Why some people hate the suburbs

[memebag]

Citation needed.

See Robert Bruegmann's "Sprawl: A Compact History".

I answered your request. Please answer mine.

[kylejack]

Why isn't it useful?

The dictionary is the authoritative source on the meaning of a word. There are different dictionaries, of course, but still some dictionary should be a primary source when you're talking about word meanings.

[memebag]

The dictionary is the authoritative source on the meaning of a word. There are different dictionaries, of course, but still some dictionary should be a primary source when you're talking about word meanings.

That depends on the context. On a forum dedicated to the subject of architecture, with discussions about issues like urban planning, land use and sprawl, one would expect to use more specific definitions than those found in general purpose dictionaries.

[kylejack]

That depends on the context. On a forum dedicated to the subject of architecture, with discussions about issues like urban planning, land use and sprawl, one would expect to use more specific definitions than those found in general purpose dictionaries.

I'll check the book out in the library later. Looks like Central has it. Meanwhile, do you happen to have handy the definition provided by the book?

[Jeebus]

I thought this thread was retarded on page 1......who knew it would go further downhill on page 9

Why say anything?

[memebag]

I'll check the book out in the library later. Looks like Central has it. Meanwhile, do you happen to have handy the definition provided by the book?

Nope. I remember he discusses the problem of defining the word early in the book, then settles on a range of population density because it allows comparison of land use in different places and times. I recommend the book.

[houston-development]

That depends on the context. On a forum dedicated to the subject of architecture, with discussions about issues like urban planning, land use and sprawl, one would expect to use more specific definitions than those found in general purpose dictionaries.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/ ?

[rsb320]

Well, this is how it's done in Houston:

We call freeway service drives, feeders.

We call an entire business district located near a mall, The Galleria.

We call inner-city neighborhoods by their names.

...and we call the outlying cities and other communities, suburbs.

I've heard many suburbanites say that they were going downtown, even if they really meant TMC, Reliant or The Galleria. (Now that's retarded.)

[liammclaren]

Well, this is how it's done in Houston:

We call freeway service drives, feeders.

We call an entire business district located near a mall, The Galleria.

We call inner-city neighborhoods by their names.

...and we call the outlying cities and other communities, suburbs.

I've heard many suburbanites say that they were going downtown, even if they really meant TMC, Reliant or The Galleria. (Now that's retarded.)

Sums it up. Nothing else needs to be said.

[TheNiche]

Does any other place have a "The" officially except The Woodlands? The Ohio State University? Yuck.

The Home Depot

[TheNiche]

Dont make it so complicated. A suburb is a smaller "satellite" city of a larger one. Pasadena is a suburb of Houston. It has its own downtown and buildings. Sugarland is another suburb of Houston. Conroe, Katy, and many others are suburbs of Houston.

Harrisburg predated Houston. Houston in fact would not have been founded if not for that Harrisburg was in probate and was unavailable for sale to the Allen brothers. It was the original county seat of Harris County and was for a brief time the capital of the revolutionary Republic of Texas (pre-dating Houston, a later capital). It was even the terminus of the first railroad in Texas, surely a monumentous occasion given 19th century urban development trends. By virtue of its having predated Houston, by your definition Houston would've at one time been a smaller city which might be considered a "satellite" city of the larger Harrisburg.

Never mind that Houston ultimately gobbled up Harrisburg by annexation later on...the rightful and original Central Business District for the region occurred at the confluence of the Buffalo and Brays bayous. And no amount of political wrangling or even vastly larger-scale development beyond the true and original CBD detracts from that it was the original and authentic CBD.

Just as it is the case that west Houston has more office space than does downtown Houston, so is it the case that downtown Houston has more office space than the region's true CBD: Harrisburg, TX. All of Houston (including downtown) is a suburb to Harrisburg...according to LTAWACS.

It's not a suburb if it's INSIDE Houston.

Clearly the logic from your first paragraph was and is flawless, the model of brilliance. Downtown Houston is a suburb of Harrisburg, TX. Genius!

