Is the meaning of urban and suburban relative?

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Urban in MI often has a race/socioeconomic component. There are "urban issues" and everyone knows the implication. So yeah, heavily black or nonwhite communities, unless they're pure sprawl, are usually considered urban.

That connotation of "urban" was the very same in Chicago decades ago, as it was in lots of other US cities.

But due to urban core gentrification over the past 30 years, that former meaning has really fallen by the wayside.

I even made a thread about that very topic several years ago:

Do you remember when "inner city" and "urban" were code words for "black"?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Tokyo isn't really a high density city. Nowhere near as dense as core parts of NYC. Even core Toronto is much denser than Tokyo.

Tokyo has medium-high density over a vast area, likely more than any city on earth. But it's much more an LA or DF than a HK, with flat density. Nothing like neighborhoods in NYC, Paris, Barcelona and the like with very high density peaks. And not even close to Seoul, which has pretty high density over a pretty vast area, alongside some peaks.

once again you mad googled, but as usual weirdly refuse to post your links. it would be nice to see the per square mile or whatever differences you found.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

But at the same time I notice that older, walkable suburbs are often touting their urban amenities and people I know in such communities talk about their urban appeal. Places like Royal Oak and Ferndale. They aren't really urban, but offer a differing lifestyle from typical suburbia, with walkability, bike lanes, community retail and usually more progressive politics. The educated young professional demo who normally resides in the city proper in most metros, tends to live in the Woodward corridor in Metro Detroit, since that demographic, at least until recently, didn't consider Detroit proper.

I think that change is pretty new though, right? They might've used words like "walkable" and similar euphemisms before, but I could never imagine people in Birmingham, Royal Oak, etc., describing those places as "urban" to attract people 20 years ago. "Urban" was (and kind of still is) a pejorative in Metro Detroit. Even in Ann Arbor, which is a place that does place some value on walkability and has had a more amicable relationship with Detroit, they tend to steer around using the word "urban". People are (or were) more likely to describe Ypsilanti as "urban" than Ann Arbor, despite Ypsilanti being smaller and less walkable.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

once again you mad googled, but as usual weirdly refuse to post your links. it would be nice to see the per square mile or whatever differences you found.

Someone posted a density map of Tokyo a while ago, but I have no idea what thread it was. Tokyo's density topped out around the 40k people per square mile, if I recall correctly, while New York tops out over 100k people per square mile. But Tokyo's density stays in that 20k - 40k ppsm range over a much broader area than can be matched by NYC, which makes sense because Tokyo has a much larger geographical footprint, at over twice the physical area of NYC. But New York is clearly a much denser city than Tokyo. It's pretty clear from the top line numbers alone:

Tokyo density: 16.4k people per square mile
New York City density: 29.3k people per square mile

Tokyo's density is more similar to San Francisco (18.6k ppsm), but it just holds that density over an area 20 times the area of San Francisco.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Docere

Given the patchwork that is (and isn't) Los Angeles, what is considered "urban" and "suburban" there? Do Valley residents see themselves suburbanites? How about Beverly Hills and Santa Monica residents?

Some people in the Valley call LA anything south of the Santa Monica Mountains. That said, they do know the valley isnt all the same, places like Sylmar are more suburban than North Hollywood, Van Nuys etc. In recent years, I think people in LA look at parts of the Valley differently-Ventura Blvd is basically West Hollywood north now.

I dont think BH and Santa Monica people consider themselves suburban. BH is in the "core" of LA, its just its own city but it blends in with everything else and feels like another LA neighborhood.
Theyll say they arent LA but I think they know it isnt regular suburbia either. Almost any suburb close to LA isn't typical suburbia-Burbank has multiple street car/retail strips, Glendale, Pasadena, Culver City, Santa Monica, BH, West Hollywood, Alhambra, East LA.

