Is the meaning of urban and suburban relative?

[Docere]

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

New York 34% (42%)
California 31% (53%)
Arizona 26% (50%)
Texas 26% (44%)
Illinois 24% (49%)
Florida 23% (56%)
Massachusetts 22% (49%)
Washington 22% (45%)
Colorado 22% (54%)
Minnesota 17% (45%)
Pennsylvania 17% (44%)
Virginia 17% (50%)
Georgia 15% (50%)
Maryland 15% (60%)
Michigan 15% (46%)
New Jersey 15% (62%)

Seems evident that the meaning of "urban" varies quite a bit between the Northeast/Midwest and the South/West.

The number declaring themselves urban in NYS is quite low. 45% live in the 5 boroughs alone and with the upstate cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse and Albany it is 48%. The high number of noncitizens reduces NYC's electoral importance, it's also possible that some Outer Queens and Staten Island residents are describing where they live as "suburban." It is the highest percentage of any state, but I'd expect it to be well ahead of any state given the huge size of NYC and the majority the suburban population living in NJ.

[mhays]

These are subjective terms.

Also, "urban" can include "suburban" and vice versa.

Further, using their primary meanings, they have nothing to do with administrative lines on a map.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'm sure there's a bit of relativity to it in the sense that a neighbourhood could seem urban relative to another nearby nabe that has lower density and fewer urban characteristics like sidewalks, transit, mixed uses etc. Yet that first nabe could seem suburban compared to one that's much higher density. In that sense, it would be like asking if someone is tall. I'm not aware of any one height threshold in which if you're taller than that you're considered tall and if you're below that you're average or short. Top 25th percentile in height of all people? Of people in your region? Or of people of the same sex? Or should it be the top 1/3? Or 1/5? Or anyone above average (top 50%) etc.? Or is it just anyone above a certain height numeric without considering how many people fit the bill? I think the same applies to the term urban when trying to describe built form.

But I wonder if another issue is that the word just has different definitions and the way people use the term simply isn't calibrated. For instance, suburban can just mean "pertaining to a suburb" so if you're in a municipality (or unincorporated area) that functions as an offshoot of a larger core city, you're in a suburban location whether that suburb is urban in form like Hoboken or just detached houses with large lawns. So if you're in such a suburb you can say you're in a suburban location or you can say you're in an urban location since the place has the physical characteristics of an urban setting.

[Doady]

You can't spell suburban without urban. It's called suburban because it's urban, but with rural characteristics (e.g. low density). "Less urban", rather than "not urban". Even less urban would be exurban and peri-urban. Exurban could be sub-suburban.

[Crawford]

Having lived in Metro Detroit and NYC, the meanings are quite different.

In Metro Detroit, suburban mostly means newer areas, completely autocentric, built in last few decades. In NYC area, suburban mostly means SFHs are common.

Much of Queens away from the subway is suburban by NYC standards, but really none of Queens would be suburban by Detroit standards. Same deal with big geographies of Northern NJ.

[Docere]

In Toronto, sometimes the outer areas (the "boroughs" of the old Metropolitan Toronto federation) are often referred to as "suburbs" or "suburban" in contrast to the old city/core. But there's also the "905" which are the suburban municipalities surrounding Toronto. Generally the "outer Toronto" areas were built up between the interwar years and around 1970 or so, while the 905 is mostly post-1970.

[Doady]

All of Toronto is a suburb compared to NYC.

[Steely Dan]

"Urban" and "suburban" are very relative and subjective.

My creamy middle neighborhood of Lincoln Square on the far Northside of Chicago is pretty suburban to my cousin who lives in central Brooklyn.

At the very same time it's extremely urban to my other cousin who lives on 40 wooded acres of land along a lake in rural Michigan.

Neither perspective is wrong in any objective sense.




Lincoln Square quick facts:


Source: https://blockclubchicago.org/2022/01...are-neighbors/





2020 population: 40,494 (+2.5%)

Area: 2.0 sq. miles

Density: 20,247 ppsm

Housing:
- renter-occupied: 60.6%
- owner-occupied: 39.4%

Housing Unit Type:
- detached SFH: 15.6%
- attached SFH: 1.9%
- 2 - 9 units: 55.8% ("missing middle" housing FTW!)
- 10 - 19 units: 11.0%
- 20+ units: 15.7%

Automobiles Per Household:
- 0: 20.3%
- 1: 52.7%
- 2: 23.2%
- 3+: 3.7%

[SIGSEGV]

lol @ Arizona having a higher percentage than Illinois.

[Docere]

Lincoln Square seems fully urban to me.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Docere

Lincoln Square seems fully urban to me.