But I have to draw the line here. Kingwood is a suburb. It isn't even quite built out yet. Kingwood is inside Houston. Therefore an area is not necessarily a non-suburb if it is inside Houston.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are parts of the City of Houston to the northeast and to the south that more resemble rural development patterns than anything else. I've witnessed more urbanity in Jasper, TX than in Minnetex.

[kylejack]

Harrisburg predated Houston. Houston in fact would not have been founded if not for that Harrisburg was in probate and was unavailable for sale to the Allen brothers. It was the original county seat of Harris County and was for a brief time the capital of the revolutionary Republic of Texas (pre-dating Houston, a later capital). It was even the terminus of the first railroad in Texas, surely a monumentous occasion given 19th century urban development trends. By virtue of its having predated Houston, by your definition Houston would've at one time been a smaller city which might be considered a "satellite" city of the larger Harrisburg.

Yes that's true, perhaps at one time you could have called Houston a suburb of Harrisburg...but its no longer true.

[LTAWACS]

Harrisburg predated Houston. Houston in fact would not have been founded if not for that Harrisburg was in probate and was unavailable for sale to the Allen brothers. It was the original county seat of Harris County and was for a brief time the capital of the revolutionary Republic of Texas (pre-dating Houston, a later capital). It was even the terminus of the first railroad in Texas, surely a monumentous occasion given 19th century urban development trends. By virtue of its having predated Houston, by your definition Houston would've at one time been a smaller city which might be considered a "satellite" city of the larger Harrisburg.

Never mind that Houston ultimately gobbled up Harrisburg by annexation later on...the rightful and original Central Business District for the region occurred at the confluence of the Buffalo and Brays bayous. And no amount of political wrangling or even vastly larger-scale development beyond the true and original CBD detracts from that it was the original and authentic CBD.

Just as it is the case that west Houston has more office space than does downtown Houston, so is it the case that downtown Houston has more office space than the region's true CBD: Harrisburg, TX. All of Houston (including downtown) is a suburb to Harrisburg...according to LTAWACS.

Clearly the logic from your first paragraph was and is flawless, the model of brilliance. Downtown Houston is a suburb of Harrisburg, TX. Genius!

But I have to draw the line here. Kingwood is a suburb. It isn't even quite built out yet. Kingwood is inside Houston. Therefore an area is not necessarily a non-suburb if it is inside Houston.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that there are parts of the City of Houston to the northeast and to the south that more resemble rural development patterns than anything else. I've witnessed more urbanity in Jasper, TX than in Minnetex.

*sigh* You forget that there is no Harrisburg City. It is now a neighborhood of Houston. So it is NOT a suburb.

[TheNiche]

*sigh* You forget that there is no Harrisburg City. It is now a neighborhood of Houston. So it is NOT a suburb.

Do you believe that once Harrisburg, TX was annexed into the City of Houston, the City of Houston immediately assumed the title of "urban", which heretofore it could not have rightfully claimed as it was only considered a "suburb" of Harrisburg, TX? It is clear from your reasoning that you believe that the distinction of urban or suburban is defined by the legacy of political boundaries and not by economic, geographic, or physical metrics, after all.

For instance, by virtue of the fact that Kingwood is within the city limits of Houston, Kingwood is "urban". But Atascocita, closer to downtown Houston, is suburban. Then, in between suburban Atascocita and downtown Houston you have Homestead/Little York, which varies in character between suburban and rural, and supports only meager number of low-paying retail/service sector jobs but by your definition is as just "urban" as downtown Houston, where new and existing office jobs make bedroom communities like Homestead/Little York, Atasocita, and Kingwood viable (whether speaking in the geographic, economic, or physical sense).

You know what I think, in all honesty? There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

[kylejack]

Kingwood is an aberration.

[memebag]

Kingwood is an aberration.

So are River Oaks, The Westbury, Garden Oaks and a lot of other places if your definition of "suburb" puts a higher priority on city limits than population density and land use.

[LTAWACS]

Do you believe that once Harrisburg, TX was annexed into the City of Houston, the City of Houston immediately assumed the title of "urban", which heretofore it could not have rightfully claimed as it was only considered a "suburb" of Harrisburg, TX? It is clear from your reasoning that you believe that the distinction of urban or suburban is defined by the legacy of political boundaries and not by economic, geographic, or physical metrics, after all.