[Docere]

Density maps for NYC and surrounding areas:

https://furmancenter.org/stateofthec...-neighborhoods

Here's the outer edge of Queens (population per square mile):

Auburndale-Bayside-Douglaston 16,016
Queens Village-Bellerose-Rosedale 18,173
Rockaways 20,908

And for Staten Island:

North Shore 17,118
Mid-Island 13,103
South Shore 10,211

[dktshb]

Originally Posted by LA21st

Some people in the Valley call LA anything south of the Santa Monica Mountains. That said, they do know the valley isnt all the same, places like Sylmar are more suburban than North Hollywood, Van Nuys etc. In recent years, I think people in LA look at parts of the Valley differently-Ventura Blvd is basically West Hollywood north now.

I dont think BH and Santa Monica people consider themselves suburban. BH is in the "core" of LA, its just its own city but it blends in with everything else and feels like another LA neighborhood.
Theyll say they arent LA but I think they know it isnt regular suburbia either. Almost any suburb close to LA isn't typical suburbia-Burbank has multiple street car/retail strips, Glendale, Pasadena, Culver City, Santa Monica, BH, West Hollywood, Alhambra, East LA.

I'd say most of the LA Basin would be old school streetcar "suburban" when suburban was done correctly (on a grid with commercial strips, mixed use developments and high density). A place where residential, retail and business all live in harmony. The San Fernando Valley is still old school suburban with high density and commercial strips, but the Blvd's get wider, and you have more of the malls, big box stores, pedestrian chain restaurants and office parks that get thrown into the mix.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by dktshb

I'd say most of the LA Basin would be old school streetcar "suburban" when suburban was done correctly (on a grid with commercial strips, mixed use developments and high density). A place where residential, retail and business all live in harmony. The San Fernando Valley is still old school suburban with high density and commercial strips, but the Blvd's get wider, and you have more of the malls, big box stores, pedestrian chain restaurants and office parks that get thrown into the mix.

Yea, I prefer it to NOVA (my old home), which outside of the TODs, is pretty bland/boring stuff. It has something like like old town Fairfax, but the LA area has TONS of those areas.

LA county isn't that different than Cook really, its just that it doesn't have the Metra network to go with it. It did have the red car, but thats all gone now. But those little villages remain.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

"Urban" was (and kind of still is) a pejorative in Metro Detroit.

I guess I shouldn't be too surprised that those old racial code connotations seem to be holding out longer in metro Detroit than in Chicagoland, given the very different levels of urban core gentrification between the two central cities, combined with the fact that Chicago's now giant Latino population has really blurred the edges of the city's stark black/white chasm by carving out large wedges of a "3rd space" within the city.

Of the 4 major macro demo's, Chicago's black population now lives in the least densely populated parts of the city, on average, due to continued outward migration, housing project demolitions, black flight, and some gentrification displacement (though in Chicago's case, that's more often a white/Latino dynamic).

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

take Suaganash on the very far northern fringe of the city. it is part of the Forest Glen community area, and as such it is 100% part of "the city", and thus not "in the suburbs". however, many (most?) chicagoans would still describe it as pretty damn "suburban" in character.


judge for yourself: https://www.google.com/maps/@41.9934...oASAFQAw%3D%3D

Sauganash seems pretty suburban in character. The Forest Glen community area has a population density of 6000 per square mile. Also seems to be mostly postwar, population increased from 4000 in 1930 to 19,000 in 1960 according to the Encyclopedia of Chicago.

[Steely Dan]

^ yes, with a population density of only 6,100 ppsm, and a built environment predominately built out in the '40s/'50s, Forest Glen is one of the most "suburban" community areas in the entire city, and somewhat atypical because of it.

But it's still "in the city", not out "in the suburbs".

Though, from some kid living down in ukranian village or wherever, who has to head up to aunt's house in sauganash for a family party next Saturday, it might be followed up with a "<grumble, grumble> which might as well be out in the burbs".

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Docere

Given the patchwork that is (and isn't) Los Angeles, what is considered "urban" and "suburban" there? Do Valley residents see themselves suburbanites? How about Beverly Hills and Santa Monica residents?

"Suburbanite" doesn't even seem to be in anyone's vocabulary in southern California. Outside of downtown Los Angeles, everywhere else seems to blend in/all run into each other, and a lot of communities/little cities all look alike aside from their respective downtowns/commercial centers. That's probably why every municipality has its own street sign designs, to differentiate themselves from one another.

