How do you define "suburb"

[Pat]

I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".

Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.

Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.

So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.

It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

[Pat]

On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.

When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

[Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land. The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

[George Conklin]

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

You are assuming that some named city is the center of the universe. But
today most commutes are suburb to suburb, thus the suburbs are the cities
and the old cities are irrelevant.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pat

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a

suburb

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

You are assuming that some named city is the center of the universe. But
today most commutes are suburb to suburb, thus the suburbs are the cities
and the old cities are irrelevant.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Righto Georgie, Chicago, Boston, NYC, Philadelphia, LA, SF, Dallas,
Houston, Denver are all irrelevant.

GEORGIE HAS SPOKEN!!!! We might as well quit running trains and
busses, no one is using them right, Georgie.

Will you please cut your crapola Georgie, please.

Oh, I forgot about Miami, might as well abandon Metrorail, right
Georgie?

Just leave it lying there?

No one goes to the courthouses because no one owns property anywhere
in Miami Dade, Harris, or any of the other counties. I don't know
what world you are living in, but I really belive it has a population
of ONE, and that ONE is a very sick, irrelevent, useless person, who
desparately needs help to get back to reality.

I am sure NC Central has psychological services, maybe you should
utilize them, Georgie.

Good luck, you need it, Randy

[Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]]

Post by Pat

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a

suburb

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

You are assuming that some named city is the center of the universe. But
today most commutes are suburb to suburb, thus the suburbs are the cities
and the old cities are irrelevant.

Yea George, because the suburb Oak Park,Ill just outside of Chicago
has more people then the 3 Million populated Chicago. Or as if some
named suburb commuted in and out on a daily basis 5 Million People.
George your logic is awful. Suburbs are very spread out and are not
nearly as dense as cities. Sure, if you added all the suburbs
together there would be more density, but thats like saying all of
Minnesota has more people then Chicago so States are the new cities.

[[e-mail]]

On May 17, 9:07 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a

suburb

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

You are assuming that some named city is the center of the universe. But
today most commutes are suburb to suburb, thus the suburbs are the cities
and the old cities are irrelevant.

Yea George, because the suburb Oak Park,Ill just outside of Chicago
has more people then the 3 Million populated Chicago. Or as if some
named suburb commuted in and out on a daily basis 5 Million People.
George your logic is awful. Suburbs are very spread out and are not
nearly as dense as cities. Sure, if you added all the suburbs
together there would be more density, but thats like saying all of
Minnesota has more people then Chicago so States are the new cities.

Hey, now, Georgie has spoken and has declared Chicago irrelevant. I
suppose we should tell Dailey that, he probably would want to know
that he is Mayor of such an irrelevant location. I guess we should
also tell the Tribune. What should they call them selves??? Maybe
the Skokie Trib???

No matter that the City of Chicago owns and operates O'Hare. I guess
that is irrelevant also. So we have to close O'Haer and transfer the
flights to, what Milwaukee???

We cannot declare states as the new cities, Minneapolis/St Paul I am
sure is also failed according to Georgie.

Oh, well.


Take care, Randy in failed NJ.

[Pat]

Post by Pat

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a

suburb

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

You are assuming that some named city is the center of the universe. But
today most commutes are suburb to suburb, thus the suburbs are the cities
and the old cities are irrelevant.

George, you get in F- for your answer. You've made the same point 8.3
billion times and you didn't even get close to addressing the question
at hand. Go take a valium.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define outskirt.
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just for
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like Bristol-Myers,
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs, factors
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least, competency
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

[George Conklin]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define outskirt.
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just for
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs, factors
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least, competency
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

[Amy Blankenship]

"George Conklin" <***@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:gig3i.11018$***@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
...

Post by George Conklin

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

Completely unlike you, of course :-P.

-Amy

[Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.

[[e-mail]]

On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.

The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.

Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.


Take care, Randy in NJ

[rotten]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.
Take care, Randy in NJ

Ancient Rome had suburbs, that's where the name comes from. I wonder
if they were worried about chariot-driven urban sprawl back then?

[Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]]

Post by rotten

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.
Take care, Randy in NJ

Ancient Rome had suburbs, that's where the name comes from. I wonder
if they were worried about chariot-driven urban sprawl back then?

They didnt worry about mass production housing, thats for sure.

[o***@hotmail.com]

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.

Because it is lawyers who conduct much of the business of such places,
it is quite a stretch to say "people" will have to go there. Many of
us prefer to safeguard the distinction.

[[e-mail]]

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.

Because it is lawyers who conduct much of the business of such places,
it is quite a stretch to say "people" will have to go there. Many of
us prefer to safeguard the distinction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You believe anything you want to, but a lot of real people, not
necessarily lawyers need to go to court houses, city halls, offices
in general that are located "downtown".

