks like there's a train station next to the business park but I assume most drive.
Some other "suburban" environments:
Quote:
Housing development - maybe the only one solidly suburban in the American sense in the bunch? The narrow street is still unistakably European. rueil - Google Maps
The commercial artery looks like it could be straight out of a typical American suburban landscape. Going up and down the streetview not so much. Are French not interested much in houses like that rueil-style suburb? Or are they not too common due to government regulation (zoning?) What's the general French view of low density suburbs?
A common comment among the more pro-suburban posters here (as well as from some people I've met in real life) is that families need single family homes with a decent size lot so that children will have enough space to play and the parents don't need to leave the house to watch them. It looked like the Orsay suburb you described as "average" had some space behind the house, perhaps that's sufficient. So do French families find having a yard unimportant and the children go to public parks (and unaccompanied by adults as soon as they're old enough? I assume there's still a pattern with families tend to go for the outer suburbs and childless adults the center city areas.
Quote:
I think so too. Conversely, no one in france would call areas like this urban.
Even I would consider that urban. The closest analog I can think of that I'm familiar with is this neighborhood on the outskirst of NYC within the city limits:
It's possible that some New Yorkers might consider that neighborhood suburban (the city classifies it as low density). It looks a little bit lower density a couple blocks away. Definitely more auto-oriented than transit or pedestrian oriented, but it does get decent transit use and has a suburban rail nearby (low frequency service). The Chicago neighborhood has alleyways rather than driveway for whatever reason.
Again, perhaps this explains much of the debate on what's urban, especially whether sections of Western cities are urban. If you're used to cities having regions of high density with a big density contrast with the suburbs, it's very hard to concieve of some of the single family home neighborhoods in western cities as anything but suburban. I assume to someone from there, there are more subtle differences between the two that might be hard for an outsider to pick up on.
Quote:
Most houses have some sort of driveway in front of the garage, but it is less practical because of the huge fences. Still many people who commute by car everyday use them. A lot won't bother though, and will just park their cars straddling on the pavement or lateral park when possible. It sure isn't the norm in suburban America, but as you said regarding density, standards are different in other parts of the world.
Why do they fence the driveway? I think it's usually illegal to park on the sidewalk here. Lately, I've tended to park on the street rather than driveway.
Let me rephrase this. A large population in a small area is necessary for a true urban neighborhood.
However, the numbers being thrown around comparing the ppsm of Denver to the ppsm of Boston, or the ppsm of University Hills to Lousville tells us less than looking at the built environment.
My town in Colorado is a good example. From visual observation and comparing it to VERY similar neighboorhoods in Denver, I would expect a ppsm of 4K-7k. However the census lines create 3 census tracts of 2,500 ppsm, 1,800 ppsm and 55ppsm! I'm on a block of sf, duplexes and 4 plexes but just northwest of me there is 100 sq miles of very low population mountains and open space. So despite being a couple blocks from a very walkable downtown, my neighborhood is 55 ppsm. Even the crowded part of town is only 2500 because of a golf course, government building complex, high school campus and athletic fields.
Yea, census tracts don't work well with small towns where the development isn't continuous. My town has the same problem. Instead of 1-2 tracts containing only the center of town, there area a number which include the center and some outlying low-density housing and even undeveloped land. Still, there are 3 tracts around 6000 per sq mile and over. One possible solution is to use even smaller sizes, like census block group. But you might want to account for open space in between housing. For example, Co-op City, a very large (26000 people) tower in the park housing complex is just one census tract with a density of 33,000 people per square mile. Some block density groups are over 150,000 per square mile, Manhattan residential levels. It doesn't feel as packed as Manhattan, and I didn't you can pretend towers in the park have no park. So hard to say which is the better measurement size. Here's a map, which if you zoom in, you can get density by block size:
Helpful to see where people are living in a particular place.
Quote:
But these are not extremes, in NYC there is a tract at 175,000 ppsm right next to one of 22 ppsm. I love Central Park and the Upper West Side! Thanks for the link.
More surprising is why Central Park has a density that's not 0 ppsm. Homeless people? Hipsters pretending to be homeless? Random clowns fooling the census takers?
I prefer Prospect Park, feels more like a peaceful park enjoyed by local residents and not overrun by tourist. And less of a monumental feel. And I guess the density surrounding it is more of the "Just Right" kind (a little less than half of what surrounds Central Park) compared to Central Park.