When I think of "suburbanite," I think of someone who lives in a total bedroom community who has to go "into the city" for any kind of amenities. A lot of the US might be like that, but SoCal isn't really like that.

People in the Greater LA area don't really say they "live in the suburbs." They'll just say what city/community they live in. "I live in Newport." I somehow don't think that people in Newport Beach think of themselves as suburbanites. "I live in Hermosa." Same thing with Hermosa Beach residents. Also, the "suburbs" of Los Angeles are all very different socioeconomically; there are poor suburbs, wealthy suburbs, "rough" gang-ridden suburbs, etc. If you say you grew up in El Monte, people familiar with El Monte might have the idea (and might be judging you in various ways) that 'oh, he's from a rough area.' They won't think 'oh, he's from the suburbs.' BTW El Monte has been changing the last few decades; I don't doubt it still has gangs but it's not as bad as it used to be.

San Fernando Valley folk tend to just think of the SFV as, well, "the Valley": "I live in the Valley." They don't say "I live in suburban LA," and I don't think they think of themselves as suburbanites. Some Valley people might specifically say what neighborhood in the Valley they're from, and others might not, depending on what kind of cachet the neighborhood has. People from Encino will say they're from Encino, but people from Reseda might say they're from "the Valley." Or they might say they're from Reseda. And I'm not knocking Reseda, either, I'm just using a "Karate Kid" example.

Santa Monica and Beverly Hills residents tend to say they live in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, with all the baggage/cachet that implies. I know they don't think of themselves as suburbanites.

An anecdote, but many years ago I used to work with a guy around my age who grew up in Beverly Hills, but when I first started working with him and asked him if he was from LA, he said. "Yes." And then when I asked him what part, he said "Oh, Olympic Boulevard area, kind of near the Westside." Hehe and Olympic is a very long street, so I didn't push it. When someone is vague about where they live or where they're from, I figure there's a reason. After I got to know him better, we started talking about high schools, and he told me not to tell anyone, but he went to Beverly Hills High. I asked him "What's wrong with Beverly Hills High?" And he said that when another coworker (who was an asshole) found out he was from Beverly Hills, he started kidding him about it, to the point of almost bullying: "Oh look it's the rich kid." "Here comes the rich kid." That kind of thing. So I guess some people either play it up, or act on the DL, that they're from Beverly Hills.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

After I got to know him better, we started talking about high schools, and he told me not to tell anyone, but he went to Beverly Hills High. I asked him "What's wrong with Beverly Hills High?" And he said that when another coworker (who was an asshole) found out he was from Beverly Hills, he started kidding him about it, to the point of almost bullying: "Oh look it's the rich kid." "Here comes the rich kid." That kind of thing. So I guess some people either play it up, or act on the DL, that they're from Beverly Hills.

Odd, usually it's the other way around. Rich people trying to rank themselves relative to you based on what high school you went to, to sort you into or out of the group.

As someone who grew up in the Philadelphia area and has had a rather pedigreed eduction (but not from an affluent family), I find I get included in a lot of in groups initially based on the perception of my (family's) status just based on my higher ed, then I'm quickly excluded when they follow up with the second level social sorting questions "i.e., well where in Philadelphia". Because I don't answer, "The Main Line", I'm often placed in the out group again.

This has become less relevant over time as I advance in my career and have my own accomplished network, but is nonetheless palpable among certain cohorts.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by sopas ej

"Suburbanite" doesn't even seem to be in anyone's vocabulary in southern California. Outside of downtown Los Angeles, everywhere else seems to blend in/all run into each other, and a lot of communities/little cities all look alike aside from their respective downtowns/commercial centers. That's probably why every municipality has its own street sign designs, to differentiate themselves from one another.

When I think of "suburbanite," I think of someone who lives in a total bedroom community who has to go "into the city" for any kind of amenities. A lot of the US might be like that, but SoCal isn't really like that.

