3 ms·
I expect this is universal, but the city I live in has suburbs of different ages like growth rings of a tree. The earliest ones are in what is now considered t
by MarkusWandel 2y ago
I expect this is universal, but the city I live in has suburbs of different ages like growth rings of a tree. The earliest ones are in what is now considered the core; further out ones have aged to sometimes have interesting character of their own, all the way out to the ever-expanding exurban sprawl.
I simply live in a "growth ring" in which I feel comfortable. My house was built in 1970. There is no "urban / suburban" dividing line. It's a matter of perspective.
- jedberg 2y agoThis is a really interesting way to look at it. This weekend we were driving through the Sunset in San Francisco, and my daughter asked if it was a suburb of San Francisco. We told her technically no, because it is within the city limits. But on the other hand, most of the area was built between 1920 and 1945, which was at least 75 years after most of the downtown core (before the earthquake). So in that regard, it's definitely an early "growth-ring" of San Francisco. I like this way of thing about it. Thank you.
- bombcar 2y agoSuburbs and cities grow in so many different ways; some explicitly, some implicitly. Around where I am, the "town" expands to encompass new developments; but some are almost suburbs (of an exurb) - other places the suburbs grow as independent entities until they're pushed up against each other.