Good website, I was able to look at just my immediate neighborhood and is at 3500 ppsm, not the 55 ppsm for the whole census tract. Thanks.
Only somewhat familar with Central Park, I assumed the 22 ppsm was maybe some caretaker cabins.
But I can believe it is really homeless hipsters pretending to be random clowns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Yea, census tracts don't work well with small towns where the development isn't continuous. My town has the same problem. Instead of 1-2 tracts containing only the center of town, there area a number which include the center and some outlying low-density housing and even undeveloped land. Still, there are 3 tracts around 6000 per sq mile and over. One possible solution is to use even smaller sizes, like census block group. But you might want to account for open space in between housing. For example, Co-op City, a very large (26000 people) tower in the park housing complex is just one census tract with a density of 33,000 people per square mile. Some block density groups are over 150,000 per square mile, Manhattan residential levels. It doesn't feel as packed as Manhattan, and I didn't you can pretend towers in the park have no park. So hard to say which is the better measurement size. Here's a map, which if you zoom in, you can get density by block size:
Helpful to see where people are living in a particular place.
More surprising is why Central Park has a density that's not 0 ppsm. Homeless people? Hipsters pretending to be homeless? Random clowns fooling the census takers?
I prefer Prospect Park, feels more like a peaceful park enjoyed by local residents and not overrun by tourist. And less of a monumental feel. And I guess the density surrounding it is more of the "Just Right" kind (a little less than half of what surrounds Central Park) compared to Central Park.
I liked the green hills behind the houses. I like the look, but they all do look rather similar in color, though there are subtle details in shape between each house. I assumed that suburb is considered rather desirable?
Yes it's a desirable quadrant of the Paris suburbs. Orsay is located near some of the most prestigious French universities and research institutes. Population is mostly white collar.
And yes most houses constructed in the second half of the 20th century display similar beige rendering.
Lately there has been an increase in color use, as well as new materials such as wood. But mostly in upscale neighborhoods like this one: magny le hongre - Google Maps
In the first half of the 20t century a good part of the houses and apartment buildings have been built in meulière stone or bricks: villejuif - Google Maps
Sometimes, "meulière" refers to the house and not the stone, as it's the typical suburban pre-war house.
Quote:
Yes, but obviously less urban than Paris itself. Neat looking, too. I assume high rises in general are limited to "social housing" for the poor?
Yes the general rule in the suburbs is that high rises are mostly social estates and residences for the poor. There are some middle-class ones though. In the city, it's the contrary, most high rises are for the middle class or even the upper class.
Quote:
Looks like there's a train station next to the business park but I assume most drive.
Despite the proximity to a motorway, I assume most would take the train, as two regional train lines cross there. They operate with subway-like frequency, especially the underground east-west one, which carries about one million passengers per day.
Quote:
The commercial artery looks like it could be straight out of a typical American suburban landscape. Going up and down the streetview not so much. Are French not interested much in houses like that rueil-style suburb? Or are they not too common due to government regulation (zoning?) What's the general French view of low density suburbs?
A lot of urbanites dream of living in the countryside or in such districts. I guess raising a family in such a district is still a quite popular aspiration among couples in their 30s. I've read about municipalities near Eurodisney (like the Magny Le Hongre example above) obliging developers and individuals to buy a minimum amount of land in order to build homes, the purpose being to keep density at low levels and to filter out middle and lower class buyers.
Quote:
A common comment among the more pro-suburban posters here (as well as from some people I've met in real life) is that families need single family homes with a decent size lot so that children will have enough space to play and the parents don't need to leave the house to watch them. It looked like the Orsay suburb you described as "average" had some space behind the house, perhaps that's sufficient. So do French families find having a yard unimportant and the children go to public parks (and unaccompanied by adults as soon as they're old enough? I assume there's still a pattern with families tend to go for the outer suburbs and childless adults the center city areas.
It's roughly the same pattern as the one you describe here, though a lot of families will stay in the city or inner suburbs because of the more accessible cultural and leisure activities and have no interest whatsoever in moving to the outer suburbs. It also depends on the city. In Paris, land is expensive compared to a city like Toulouse, which is much more "suburban".
As for the yard thing, most people are fine if they have a nearby park. Some absolutely want a little garden of their own to invite friends for a BBQ or watch their kids play without worrying about their security, but overall people seem to need less space than Americans to be happy. And that's fine, because there is less.