For instance, by virtue of the fact that Kingwood is within the city limits of Houston, Kingwood is "urban". But Atascocita, closer to downtown Houston, is suburban. Then, in between suburban Atascocita and downtown Houston you have Homestead/Little York, which varies in character between suburban and rural, and supports only meager number of low-paying retail/service sector jobs but by your definition is as just "urban" as downtown Houston, where new and existing office jobs make bedroom communities like Homestead/Little York, Atasocita, and Kingwood viable (whether speaking in the geographic, economic, or physical sense).

You know what I think, in all honesty? There is no one-size-fits-all answer.

You are comparing apple and oranges now.

But to answer your first question: No.

Second, kingwood is not a city. It's a neighborhood. It may feel like like a typical suburb which is fine but it is NOT a suburb of Houston. Humble IS a suburb of Houston. Conroe IS a suburb of Houston. Kingwood is NOT. Harrisburg is NOT.

Weather or not a place has a downtown is irrelevant. Here, Houston is the "central" or "primary" city. The smaller cities around Houston are all suburbs.

[memebag]

Second, kingwood is not a city. It's a neighborhood. It may feel like like a typical suburb which is fine but it is NOT a suburb of Houston.

It feels like a suburb because it is a suburb. That's the best way to categorize that land. The cognitive dissonance arises from oversimplification in your definition of the word "suburb".

[InTheLoop]

Given Houston's uniqueness, I agree w/TheNiche:

There is no one-size-fits-all answer, particularly since our developer/demigods hopscotched all over several geographically large COUNTIES

in order to benefit themselves and their short-term profit maximization - a "vision" that has left vast swaths of poorly/underdeveloped and/or semirural

land between Houston's center city/suburbs and exurbs like S'Land, W'lands, Katy, et al, in a checkerboard fashion. It's our uniquely Houston,

short-term cost-containing (hell w/the future) way of growth...and we've grown! We've also seen the future - and it is gridlock and rising asthma rates among chidren...it's also MUDs in the sticks with no backup generators and people sitting through 4+ traffic light changes in order to get to the next intersection and repeat, only to eventually reach to a backed-up freeway a dozen or two miles from work! (note: thanks so much, former Mayor

Lanier, for fighting Metro expansion for all those years! Who would have guessed a former Texas Hwy Dept. Board Chair and developer of distant lands would be hostile to rail options-ha!).

Given this messy reality, some common distinctions just naturally blur....therefore semantic sniping, battling dictionary definitions, and people protecting (understandably) their "largest-ever purchase" -wherever it is- just muddies things further.

My bias is in protecting the identity of Houston's original suburbs, assuming they still function as designed and platted. Despite the lack of zoning,

many or most survive as suburbs. They are not "inner-city" as traditionally defined ( I rarely see "inner-city" without it modifying something nasty,

e.g., "inner city crime", "inner-city drug wars".). They were planned as Houston's 'burbs and never strayed. Because of unregulated growth,

there are often "buffers" of many miles between these original 'burbs and the much-later developed 'urbs. IMHO, these "buffers" are often some of the most unsightly and disappointing failures resulting from developer-driven vs. "smart" growth. Infill will be difficult in these areas, which is a transit tragedy. These "buffers" vary in size. They are huge on the N/NE/NW side, very large on the SW and S, and almost non-existent on the west

side. For example, if you take San Felipe/Woodway/Memorial west from Memorial Park (inside the loop) there will be no "non-suburban" stretch all the way to the beltway,even beyond. On the other hand, take Bissonnet SW and you hit this "buffer" shortly after Bellaire/Sharpstown - and it extends for many miles. One caveat: the major street through a suburban area may look misleadingly "buffer-like" (e.g. W'heimer around Briargrove)...

Fighting over where this "ring" is placed precisely is fruitless; it waxes/wanes and overlaps a bit It not even a real "ring". It is necessarily vague; however I believe it is possible to use the Justice Brennan/pornography analogy: "You know it when you see it".