For everything that Georgie pontificates, I don't see any mass
abandonment of "downtown". Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is
still a "Downtown". There is even a State Office Bldg there with a
regional office of NYSDOT.

Take care, Randy

[george conklin]

Post by ***@yahoo.com

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the
city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has
changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city
using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but
has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC
for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by
that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but
out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations
where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It
also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY --
pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you
define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it
is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No
that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the
enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves
problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I
can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area
outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller
cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family
homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you
will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.

Because it is lawyers who conduct much of the business of such places,
it is quite a stretch to say "people" will have to go there. Many of
us prefer to safeguard the distinction.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

You believe anything you want to, but a lot of real people, not
necessarily lawyers need to go to court houses, city halls, offices
in general that are located "downtown".

Yes, Jail is the biggest building downtown.

Post by ***@yahoo.com
For everything that Georgie pontificates, I don't see any mass
abandonment of "downtown". Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is
still a "Downtown". There is even a State Office Bldg there with a
regional office of NYSDOT.
Take care, Randy

Yes, there is a downtown but only a fool thinks that retail is going to go
back there.

[RJ]

Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is still a "Downtown".
There is even a State Office Bldg there with a regional office
of NYSDOT.

The last things left in a dying downtown are government offices and
courthouse-related tenants.

[[e-mail]]

Post by RJ

Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is still a "Downtown".
There is even a State Office Bldg there with a regional office
of NYSDOT.

The last things left in a dying downtown are government offices and
courthouse-related tenants.

There usually are some businesses left to service those govt workers.,
restaurants, etc...

Take care, Randy in NJ

[george conklin]

Post by RJ

Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is still a "Downtown".
There is even a State Office Bldg there with a regional office
of NYSDOT.

The last things left in a dying downtown are government offices and
courthouse-related tenants.

And jails.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by george conklin

Post by RJ

Even in godforsaken Buffalo, NY, there is still a "Downtown".
There is even a State Office Bldg there with a regional office
of NYSDOT.

The last things left in a dying downtown are government offices and
courthouse-related tenants.

And jails.

The Wall St. Journal had a curious little article last week about the 25
percent vacancy rate in downtown Atlanta. The upbeat peg for the story was
that Georgia State U. and some government offices were taking over long
vacant space. That's quite typical for many less glamorous places than the
hot spot of the South. We're still awaiting word from Gwinnett County about
its vacancy rate.

[george conklin]

Post by o***@hotmail.com

Post by ***@yahoo.com
On May 18, 4:41 pm, "Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]"

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city"

and

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has
changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using
the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has
some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC
for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but
out of

the

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations
where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It
also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is
not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that
should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the
enemy and

it

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define

outskirt.

Post by Sancho Panza
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just

for

Post by Sancho Panza
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like

Bristol-Myers,

Post by Sancho Panza
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs,

factors

Post by Sancho Panza
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least,

competency

Post by Sancho Panza
of the employee pool.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

The Urban Militant has to come up with something nasty to say in place of
facts.

George, Suburbs are a new concept, but for some odd reason
you feel like it is your right to classify every area that conflicts
with
your ridiculous statements as a suburb. "suburbs are the new cities"
Uhhh okay
then Cities are the new suburbs. O wait but ahh now suburbs are the
new cities so the cities that are now
suburbs are back to cities again.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

I have to disagree with you, that suburbs are new. Of course it
depends on what you consider new. As improvements in transportation
came along in the 1800's living further away from work became
possible.
The interstate highway system is both a blessing and a curse. Before
it, 100 miles took you three hours. But it and cheap mortgages led
to the denuding of cities. It made exurbia possible.
Suburbs are NOT the new cities. As long as a court house is
"downtown", people will have to go there for property and other
reasons.

Because it is lawyers who conduct much of the business of such places,
it is quite a stretch to say "people" will have to go there. Many of
us prefer to safeguard the distinction.

Yes, the biggest downtown building in Durham, NC happens to be the jail.
So you can go to court and go to jail downtown. (They put the ballpark
there too after the people defeated it in a vote). So is jail and court
what makes cities vibrant? Yes. If you believe what really goes on there.

[Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]]

Post by george conklin
Yes, the biggest downtown building in Durham, NC happens to be the jail.

If thats the case, this "Downtown" shouldnt be on our disscussion
table.
I mean if you wanted to you could say every place,town,city,suburb has
a downtown.

[Sancho Panza]

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by george conklin
Yes, the biggest downtown building in Durham, NC happens to be the jail.

If thats the case, this "Downtown" shouldnt be on our disscussion
table.
I mean if you wanted to you could say every place,town,city,suburb has
a downtown.

