I used to live outside of Saint Paul, land of 100 suburbs. Now I live in Austin, land of 3 suburbs. Austin annexes land in small chunks. Recently I lived with an AUstin mailing address, which was really a suburb, were in the "MUD", but our postal carrier said we were still considered rural.
In your perfect world are there lots of suburbs or is an MSA a city?
If the locale has an actual downtown area unto itself, then let it be a distinct suburb. If not, then let it be part of something else. Bel Aire, KS, and Carol Stream, IL: I'm looking at you.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 03:17:47 PM
If the locale has an actual downtown area unto itself, then let it be a distinct suburb. If not, then let it be part of something else. Bel Aire, KS, and Carol Stream, IL: I'm looking at you.
Oh yeah I hate those suburbs where they try to create downtowns. Brooklyn Park Minnesota :P
This is where I will comment on where New England has it better. No random county space that belongs to no one, no cities gobbling up land since 1900. You just go from one town/city to another. We may suck at exit numbering, but we have it right here.
Quote from: Cjzani on February 11, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
This is where I will comment on where New England has it better. No random county space that belongs to no one, no cities gobbling up land since 1900. You just go from one town/city to another. We may suck at exit numbering, but we have it right here.
What would be the point of a city or village having acres upon acres on farmland not serviced by water or sewer lines, having to have municipal police, fire, garbage, and snow removal services?
Quote from: Cjzani on February 11, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
This is where I will comment on where New England has it better. No random county space that belongs to no one, no cities gobbling up land since 1900. You just go from one town/city to another. We may suck at exit numbering, but we have it right here.
Welcome to the City of Cheyenne...
...all 80,000 square miles of the City of Cheyenne.
I hate living in the suburbs, I like living in an area where I can walk to the gas station without having to chance walking in a street with cars coming at you at 50 MPH.
We have 5 suburbs... in the state. (and like 3 of them are distinct towns)
Evidently, New Jersey is one giant suburb of either New York City or Philadelphia. Yay.
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 11, 2015, 07:39:58 PM
We have 5 suburbs... in the state. (and like 3 of them are distinct towns)
I don't understand the difference between a suburb and a distinct town. Either that or I don't understand how one can be both.
In my mind, a suburb is a town that's close to a major city and whose identity and existence are tied to that city.
So if "distinct" means a separate political entity, then all suburbs are distinct towns as I understand the word. If it's not a separate political entity, then I just call it a neighborhood.
But if "distinct" means culturally and economically separate, then no distinct towns are suburbs. They're just... towns.
I find the idea of cities expanding their boundaries to encompass basically all of the metro to be strange. It... isn't done that way in the Northeast.
In my mind a city should have boundaries which make geographic sense (i.e. no weird tentacles or exclaves, or tiny bits on the other side of a river) and encompass areas that are urbanized while excluding areas that are suburban.
I mean, this isn't perfect - by this guideline most of Queens east of the Van Wyck, all of Staten Island, and even a couple parts of The Bronx shouldn't be part of New York City. But it's better than New York City encompassing all of the lower Hudson Valley, most of Long Island, and huge chunks of New Jersey and Connecticut as it would have to if the Texas model of annexation were applied.
Quote from: Cjzani on February 11, 2015, 04:42:07 PM
This is where I will comment on where New England has it better. No random county space that belongs to no one, no cities gobbling up land since 1900. You just go from one town/city to another. We may suck at exit numbering, but we have it right here.
New York is the same way. Everything is a town, city, or village. Little annexation since the 19th Century. Found it really strange when I moved to Ohio for a short time and found that some areas are unincorporated in that they have little more than a township name.
Quote from: Duke87 on February 11, 2015, 10:18:02 PM
I find the idea of cities expanding their boundaries to encompass basically all of the metro to be strange. It... isn't done that way in the Northeast.