It does to a lot of people.

But not everyone.


So yeah, it's relative and subjective.

[llamaorama]

I guess the definition would vary based on where you are.

In some parts of the world, suburbs can have high rise apartment buildings while other cities are almost completely sprawled out. However whether a neighborhood is functionally or culturally more urban or suburban kind of depends.

Like nobody in their right mind would look at central LA and call that a suburb and then turn around and call a small town in Spain urban just because its relatively dense and has a lot of multi-story buildings abutting each other.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

It does to a lot of people.

But not everyone.


So yeah, it's relative and subjective.

Chicago densities mapped: https://petesaunders.substack.com/p/...icagos-density

[eschaton]

Honestly, most Americans do not think about the terms urban/suburban the way we do. For example, I've routinely run into people from Sun Belt states who look at what is termed "suburban sprawl" as a sign of urbanization. In contrast, while we might consider a walkable downtown to be an urban location, they might think of it as a more "small town" vibe.

In some cases people may just be using "urban" as shorthand for the local demographics, whether they live in the core city, etc.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by eschaton

For example, I've routinely run into people from Sun Belt states who look at what is termed "suburban sprawl" as a sign of urbanization.

In part, perhaps that's because there's more of a "hard break" between sprawl and wilderness in California, Nevada and Arizona.

[202_Cyclist]

I have lived in New Rochelle for four months now and I can't tell if it is urban or suburban. Points for it being urban include being served by Amtrak and Metro North, and a decent county bus system, it is incredibly diverse, and has a dense downtown core. On the other hand, there are a lot of single-family homes outside the downtown core and a lot of people drive.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by 202_Cyclist

I have lived in New Rochelle for four months now and I can't tell if it is urban or suburban. Points for it being urban include being served by Amtrak and Metro North, and a decent county bus system, it is incredibly diverse, and has a dense downtown core. On the other hand, there are a lot of single-family homes outside the downtown core and a lot of people drive.

I'm not an expert on NR but by that description it sounds similar to many stand-alone metro areas in being urban in and around the centre and suburban further out. There are a lot of municipalities that are not entirely one or the other but rather have areas of both. In fact, I'd say they're probably more common than municipalities that are totally urban or totally suburban.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Docere

In Toronto, sometimes the outer areas (the "boroughs" of the old Metropolitan Toronto federation) are often referred to as "suburbs" or "suburban" in contrast to the old city/core. But there's also the "905" which are the suburban municipalities surrounding Toronto. Generally the "outer Toronto" areas were built up between the interwar years and around 1970 or so, while the 905 is mostly post-1970.

Ironically, parts of the 905 are actually denser than parts of the 416 suburbs (older suburbs within city proper), probably because the older suburbs were created when the metro area was much smaller and there wasn't any restraints on land and fewer issues with stuff like long commute times. Ironic in that in most cities the further out you go the more the density drops.

[Nouvellecosse]

I'd consider the big differentiator between urban and suburban being that urban is collective and suburban is separatist. In an urban setting, everything works together as part of a wider whole. The buildings are often attached to one another or are at least close enough together that it affects their shape and design. Perhaps they're long and narrow extending inward from the street because of the lot shape or only have windows in certain places because of the neighbouring buildings. The buildings come up to or near the street because and form an urban fabric. People mostly get around separately too, using their private vehicles where they're separated from other people and the surrounding environment.

Everything is about being separate and people are trying to escape from things. Noise, crime, traffic, crowding, etc. Not counting people who live there because it's all they can afford of course. They see "urban" as a collection of negatives to be escaped without recognizing the positives. It's basically people who want the space of a rural area while still being close enough to the "stuff" they want like schools, stores, and employment. They like having city stuff at arms's reach while not actually living in it.

Therefore, the spectrum of urban to suburban is based on the number of collective vs separatist elements. A place is more urban when there's more collective elements and more suburban when there are more separatist elements. More infrastructure for collective transportation (mass transit) makes a place more urban, while more infrastructure for separate transportation (private cars) is less urban. More detached homes, homes surrounded by barriers like fences and shrubbery, behind lawns and set back from the street is less urban. More attached and multi-unit is more urban. But because so many places mix these elements to varying degrees, many places are neither totally urban nor totally suburban. Whether it should be called urban or suburban just comes down to what the place has more of. That's my approach anyway.

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by Doady

All of Toronto is a suburb compared to NYC.

perhaps. And NYC is to Tokyo what Toronto is to NYC.

I recall my last trip to Tokyo. I went out nearly an hour in each direction on the subway. Upon surfacing, it still felt denser than the densest neighborhoods in New York City.



Likewise for Shanghai. The density went on, forever.