Uh, every suburb has a jail but not a courthouse? These swift turns
certainly make for a bafflement.

[Amy Blankenship]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by george conklin
Yes, the biggest downtown building in Durham, NC happens to be the jail.

If thats the case, this "Downtown" shouldnt be on our disscussion
table.
I mean if you wanted to you could say every place,town,city,suburb has
a downtown.

Uh, every suburb has a jail but not a courthouse? These swift turns
certainly make for a bafflement.

With crenellations...

[RJ]

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
George, Suburbs are a new concept,

Suburbs are almost as old as cities themselves.

The King James version of the Bible (1611) uses the term over 100 times:

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religio
n/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=5200636&tag=Numbers,+chapter+35&qu
ery=suburb

[rotten]

Post by RJ

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
George, Suburbs are a new concept,

Suburbs are almost as old as cities themselves.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religio
n/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=5200636&tag=Numbers,+chapter+35&qu
ery=suburb

Yep... read up on the "Suburba" district of ancient Rome (where Julius
Caesar grew up).

[george conklin]

Post by RJ

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
George, Suburbs are a new concept,

Suburbs are almost as old as cities themselves.
http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/kjv2www?specfile=/texts/english/religio
n/kjv/kjv-pub.o2w&act=surround&offset=5200636&tag=Numbers,+chapter+35&qu
ery=suburb

Queen Elizabeth I was against growth in London. Cities have always grown
at the edges, and now they even call that Edge City, the worst kind of
suburbanization. In fact, suburbanization is a very, very old concept.

[Pat]

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]

Post by Pat
On May 17, 10:36 am, "Amy Blankenship"

Post by Amy Blankenship

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

Why does this guy bother you so much?

He doesn't. I find him entertaining -- sort of like watching a car
crash; you know you shouldn't but you can't stop yourself.
When I drive, my mind goes to it's own place and solves problems, asks
questions, etc. So it left me wondering: what is a suburb. I can to
two radically different answers. One is that it is the area outside
"the big city" which means the suburb can contain smaller cities. The
second one was sort of functional -- lots of single family homes and
small apartments complexes. Sort of a world of 2 and 3 story
buildings. Both definitions seem wanting. So I was wondering how
other people see suburbs.

A suburb is a residentual outskirt of a city.

That ignores that for the last 40 or 50 years, many suburbs have had
significant nonresidential components. It is also fails to define outskirt.
Is that five, 10, 15 or 50 miles?

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
Typically a suburb was built so people could move into cheap houses.

Suburbs in Connecticut, New Jersey, Illinois, California and Texas, just for
starters, disprove that.

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
A suburb is built just for living purposes, esp now. So theres lots
and
lots of houses, maybe a few parks, and places to shop. They were not
intended for
commercial use, although more and more business are moving into the
suburbs due to cheap land.

Actually in places like the New York metropolitan region, any number of
studies, starting with those by the Regional Plan Association, show that
suburbs have far more parks, open green space, call it what you will, than
the old cities. And businesses that have left the cities like Bristol-Myers,
Merrill Lynch, AT&T etc etc. cite far more factors than land costs, factors
like zoning, ease and flexibility of access and, far from least, competency
of the employee pool.

I think NYC is an interesting example because you have so many cities
on top of each other. Someone from NYC might think of White Plains as
a suburb but someone from White Plains might think of WP as a city. I
think it is an elusive definition that is, in some ways, contextual.

Post by Sancho Panza

Post by Mr.Cool [Defender of Cities]
The twin cites metro area in no way could
be a suburb on the
bare fact the a suburb is an outskirt of a city. The Fact that
Minneapolis and St.Paul are the biggest cities in
the state put a damper on any argumant that they would even be
considered a suburb.
For some reason too modern suburb's street layout looks as though
Dr.Seuss designed it. And that makes
commuting around in suburbs all the more difficult.

Maybe you could explain more about what is the "Dr. Seuss" design.

[[e-mail]]

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

There are inner ring suburbs, and there are outer ring suburbs, and
then there is exurbia.
Where I grew up in the eastern, outer ring suburbs of Cleveland, for
instance, there were no people of color. When I grad hs in 1971,
there were no blacks in the school dist anywhere, nor in any of the
surrounding school dists.

Now the inner ring suburbs are well over 50% minority, where I went to
school it is about 15-20% minority. The wealthier population has
moved further east to Geauga county which used to be all rural and
now, the eastern part is exurbia, and the western part is definitely
suburban. Geauga county has a transit system.

The city of East Cleveland, could be considered a suburb of Cleveland,
but believe me, it has all of the inner city problems of Cleveland.
It also contains Forest Hills Park, which was the John D Rockefeller
estate, just to show how things change over the years.