People in the Greater LA area don't really say they "live in the suburbs." They'll just say what city/community they live in. "I live in Newport." I somehow don't think that people in Newport Beach think of themselves as suburbanites. "I live in Hermosa." Same thing with Hermosa Beach residents. Also, the "suburbs" of Los Angeles are all very different socioeconomically; there are poor suburbs, wealthy suburbs, "rough" gang-ridden suburbs, etc. If you say you grew up in El Monte, people familiar with El Monte might have the idea (and might be judging you in various ways) that 'oh, he's from a rough area.' They won't think 'oh, he's from the suburbs.' BTW El Monte has been changing the last few decades; I don't doubt it still has gangs but it's not as bad as it used to be.

San Fernando Valley folk tend to just think of the SFV as, well, "the Valley": "I live in the Valley." They don't say "I live in suburban LA," and I don't think they think of themselves as suburbanites. Some Valley people might specifically say what neighborhood in the Valley they're from, and others might not, depending on what kind of cachet the neighborhood has. People from Encino will say they're from Encino, but people from Reseda might say they're from "the Valley." Or they might say they're from Reseda. And I'm not knocking Reseda, either, I'm just using a "Karate Kid" example.

Santa Monica and Beverly Hills residents tend to say they live in Santa Monica and Beverly Hills, with all the baggage/cachet that implies. I know they don't think of themselves as suburbanites.

An anecdote, but many years ago I used to work with a guy around my age who grew up in Beverly Hills, but when I first started working with him and asked him if he was from LA, he said. "Yes." And then when I asked him what part, he said "Oh, Olympic Boulevard area, kind of near the Westside." Hehe and Olympic is a very long street, so I didn't push it. When someone is vague about where they live or where they're from, I figure there's a reason. After I got to know him better, we started talking about high schools, and he told me not to tell anyone, but he went to Beverly Hills High. I asked him "What's wrong with Beverly Hills High?" And he said that when another coworker (who was an asshole) found out he was from Beverly Hills, he started kidding him about it, to the point of almost bullying: "Oh look it's the rich kid." "Here comes the rich kid." That kind of thing. So I guess some people either play it up, or act on the DL, that they're from Beverly Hills.

Yea, its basically a giant blob. People could live a suburban lifestyle but its more "were all in the same blob".
And some the cities are so big its weird theyd call themselves a suburbanite. Like even Glendale to me doesnt feel like a suburb at all. Its like an extension of LA.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

The 2020 AP Votecast survey asked respondents to describe their location. For selected states, the percentage responding "urban".

Texas 26%
Illinois 24%

Going back to these two to attach some data to demonstrate just how relative and subjective this all is.

Using population density as a proxy for an "urban" baseline (I know it's not perfect, but just roll with it, the math is still illustrative), I added up all the people living in census tracts above 10,000 ppsm (that ChiSoxRox compiled in the CB thread years ago from 2020 data) for Texas and Illinois to compare to the percentages above.

TX - 1,016,666 people >10K ppsm / 29,145,505 = 3.5%

IL - 2,636,283 people >10k ppsm / 12,812,508 = 20.5%


This tells us that the average Illinoisian, without looking up their census tract density data to answer the question, perceives "urban" to start somewhere around that 10,000 ppsm threshold, while for the average Texan, that threshold is considerably lower, given the gross misalignment of its two percentages.

None of this is to say that Illinoisans are right and Texans are wrong, it merely shows us that their understandings of what "urban" means are a bit different. We could also run this math up the pecking order and compare IL to NYS and find that there's another pretty big gap in that understanding.


So to definitively answer the OP's question, yes, it's all relative.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Going back to these two to attach some data to demonstrate just how relative and subjective this all is.

Using population density as a proxy for an "urban" baseline (I know it's not perfect, but just roll with it, the math is still illustrative), I added up all the people living in census tracts above 10,000 ppsm, that ChiSoxRox compiled in the CB thread, for Texas and Illinois to compare to the percentages above.