In my mind a city should have boundaries which make geographic sense (i.e. no weird tentacles or exclaves, or tiny bits on the other side of a river) and encompass areas that are urbanized while excluding areas that are suburban.
I mean, this isn't perfect - by this guideline most of Queens east of the Van Wyck, all of Staten Island, and even a couple parts of The Bronx shouldn't be part of New York City. But it's better than New York City encompassing all of the lower Hudson Valley, most of Long Island, and huge chunks of New Jersey and Connecticut as it would have to if the Texas model of annexation were applied.
This was the point I was trying to make. The city borders of most cities in the western parts of the US (and Florida too) look like some sneezed on a map and outlined the droplets for the city borders. Exclaves and enclaves all over the place. Don't get that. I'll accept unincorporated counties in rural areas. However, for example, a relative lives in an unincorporated part of the county outside of Fredericksburg, VA, and it is quite suburban and not remotely rural. Maybe because of where I live and grew up, it feels like living in nothing at all.
The South also has some weirdly drawn cities because of annexation. The Northeast had a head start on urbanizations so their borders were settled MUCH earlier than the rest of the country.
Ex. Charlotte and Boston have similar populations but MUCH different population densities because Charlotte has annexed almost everything around it.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 11, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Evidently, New Jersey is one giant suburb of either New York City or Philadelphia. Yay.
One of the things that makes it a great place to live.
Quote from: Pete from Boston on February 11, 2015, 11:00:41 PM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 11, 2015, 07:48:54 PM
Evidently, New Jersey is one giant suburb of either New York City or Philadelphia. Yay.
One of the things that makes it a great place to live.
Can't you apparently faintly see the skylines of both NYC and Philly from the top of a roller coaster at Great Adventure?
Quote from: The Nature Boy on February 11, 2015, 11:02:10 PM
Can't you apparently faintly see the skylines of both NYC and Philly from the top of a roller coaster at Great Adventure?
On an extremely clear day, you can see New York City's skyline from the Sourland Mountains all the way in Hillsborough.
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/7870392
Baltimore's last annexation was in 1918. I suspect that it would have annexed again after WWII had it not been made illegal in 1948.
Weirdly, Baltimore City is independent from Baltimore County, and Baltimore County is completely unincorporated.
iPhone
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
Quote from: SD Mapman on February 11, 2015, 07:39:58 PM
We have 5 suburbs... in the state. (and like 3 of them are distinct towns)
I don't understand the difference between a suburb and a distinct town. Either that or I don't understand how one can be both.
I think sometimes it's possible entirely on historical context, as seen in these California examples:
- San Francisco basically is one of the few West Coast cities to use the Northeast model, having restricted itself to its 47 square miles since 1856 (with the unintended consequence of extreme density today, especially compared to the former southern half of San Francisco County, the current San Mateo County). Because this happened so early in California's existence as a state, many independent communities emerged pre-1920 throughout the Bay Area (i.e. Berkeley where the very first University of California is located) and only became "suburban" as transportation technology improved. (Oakland and San Jose developed as separate, yet close, urban cores of their own, but San Jose followed the 1960s-1970s annexation model more than any other city has in the region.)
- Glendale, San Fernando, Pasadena, and Burbank are all rather distinct entities within the greater Los Angeles area, even when three of those (Glendale, San Fernando, Burbank) are pretty much surrounded by Los Angeles itself. Further south, Long Beach is somewhat of a middle point between suburb and its own city (it has a very urbanized if compact downtown and is far enough away from downtown Los Angeles to be a separate destination, yet it is immediately adjacent to the annexation-created Los Angeles districts of San Pedro and Harbor Gateway).
If it's not suburban in character, it's not a suburb.
The river cities in northern Kentucky are centered on Cincinnati but aren't really suburbs.
