2 ms·

>The once cut-and-dried distinctions between city and suburb have blurred and no longer explain the actual places we live I think this should be expanded on. I

>The once cut-and-dried distinctions between city and suburb have blurred and no longer explain the actual places we live I think this should be expanded on. If you live in a place where people commute to the urban center on a daily basis, then you are a part of that city's urban fabric, even if you are not "in the city". The distinction between "urban" and "suburban" is mostly superficial based on the forms of housing common in each location, the modes of transportation commonly used, and the culture of each location. This is even evident in day to day speech, if you are traveling and meet someone who asks where you are from, from my experience you say the name of the city you live near, not the name of the adjacent suburb or township you live in.

gipp 8y ago
How is that "superficial"? You listed some of the most economically and culturally impactful factors for a settlement.
- helen___keller 8y ago
  Fair. Maybe a better description is that the differences between urban and suburban were manufactured by public policy. The forms of housing were manufactured by zoning law, home owners associations, and master plans for communities of houses with big lawns. The forms of transportation were manufactured more or less as a direct result of the housing forms above. Walking, biking, and transit aren't as viable in the land of suburban sprawl (and during the decades of expansion of the suburb, public transportation money mostly aimed at motorist-friendly projects like expressways) The cultural (and socio-economic) differences were manufactured by horrifying, now-illegal, 20th century policies, namely redlining and racial covenants. The OP's description that suburban and urban are "blurring" is a result of several decades of recovery from these policies. By superficial what I meant is that without these forces manufacturing a false dichotomy of "urban" vs "suburban", we would likely have a much more blurred spectrum of housing & neighborhoods.
  - dahfizz 8y ago
    Everything you mention is a byproduct of one factor: density. Density of people determines housing and economics and transportation and everything else that makes a suburb different than a city. And while I agree that there is a continuous spectrum there, the dichotomy is anything but false. The noisy, dirty, cramped city might as well be on a different planet from the quiet, disperse suburbs 30 minutes away. The lifestyles and experiences of the two places are very different.
    - helen___keller 8y ago
      Of course there's a difference between city center and city boundary. Of course some places are loud and some are quiet. But the point I'm trying to make is that "noisy, dirty, cramped" isn't a singular fact of urban life - in fact, there are plenty of places relatively high density that are none of those. Even in the USA, there are neighborhoods like Brookline in the Boston area. Brookline is relatively dense (the streets near the light rail system anyways), but also quiet, clean, safe, and residential. The main problem is that it's expensive, very expensive -- which is understandable because there are so few neighborhoods built like it, so it's a very desirable place to live. You mention "worlds apart from the quiet, disperse suburbs 30 minutes away", but this is also a product of urban planning. Here's what a neighborhood 30 minutes away from Osaka city hall by train looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6176119,135.520036,3a,75y,144.18h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMmIsYvY57W5kibf-p3bYrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6176119,135.520036,3a,75y,14... Quiet, dense, Residential. A mix between single family homes, tightly packed, and mid-rise apartment complexes. High standard of living, but affordable to the middle class (330~ usd per sqft from my understanding)

gipp 8y ago

How is that "superficial"? You listed some of the most economically and culturally impactful factors for a settlement.

helen___keller 8y ago
Fair. Maybe a better description is that the differences between urban and suburban were manufactured by public policy. The forms of housing were manufactured by zoning law, home owners associations, and master plans for communities of houses with big lawns. The forms of transportation were manufactured more or less as a direct result of the housing forms above. Walking, biking, and transit aren't as viable in the land of suburban sprawl (and during the decades of expansion of the suburb, public transportation money mostly aimed at motorist-friendly projects like expressways) The cultural (and socio-economic) differences were manufactured by horrifying, now-illegal, 20th century policies, namely redlining and racial covenants. The OP's description that suburban and urban are "blurring" is a result of several decades of recovery from these policies. By superficial what I meant is that without these forces manufacturing a false dichotomy of "urban" vs "suburban", we would likely have a much more blurred spectrum of housing & neighborhoods.
- dahfizz 8y ago
  Everything you mention is a byproduct of one factor: density. Density of people determines housing and economics and transportation and everything else that makes a suburb different than a city. And while I agree that there is a continuous spectrum there, the dichotomy is anything but false. The noisy, dirty, cramped city might as well be on a different planet from the quiet, disperse suburbs 30 minutes away. The lifestyles and experiences of the two places are very different.
  - helen___keller 8y ago
    Of course there's a difference between city center and city boundary. Of course some places are loud and some are quiet. But the point I'm trying to make is that "noisy, dirty, cramped" isn't a singular fact of urban life - in fact, there are plenty of places relatively high density that are none of those. Even in the USA, there are neighborhoods like Brookline in the Boston area. Brookline is relatively dense (the streets near the light rail system anyways), but also quiet, clean, safe, and residential. The main problem is that it's expensive, very expensive -- which is understandable because there are so few neighborhoods built like it, so it's a very desirable place to live. You mention "worlds apart from the quiet, disperse suburbs 30 minutes away", but this is also a product of urban planning. Here's what a neighborhood 30 minutes away from Osaka city hall by train looks like: https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6176119,135.520036,3a,75y,144.18h,91.22t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sMmIsYvY57W5kibf-p3bYrQ!2e0!7i13312!8i6656 https://www.google.com/maps/@34.6176119,135.520036,3a,75y,14... Quiet, dense, Residential. A mix between single family homes, tightly packed, and mid-rise apartment complexes. High standard of living, but affordable to the middle class (330~ usd per sqft from my understanding)