I'm belaboring the "buffer" theory, because I believe that it offers as clear a distinction as we can dredge up to differentiate two DISTINCT residential models: suburbs and exurbs. (I can also live with inner- and outer- suburbs if that proves more palatable). It is not precise, because this is Houston/Greater Houston!

There is truly not a one-size-fits-all answer, but Westbury, Garden Oaks, Briargrove, Maplewood, and Southampton are all vibrant, growing suburbs in Houston near the central core (or "inner city"). They should not be disparagingly mislabelled, intentionally or otherwise. With one MAJOR exception - the west side - (and, I'm sure, some minor exceptions), outside these suburbs is a "buffer" (non-platted hodgepodge of svc. businesses, apartments, office/whses, etc. w/o residential character, possible undeveloped land, generally higher crime) followed then, by our distant suburbs (or exurbs)characterized by greenbelts, SF, golf, water features and growing, thriving school districts.

Sure it's imprecise, but Greatwood and Linkwood have so little in common (residential ,yes...sigh) that folks need labels to differentiate them so even the casual observer (or British expat looking to relocate via the net) can understand the stark difference, regardless of which lifestyle we prefer.

I won't argue specific zip codes, but fire away at my premise!

[LTAWACS]

It feels like a suburb because it is a suburb. That's the best way to categorize that land. The cognitive dissonance arises from oversimplification in your definition of the word "suburb".

"It feels like a suburb because it is a suburb." refers to the area, yes?

"That's the best way to categorize that land." refers to the land.

The two are different. Kingwood is not a suburb of Houston. It is PART OF Houston. There is no cognitive dissonance because it is a fact.

[TheNiche]

You are comparing apple and oranges now.

Yeah, ok. Urban areas are apples; suburban areas are oranges. Both are elements of a metropolitan area; they are both fruit, different kinds of the same thing. Why is that not kosher?

But to answer your first question: No.

Good answer. It is absurd to think that Houston gained "urban" status only once it annexed Harrisburg, the original regional CBD. Houston had urban elements. Harrisburg had urban elements. Up to the day that they were merged, neither was a suburb of the other. They were each best defined as urban based upon their geographic, economic, and physical attributes.

Second, kingwood is not a city. It's a neighborhood. It may feel like like a typical suburb which is fine but it is NOT a suburb of Houston. Humble IS a suburb of Houston. Conroe IS a suburb of Houston. Kingwood is NOT. Harrisburg is NOT.

Weather or not a place has a downtown is irrelevant. Here, Houston is the "central" or "primary" city. The smaller cities around Houston are all suburbs.

Kingwood is part of an incorporated City. It is also a neighborhood. It is both a suburb and part of Houston. And since more than half of the region's jobs are outside the urban core of Houston, it is as much a suburb of various suburban areas as it is a suburb of some particular urban area.

Conroe is 40 miles north of downtown Houston. Prior to areas 40 miles from downtown Houston having been considered suburbs, Conroe developed to a particular size of its own economic merit. Many of its pre-existing jobs now are filled by Houstonians on account of that Houston has grown nearer by way of annexation and also that it is now considered within a commutable distance. Therefore, might it be reasonable to state that to some people (but not others) the City of Houston is a suburb of Conroe? And along those lines, surely people who live in Willis that commute to Conroe also might think of Conroe as a central city. Along this line of thought, what is suburban or urban is even more blurred.

I think you're too caught up in the idealistic and theoretical monocentric city model of urban growth. Reality is starkly different than a simple theory with many limiting assumptions.

[memebag]

"It feels like a suburb because it is a suburb." refers to the area, yes?

"That's the best way to categorize that land." refers to the land.

The two are different.

No. You injected the word "area" here, I assume to create some distinction. There is none. We can use either term interchangeably in this context.

Kingwood is not a suburb of Houston. It is PART OF Houston. There is no cognitive dissonance because it is a fact.

Just because Kingwood is part of Houston doesn't stop it from being a suburb. A suburb doesn't stop being a suburb when a city annexes it.