In Austin, they don't annex blocks of land. 20 years ago the colorado river and it's banks (that was about it) up to Lake Austin was annex. Little pockets of odd shape land get annexed all the time. Look up Austin City Council 10-1 and you'll see the boundaries and laugh.
http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=austin+10-1+map&id=973CC627703CB805D5907D62717F3CD546088CFA&FORM=IQFRBA#view=detail&id=973CC627703CB805D5907D62717F3CD546088CFA&selectedIndex=0
Pretty much all of Orange County is just a giant suburb. It's one of the most populated areas in the country with no defined urban center. A few of the older communities like Santa Ana and Orange have "old town" areas, but that's really about it.
Sprawl!
Quote from: bandit957 on February 12, 2015, 12:07:52 PM
If it's not suburban in character, it's not a suburb.
Some municipalities can be varied in this way. They have suburban sections as well as central city sections. It's not as clear cut as one might at first think.
Quote from: Brandon on February 12, 2015, 01:15:16 PM
Quote from: bandit957 on February 12, 2015, 12:07:52 PM
If it's not suburban in character, it's not a suburb.
Some municipalities can be varied in this way. They have suburban sections as well as central city sections. It's not as clear cut as one might at first think.
To build on that thought:
- even San Francisco's 47 square miles are enough to have a decidedly suburban western half (Sunset/Richmond/Lakeside areas), with a suburban-style shopping mall (Stonestown).
- San Jose basically annexed most of the potential suburban land except Morgan Hill, Milpitas, and the older communities in western Santa Clara County; these areas of SJ have developed much less densely than the downtown core, particularly along Route 85 and much of the city limits west of Route 87.
- Long Beach itself could be seen as a "suburb" of Los Angeles despite having more people in its city limits than Atlanta...yet it has its own downtown core (as noted in my earlier post)...along with portions that are suburban with subdivisions, the further you get from 710.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 03:17:47 PM
If the locale has an actual downtown area unto itself, then let it be a distinct suburb. If not, then let it be part of something else. Bel Aire, KS, and Carol Stream, IL: I'm looking at you.
So each borough of NYC is at least one suburb if not several? And then there is NJ where you have towns with downtowns mixed with large townships without a downtown. What's Cherry Hill? Haddonfield to the southwest, Voorhees to the south, Moorestown to the northeast, Pennsauken to the Northwest are all suburbs by your definition. Is it supposed to annex or be annexed by one of them or be split between them or something?
Is it fair to say that people who live anywhere near L.A. just simply don't understand the concept of a suburb?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 02:14:31 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 03:17:47 PM
If the locale has an actual downtown area unto itself, then let it be a distinct suburb. If not, then let it be part of something else. Bel Aire, KS, and Carol Stream, IL: I'm looking at you.
So each borough of NYC is at least one suburb if not several? And then there is NJ where you have towns with downtowns mixed with large townships without a downtown. What's Cherry Hill? Haddonfield to the southwest, Voorhees to the south, Moorestown to the northeast, Pennsauken to the Northwest are all suburbs by your definition. Is it supposed to annex or be annexed by one of them or be split between them or something?
No, they're all part of New York City. My post was not intended to break up towns/cities which have more than one central business district, but rather to eliminate towns that have no central business district.
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 03:06:51 PM
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
A suburban enclave?
Quote from: kphoger on February 12, 2015, 02:30:55 PM
Is it fair to say that people who live anywhere near L.A. just simply don't understand the concept of a suburb?
Another way of looking at it: the Bay Area and metro Los Angeles are set up in such a way that the core downtowns of the largest cities are not the only obvious job centers in the region.
And there's places that are incorporated as cities but are actually rural in character. For instance, Ryland Heights, Ky. It became its own city because it's actually rural, not suburban. It incorporated so they could pass their own zoning rules to stop suburban development.
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 03:06:51 PM
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
How big does a business district have to be before it's a downtown? Does a 7-11 and a Starbucks make a town?
