memebag

See Robert Bruegmann's "Sprawl: A Compact History". I answered your request. Please answer mine.

I didn't make up my definition. I got it from books about land use and suburbs. Why isn't it useful?

Why?

Then the dictionary definition isn't useful, is it?

Absolutely. And this fact is why we should use the term to describe how land is used, not where it is located. Some suburbs see their population density increase. Others become industrial. Others even turn into farm land or wilderness. We wouldnt' keep calling those suburbs just because they are outside the city limits. Other suburbs continue to be used as suburbs, regardless of how far sprawl extends or where the city limits move. The Westbury is a perfect example of this. When it began it was used as a suburb at the edge of the city, but now it is still used as a suburb, even though the city has expanded and other cities around it have grown. Really? This forum is the first place I've heard that assumption.

Then how can unincorporated areas be suburbs? Or are you saying they aren't?

But if we want to categorize neighborhoods by how the land is used and how the people live, then we have to call River Oaks a suburb. Population density has remained flat since it was constructed. It hasn't gentrified or urbanized. Some suburbs change, becoming urban or exurban, but others do not. We have to recognize those that are still used as suburbs, regardless of what more distant land is used for.

I don't remember when the Taj Mahal opened, but I know it was there in the 80s. I also remember a fitness joint in that strip center. Slenderbolic or President's First Lady, not sure which.

It's very similar to C.M. Kornbluth's "The Marching Morons", if you've ever read that. The idea in that story was that smart people limited their own reproduction, while stupid people did not, leading to a world in which a tiny minority of smart people controlled a horde of stupid people. Wackiness ensues.

Not a dichotomy; an analogy. Comprehension FAIL. Civil FAIL. Really? You're just surprised? You seem annoyed that some folks have an aversion to theme restaurants.

But LTAWACS said "outside the loop", not "in the suburbs." And I live in "The Westbury" (look under my name), therefore, I live in a suburb.

Looking at houstoncrimemaps.com is what made me think you were kidding. Outside the loop has more homicides than inside the loop. Especially Sharpstown.

You're kidding, right?

Ya think? No, really. I need to know. I used to think I lived in "a suburb", but now I might live in "an urb".

But those weren't the issues; the issue was "gay marriage". Those are 5 possible positions on the issue. Likewise, if we zoom in on position #4, there are multiple positions one could take, each reflecting a different motivation, with different boundary conditions. There aren't enough hours in the day or channels on the air to give equal time to every possible position on every issue. "Fairness" is an illusion. Someone will always be left out. You have a computer right in front of you. You can find discussions as mature or immature as you like about just about any issue. Getting the government to decide which sitcoms lean too far "left" (along with what "left" means this week) doesn't seem like a viable solution.

Yeah, nothing happens in Tokyo or San Francisco. Everything important is inside the loop.

Perhaps some of us have a different opinion about theme restaurants than you do. I don't have to touch every hot stove to know it will burn me. Some folks like that burning sensation, others don't. I don't consider either group "closed minded".

OK, just to make sure I have it straight now: The Westbury is a suburban non-suburb. Is it an urb?

Precisely. Hence the need to use population density and land use to provide a useful definition for the term. That lets us meaningfully compare how land is used in this area with how land is used anywhere else on the globe, at any time in history.

Sorry, I missed that. You're saying that a neighborhood can be suburban, but not a suburb? Can a neighborhood be a suburb, but not suburban? That's what I'm saying. Suburbs don't have to be suburbs "of" anything. It's common to speak of one area being a suburb of another area, but that relationship isn't required for suburban land use. See my previous post about suburbs that are equidistant between two urban areas. Probably because "dog" and "elephant" are both nouns and refer to different kinds of animals, while "suburb" and "suburban" are a noun and an adjective, respectively, that refer to the same land use distinction. "Suburban" adds information to another noun (specifically, that the noun is a suburb). Doesn't it?

That's just one definition. I'm asking why we here on The HAIF should use that definition. Have you read any research or analysis on land use, planning or demographics? The standard dictionary definition is rarely used in that context.

What value does that definition have? Why should suburbs be "of cities"?

I don't. The only reason I've heard of it before is because an ex-girlfriend dragged me to one a long time ago. It isn't "very popular" with anyone I currently know. Welcome to the wonderful world of internet fora, where everyone has an opinion and no one is afraid to share. I see you've mastered sharing your own opinions, now sit back and enjoy the opinions of others!

So if Houston couldn't annex property as easily as it has, and Westbury was outside the city limits, then it would be suburban. That renders the distinction useless when discussing suburbs in different locations. We can't use city limits in the definition because of differences in local laws. That's what I've been saying all along. And that neighborhood is suburban, based on population density and land use. When I was a kid, I lived outside what would become the beltway. Houston had just annexed part of our subdivision. My back fence was the city limit. Our street was inside Houston; the next street was outside. Land use, population density, home style, etc., was identical. If you're going to call the last street inside Houston "urban" and the first street outside Houston "suburban" then the terms are useless.

So "urban" is purely a geographic distinction, and isn't a useful indicator of land use or lifestyle?