I think using the MSA for much of anything is misleading. Newark was
and remains a city, not a suburb. In NJ it is difficult to define
suburb. What could you define East Orange, West Orange, Orange, S
Orange, as, what about Irvington, NJ not NY. What about Elizabeth?
What about New Brunswick? Hackensack? Paterson? I would hardly
consider the city of Passaic suburban, or Perth Amboy for that
matter. See what I am saying.

Take care, Randy

[rotten]

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

A suburb is merely an smaller urbanized area attached to a larger
urbanized area.

[george conklin]

Post by rotten

Post by Pat
I was thinking about Mr. Cool and his vivid defence of "the city" and
his loathing or "the suburbs".
Then I got thinking about how the definition of suburb has changed.
Generally a metro area is defined by it's central city using the
Census definitions. That moves things around a bit but has some
interesting features. For example, Newark is part of NYC for MSA
purposes. I think Westchester is part of NYC, too. So by that
definition, Yonkers is a suburb since it's in the MSA but out of the
city itself. This leads to some interesting situations where whole
cities (of pretty good size) are "suburban". Hmmmm. It also means
that some relatively small cities (like Jamestown, NY -- pop.
35,000+/-) are defined as central cities of MSAs.
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a suburb
in a logical and consistant manner.
It also means that the city that Mr. Cool lives in, if it is not
Minneapolis or St. Paul is actually in the suburbs. No that should
turn Mr. Cool on his head -- to realize he has faced the enemy and it
is him.

A suburb is merely an smaller urbanized area attached to a larger
urbanized area.

Or the more modern parts of older cities.

[Stephen Sprunk]

Post by Pat
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb in a logical and consistant manner.

Generally the large, core city in an area is considered "urban" and
surrounding cities that depend on it (culturally, job-wise,
transportation-wise, etc.) are suburbs. It can also depend on perception of
the above, if not reality. For instance, I have no clue where Westchester
or Yonkers is, but if someone from there would respond that it's near NYC,
I'd consider them a suburb of NYC. I have no clue if that's factually
correct, but it's "correct enough" to give me a general impression of its
character.

You also have a situation where some core cities are surprisingly large and
some parts may resemble suburban neighbors; in that case, that part of the
city may be called a suburb even if the core is "urban". Likewise, some
smaller satellite cities may have areas that are "urban".

If you want to derive some systematic way of looking at it, the closest
you'll get is looking at each individual census district's employment plus
population density; at the top end is urban, followed by suburban, then
exurban, then rural at the bottom. Exactly where those thresholds are,
though, is hard to place and probably varies around the country. This
strategy, though, often leads to a city being in multiple (possibly all
four) categories at the same time if it has wildly diverse development
patterns.

S

[Pat]

Post by Stephen Sprunk

Post by Pat
So it leads to some interesting thoughts about how you define a
suburb in a logical and consistant manner.

Generally the large, core city in an area is considered "urban" and
surrounding cities that depend on it (culturally, job-wise,
transportation-wise, etc.) are suburbs. It can also depend on perception of
the above, if not reality. For instance, I have no clue where Westchester
or Yonkers is, but if someone from there would respond that it's near NYC,
I'd consider them a suburb of NYC. I have no clue if that's factually
correct, but it's "correct enough" to give me a general impression of its
character.

That's pretty much it. Westchester is the county immediately north of
NYC in NYS. It is very rich with median income almost twice NYC. One
of the richest areas in the country. Home of Martha Stewart's house
arrest, Bill and Hillary's place, etc. Westchester basicallly borders
northern Manhattan (ie. Harlem) and The Bronx (near Yankee Stadium).
Yonkers is the largest city with a population of just under 200,000.
It is right down near the NYC border. It's poor by Westchester
standards.

People in and aroud Yonkers would consider it an independent city.
People in NYC would consider it suburbs

Post by Stephen Sprunk
You also have a situation where some core cities are surprisingly large and
some parts may resemble suburban neighbors; in that case, that part of the
city may be called a suburb even if the core is "urban". Likewise, some
smaller satellite cities may have areas that are "urban".
If you want to derive some systematic way of looking at it, the closest
you'll get is looking at each individual census district's employment plus
population density; at the top end is urban, followed by suburban, then
exurban, then rural at the bottom. Exactly where those thresholds are,
though, is hard to place and probably varies around the country. This
strategy, though, often leads to a city being in multiple (possibly all
four) categories at the same time if it has wildly diverse development
patterns.
S
--
Stephen Sprunk "Those people who think they know everything
CCIE #3723 are a great annoyance to those of us who do."
K5SSS --Isaac Asimov
--
Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com