What... this isn't a movie thread? :sombrero:
(https://www.aaroads.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fupload.wikimedia.org%2Fwikipedia%2Fen%2F0%2F07%2FBurbsposter.jpg&hash=7c958ed59d87d27b6da3be9ed0ababbc1e26984e)
Quote from: kphoger on February 12, 2015, 02:30:55 PM
Is it fair to say that people who live anywhere near L.A. just simply don't understand the concept of a suburb?
I wouldn't say that - in fact, L.A. has pretty much the entire gamut:
-Older cities with established retail/commercial downtowns that started as satellite cities and have since become absorbed into the urban core: Pasadena, Long Beach, Santa Monica, Glendale, Santa Ana, etc.
-Older, smaller cities that are primarily residential, or may have small downtowns/commercial districts, but generally have functioned as suburbs from the beginning: Inglewood, South Pasadena, Huntington Park, etc.
-Cities that developed from 1950-2000 that, though they may have significant retail/commercial districts, lack a true downtown and fall under the current most common definition of suburbs: La Mirada, Lakewood, Garden Grove, Diamond Bar, etc.
-Same as above in terms of function, but within the city of Los Angeles: most of the San Fernando Valley districts.
-Newer cities with a retail/commercial presence that rivals (even surpasses) some of the older, "traditional" cities, but without a true downtown, who would otherwise be considered a suburb: Irvine, Carson, etc.
-Satellite cities: Thousand Oaks, Santa Clarita, etc.
What L.A. lacks is a singular dominant downtown retail/commercial/cultural core (or at least, one proportionate to the size of the city/metro area), but it could be argued that, with downtown, Hollywood, Miracle Mile, Westwood, Century City, etc., and perhaps up to Universal City, there is a corridor that functions not unlike Manhattan (admittedly a very diluted/less dense version).
Quote from: DTComposer on February 12, 2015, 07:53:49 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 12, 2015, 02:30:55 PM
Is it fair to say that people who live anywhere near L.A. just simply don't understand the concept of a suburb?
I wouldn't say that - in fact, L.A. has pretty much the entire gamut:
Palmdale and Lancaster would be more "exurbs" than even satellite cities, correct? (The distance from Palmdale to Sylmar is about as long as it is from the south edge of San Francisco to the north edge of San Jose)
What about Tracy, CA that city tends to be mentioned as an exburb of Oakland and San Jose. It's Basically the Palmdale of the Bay area but its in the San Joaquin Valley.
So here's an interesting question - is Camden a suburb? Philadelphia is less than 5 miles from it, and surely it has influenced the growth of Camden in some ways. The only problem is no one wants to live in Camden (yet) whereas people will still live in Philadelphia, which is usually the opposite (people want to live in the suburbs and not the city), so I have to think Camden isn't a suburb of Philadelphia.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 16, 2015, 06:21:11 PM
So here's an interesting question - is Camden a suburb? Philadelphia is less than 5 miles from it, and surely it has influenced the growth of Camden in some ways. The only problem is no one wants to live in Camden (yet) whereas people will still live in Philadelphia, which is usually the opposite (people want to live in the suburbs and not the city), so I have to think Camden isn't a suburb of Philadelphia.
I think in the local mindset, just about any part of NJ is a suburb of either New York or Philadelphia. Newark has the same problem as Camden, though to a smaller degree. People still want to live in New York, but Newark residents are moving to "The Oranges", but people certainly think of Newark as a suburb of New York.
Quote from: NE2 on February 12, 2015, 03:15:31 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 03:06:51 PM
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
A suburban enclave?
Something that should be divided up into those other towns. I don't care if Carol Stream, IL, had a million people in it: I say divide it up between Wheaton and Glendale Heights.
Quote from: Zeffy on February 16, 2015, 06:21:11 PM
So here's an interesting question - is Camden a suburb? Philadelphia is less than 5 miles from it, and surely it has influenced the growth of Camden in some ways. The only problem is no one wants to live in Camden (yet) whereas people will still live in Philadelphia, which is usually the opposite (people want to live in the suburbs and not the city), so I have to think Camden isn't a suburb of Philadelphia.