Quote:
Even I would consider that urban. The closest analog I can think of that I'm familiar with is this neighborhood on the outskirst of NYC within the city limits:
It's possible that some New Yorkers might consider that neighborhood suburban (the city classifies it as low density). It looks a little bit lower density a couple blocks away. Definitely more auto-oriented than transit or pedestrian oriented, but it does get decent transit use and has a suburban rail nearby (low frequency service). The Chicago neighborhood has alleyways rather than driveway for whatever reason.
Again, perhaps this explains much of the debate on what's urban, especially whether sections of Western cities are urban. If you're used to cities having regions of high density with a big density contrast with the suburbs, it's very hard to concieve of some of the single family home neighborhoods in western cities as anything but suburban. I assume to someone from there, there are more subtle differences between the two that might be hard for an outsider to pick up on.
Yep, I probably see east coast low density urban districts the same way as you see the western ones. But I can understand why you would call this Chicago neighborhood urban, as it's quite denser and more pedestrian-friendly than the average East Coast or Midwest suburb.
Quote:
Why do they fence the driveway?
It's mostly a cultural thing. People prefer to hide behind fences, to feel more secure and less bothered by strangers. Like for density, there is also a European north-south divide here. Southern countries tend to have higher fences, while northern ones smaller ones. Plus pedestrian traffic, while low, is probably higher than in similar neighborhoods in the USA and suburbs are much more mixed, less isolated from the sources of nuisance (burglars, "thugs"...).
Quote:
I think it's usually illegal to park on the sidewalk here. Lately, I've tended to park on the street rather than driveway.
Oh it's illegal here too. But unfortunately it's not enforced. Sometimes I have to walk on the pavement instead of the sidewalk because some inconsiderate dude decided to throw his car across the sidewalk, too lazy to walk a couple dozen metres.
Look up definitioms folks. Not your own perceptions of the definitions. Cities, towns etc. have their own boundaries that identify them. A subURBAN town is simply a residential area on the perimeter of a city - within travel distance (generally referring to commuters for work etc.). So Boston is the city for example. Somerville, Cambridge are suburbs of Boston.
Look up definitioms folks. Not your own perceptions of the definitions. Cities, towns etc. have their own boundaries that identify them. A subURBAN town is simply a residential area on the perimeter of a city - within travel distance (generally referring to commuters for work etc.). So Boston is the city for example. Somerville, Cambridge are suburbs of Boston.
Yikes! That is what I, in all my infinite wisdom, always thought, too. But this board doesn't like that definition. This board wants to call areas inside the city "suburban" if they are primarily residential and have houses built after WW II (the end of which was 70 years ago now when the population of the US was less than half of what it is) that have attached garages. When I point out, as I have done several times, that "sub" means secondary and that suburb thus means secondary to the city, they tell me that they're talking about the word "suburban" not "suburb", which they say means the above. Believe me, this conversation has occurred several times. Of course, some of them will also say that they live in a suburb in a city. (!) "an" as a suffix means "related to" or "belonging to". In other words, suburban means related to suburb or belonging to suburb. Sub- | Define Sub- at Dictionary.com https://www.learnthat.org/pages/view/suffix.html
Last edited by Katarina Witt; 09-24-2015 at 08:24 AM..
It's about time that everyone should know that urban is essentially the basic opposite of rural. If you do a search on any US city or town it could tell you how urban and how rural it is. For example Portland, ME (a central city) is 96% urban and 4% rural and South Portland, ME (a Portland suburb) is 100% urban and 0% rural. Now do a search on Washington, DC (another central city) and it 100% urban and 0% rural. With all this being said suburbs are technically urban just like central cities are for the most part and central cities in some cases along with some suburbs can incorporate rural land as with the case of Portland, ME and Westbrook, another Portland suburb. Now do a search on Rockville, IN which is a small town of approximately 2600 people and it is not a part of any metropolitan area but according to City Data it is classified as 100% urban and 0% rural. It's also important to know that there are two types of urban areas recognized by the US Census Bureau: Urban clusters and urbanized areas. The former requires at 2,500 residents and always less than 50,000 residents. The latter requires at least 50,000 residents. Any land not part of these two areas is classified as rural. Furthermore suburban areas are merely a subtype of an urban area being contrasted with inner city areas. So this here would explain that central cities and suburbs are both urban components of a metropolitan area with surrounding rural land and exurbs being third and fourth components respectively. So this here should explain the difference between urban and rural.
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.