TX - 1,016,666 people above 10,000 ppsm / 29,145,505 = 3.5%

IL - 2,636,283 people above 10,000 ppsm / 12,812,508 = 20.5%


This tells us that the average Illinoisian, without looking up their census tract density data, perceives "urban" to start somewhere around that 10,000 ppsm threshold, while for the average Texan, that threshold is considerably lower, given the gross misalignment of its two percentages.

None of this is that say that Illinoisans are right and Texans are wrong, it merely shows us that their understandings of what "urban" means are a bit different. We could also run this math up the pecking order and compare IL to NYS and find that there's another pretty big gap in that understanding.


So to definitively answer the OP's question, yes, it's all relative.

Yeah, that's an interesting way to look at it. I do think that places where population density gradients are more flat will not necessarily correlate "urban" to density, though. To go back to what I was saying about Metro Detroit, the population density correlation is legacy and not what population densities would be today, if that makes sense. The places that Metro Detroiters might call "urban" today would probably pass the density test in 1960, but not today. Many "urban" places in Metro Detroit are actually much less densely populated than places that would be described as "suburban" because of urban core depopulation.

I don't know how people would qualify "urban" vs "not urban" in a Texas context, but I wouldn't be surprised to find out that its less about density and more about things that have nothing to do with walkability and density. But in NYC perceptions of "urban" is strongly correlated with density and walkability, and have little to do with socioeconomic factors.

[Docere]

Living in city limits is probably a big factor, with Texas cities being quite expansive. 1/4 of Texans live in the cities of Houston, Dallas, San Antonio, Austin and Fort Worth.

[Steely Dan]

^ great points in the two previous posts.

I'm sure a lot of people in some places simply answered "urban", regardless of the actual environment they live in, solely based on the fact that they live within the municipal limits of a major city. It could be some abandoned Detroit prairie, or some craptacular sprawlsville in one of those Houston annexation fingers, but because they technically live in a place called "city of X", it's automatically "urban", in contrast to "suburban".

Likewise, I'm sure plenty of the reverse happened with people in urban suburbs self-reporting "suburban" because they don't live within the municipal limits of the main city.


Are these political terms or built environment descriptors?

Yes.

[nito]

An urban area in my view is defined less by density, but more by the fabric and form, such as an area which is easy to walk/cycle around, amenities are close, public transport is prevalent and private automobile use is inconvenient or a hindrance to moving around. Suburban environments in contrast tend to be dominated by automobile use which moulds the area around car movement.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Mmm... I doubt it. There are large parts of urban Tokyo that New Yorkers would describe as "suburban", even in the middle of the city. Tokyo doesn't have Manhattan scale density, which is what NYers attune their scale of "urban" to. For instance, not sure what Tokyoites would describe this area to be, but this is "suburban" to a New Yorker: https://maps.app.goo.gl/QvUmmncZfUQAdxdg7

Same for London, where New Yorkers would describe large areas of the city as suburban because of the difference in intensity from Manhattan.

The area that you highlight – Meguro in Tokyo – has a density 70% that of Manhattan, and is denser than any of the other New York boroughs. Meguro may lack the skyscrapers of Manhattan, but it achieves a high density through a tightly knit urban fabric that devotes less space to vehicle use. As many people pass through Naka-Meguro station each day as all those that pass through New York Penn (LIRR/NJT/Amtrak/Subway). Rather than be considered suburban, places like Meguro offer a different (and arguably more tactile) urban experience compared to Manhattan.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by nito

The area that you highlight – Meguro in Tokyo – has a density 70% that of Manhattan, and is denser than any of the other New York boroughs. Meguro may lack the skyscrapers of Manhattan, but it achieves a high density through a tightly knit urban fabric that devotes less space to vehicle use. As many people pass through Naka-Meguro station each day as all those that pass through New York Penn (LIRR/NJT/Amtrak/Subway). Rather than be considered suburban, places like Meguro offer a different (and arguably more tactile) urban experience compared to Manhattan.

Be that as it may, Meguro still has qualities that New Yorkers strongly associate with "suburban", such as private parking spaces and detached buildings. It may look very urban to you, but it looks somewhat suburban to a New Yorker.