Camden is a neighborhood of Philly, as much as no one wants to recognize or admit it.
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 17, 2015, 08:23:30 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 16, 2015, 06:21:11 PM
So here's an interesting question - is Camden a suburb? Philadelphia is less than 5 miles from it, and surely it has influenced the growth of Camden in some ways. The only problem is no one wants to live in Camden (yet) whereas people will still live in Philadelphia, which is usually the opposite (people want to live in the suburbs and not the city), so I have to think Camden isn't a suburb of Philadelphia.
Camden is a neighborhood of Philly, as much as no one wants to recognize or admit it.
WHAT???? Camden,
New Jersey isn't even in the same state as Philly. It's a separate city in and of itself. The fact that it's in close proximity to Philadelphia (separated only by the Delaware River) is coincidental.
Is it considered part of the
Metropolitan Philadelphia
area, yes.
Is it part of the City of (or County of) Philadelphia, no.
Quote from: PHLBOS on February 17, 2015, 09:30:37 AM
Quote from: TXtoNJ on February 17, 2015, 08:23:30 AM
Quote from: Zeffy on February 16, 2015, 06:21:11 PM
So here's an interesting question - is Camden a suburb? Philadelphia is less than 5 miles from it, and surely it has influenced the growth of Camden in some ways. The only problem is no one wants to live in Camden (yet) whereas people will still live in Philadelphia, which is usually the opposite (people want to live in the suburbs and not the city), so I have to think Camden isn't a suburb of Philadelphia.
Camden is a neighborhood of Philly, as much as no one wants to recognize or admit it.
WHAT???? Camden, New Jersey isn't even in the same state as Philly. It's a separate city in and of itself. The fact that it's in close proximity to Philadelphia (separated only by the Delaware River) is coincidental.
Is it considered part of the Metropolitan Philadelphia area, yes.
Is it part of the City of (or County of) Philadelphia, no.
Demonstrating my point exactly.
Camden behaves like a very run-down neighborhood of Philadelphia that is coincidentally in another state. It is/was as dense as central Philly, has an entire transportation infrastructure based either on connections with Philly or aggregating South Jersey connections to funnel into Philly, and has no economic base other than government, tourism draws from Philadelphia, and educational investments arising from its population density, which arose because of its proximity to Philadelphia.
When it comes to population dynamics, I've noticed that state lines mean almost nothing in the Northeast Megalopolis, while people tend to think they mean a lot.
Madison, AL is probably the closest thing to a suburb in Huntsville because Huntsville has annexed a lot of land around the city to the point where Madison is now encapsulated in Huntsville. There are also a couple of unincorporated towns (Brownsboro and Ryland) that probably count as suburbs too.
Birmingham, AL definitely has several suburbs around it, all of which are better off than the city itself.
Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2015, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 03:06:51 PM
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
How big does a business district have to be before it's a downtown? Does a 7-11 and a Starbucks make a town?
That honestly depends on the town geography and personal opinion. My opinions for some example cities:
I live in DeKalb for school. Technically downtown (in my view) is located between 1st (West) and 7th (East) streets with maybe Pine St (North). The southern border isn't really clearcut, you have businesses that stretch along the tracks with residential starting to take over. That's the historic district. But our businesses stretch along IL-38 and northward along IL-23 with residential pockets mixed in.
I then look at a town like Big Rock, Illinois along US 30 which has a gas station, a few garages, a minor industry, and a couple shops. I can't really decipher a downtown because there's really no central point. Big Rock's downtown would be basically the entire US 30 stretch in the city limits because that's their business district.
Finally I go back to my hometown of Oak Lawn, Illinois a suburb of Chicago. Downtown Oak Lawn in my view is between Central Ave and Cicero Ave along 95th street. Some would argue that you could see it extend maybe to Kostner Ave due to the hospital complex. But in that stretch, you have the library, your emergency services, and city hall. There are some older style buildings mixed now with 4-5 story condo buildings which were just recently built.
So you could really say that a "downtown" could be just the majority vote of people's opinions along with some sort of geography and location of city services.
I think downtown is the point where the city was founded, and grew from there. If the city was built on a single residential development, it could be the location of a model home.
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
I don't understand the difference between a suburb and a distinct town. Either that or I don't understand how one can be both.
In my mind, a suburb is a town that's close to a major city and whose identity and existence are tied to that city.
So if "distinct" means a separate political entity, then all suburbs are distinct towns as I understand the word. If it's not a separate political entity, then I just call it a neighborhood.
But if "distinct" means culturally and economically separate, then no distinct towns are suburbs. They're just... towns.
You might consider Norman, Oklahoma an example of a town that is both a town and a suburb.
Norman existed as the county seat of Cleveland County before the concept of a suburb was established. Its economic anchor was the University of Oklahoma.
As the concept of the suburb became more well defined, Norman began to take on more suburban qualities, especially after I-35 was built and it became easy to commute from Norman to Oklahoma City.
Now, you have a city that is a mixture of both. The West Side of Norman (I'd draw the line at about Berry Road or so and increasing the further west you go) is very suburban and most of the people living there probably commute to Oklahoma City. The central parts and the East Side are more geared toward supporting the university (cheap student housing, etc.) and have more of a distinct identity. Norman has its own central business district, centered around the county courthouse, that includes things like law and accounting firms, as well as independent restaurants and small retail shops.
So Norman is kind of a mixture of both. You can definitely live life without ever really needing to get out of town (I hardly ever leave town except for work, and I don't commute to Oklahoma City, but rather McClain County), but if you need anything in Oklahoma City, it's right there.
Quote from: kkt on February 12, 2015, 04:38:39 PM
Quote from: bzakharin on February 12, 2015, 03:06:51 PM
ok, but what do you call a large town without a downtown surrounded by smaller towns that do have downtowns?
How big does a business district have to be before it's a downtown? Does a 7-11 and a Starbucks make a town?
In Oklahoma, the sure sign of a healthy small town is a Sonic Drive-In, at least one gas station (often with a mom & pop restaurant inside) and a Dollar General. You know you've made it big when you get a second fast-food restaurant.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 17, 2015, 06:04:34 PM
Quote from: kphoger on February 11, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
I don't understand the difference between a suburb and a distinct town. Either that or I don't understand how one can be both.
In my mind, a suburb is a town that's close to a major city and whose identity and existence are tied to that city.
So if "distinct" means a separate political entity, then all suburbs are distinct towns as I understand the word. If it's not a separate political entity, then I just call it a neighborhood.
But if "distinct" means culturally and economically separate, then no distinct towns are suburbs. They're just... towns.
You might consider Norman, Oklahoma an example of a town that is both a town and a suburb.
Norman existed as the county seat of Cleveland County before the concept of a suburb was established. Its economic anchor was the University of Oklahoma.
As the concept of the suburb became more well defined, Norman began to take on more suburban qualities, especially after I-35 was built and it became easy to commute from Norman to Oklahoma City.
Now, you have a city that is a mixture of both. The West Side of Norman (I'd draw the line at about Berry Road or so and increasing the further west you go) is very suburban and most of the people living there probably commute to Oklahoma City. The central parts and the East Side are more geared toward supporting the university (cheap student housing, etc.) and have more of a distinct identity. Norman has its own central business district, centered around the county courthouse, that includes things like law and accounting firms, as well as independent restaurants and small retail shops.
So Norman is kind of a mixture of both. You can definitely live life without ever really needing to get out of town (I hardly ever leave town except for work, and I don't commute to Oklahoma City, but rather McClain County), but if you need anything in Oklahoma City, it's right there.
Joliet, IL, is similar. Some people there never travel to Chicago. Others go to Chicago almost every day.