There is cognitive dissonance in your statement that it may "feel" like a suburb but not "be" a suburb. If your definition of X doesn't apply to all the things that feel like X then that definition creates cognitive dissonance. If you realign your definition with observed reality you lose the dissonance and gain descriptive and comparative power.

[TheNiche]

Given Houston's uniqueness, I agree w/TheNiche:

There is no one-size-fits-all answer, particularly since our developer/demigods hopscotched all over several geographically large COUNTIES

in order to benefit themselves and their short-term profit maximization - a "vision" that has left vast swaths of poorly/underdeveloped and/or semirural

land between Houston's center city/suburbs and exurbs like S'Land, W'lands, Katy, et al, in a checkerboard fashion. It's our uniquely Houston,

short-term cost-containing (hell w/the future) way of growth...and we've grown! We've also seen the future - and it is gridlock and rising asthma rates among chidren...it's also MUDs in the sticks with no backup generators and people sitting through 4+ traffic light changes in order to get to the next intersection and repeat, only to eventually reach to a backed-up freeway a dozen or two miles from work! (note: thanks so much, former Mayor

Lanier, for fighting Metro expansion for all those years! Who would have guessed a former Texas Hwy Dept. Board Chair and developer of distant lands would be hostile to rail options-ha!).

Given this messy reality, some common distinctions just naturally blur....therefore semantic sniping, battling dictionary definitions, and people protecting (understandably) their "largest-ever purchase" -wherever it is- just muddies things further.

My bias is in protecting the identity of Houston's original suburbs, assuming they still function as designed and platted. Despite the lack of zoning,

many or most survive as suburbs. They are not "inner-city" as traditionally defined ( I rarely see "inner-city" without it modifying something nasty,

e.g., "inner city crime", "inner-city drug wars".). They were planned as Houston's 'burbs and never strayed. Because of unregulated growth,

there are often "buffers" of many miles between these original 'burbs and the much-later developed 'urbs. IMHO, these "buffers" are often some of the most unsightly and disappointing failures resulting from developer-driven vs. "smart" growth. Infill will be difficult in these areas, which is a transit tragedy. These "buffers" vary in size. They are huge on the N/NE/NW side, very large on the SW and S, and almost non-existent on the west

side. For example, if you take San Felipe/Woodway/Memorial west from Memorial Park (inside the loop) there will be no "non-suburban" stretch all the way to the beltway,even beyond. On the other hand, take Bissonnet SW and you hit this "buffer" shortly after Bellaire/Sharpstown - and it extends for many miles. One caveat: the major street through a suburban area may look misleadingly "buffer-like" (e.g. W'heimer around Briargrove)...

Fighting over where this "ring" is placed precisely is fruitless; it waxes/wanes and overlaps a bit It not even a real "ring". It is necessarily vague; however I believe it is possible to use the Justice Brennan/pornography analogy: "You know it when you see it".

I'm belaboring the "buffer" theory, because I believe that it offers as clear a distinction as we can dredge up to differentiate two DISTINCT residential models: suburbs and exurbs. (I can also live with inner- and outer- suburbs if that proves more palatable). It is not precise, because this is Houston/Greater Houston!

There is truly not a one-size-fits-all answer, but Westbury, Garden Oaks, Briargrove, Maplewood, and Southampton are all vibrant, growing suburbs in Houston near the central core (or "inner city"). They should not be disparagingly mislabelled, intentionally or otherwise. With one MAJOR exception - the west side - (and, I'm sure, some minor exceptions), outside these suburbs is a "buffer" (non-platted hodgepodge of svc. businesses, apartments, office/whses, etc. w/o residential character, possible undeveloped land, generally higher crime) followed then, by our distant suburbs (or exurbs)characterized by greenbelts, SF, golf, water features and growing, thriving school districts.

Sure it's imprecise, but Greatwood and Linkwood have so little in common (residential ,yes...sigh) that folks need labels to differentiate them so even the casual observer (or British expat looking to relocate via the net) can understand the stark difference, regardless of which lifestyle we prefer.

I won't argue specific zip codes, but fire away at my premise!

There's a lot in there that I disagree with or that I think is overstated, but I'm glad that you essentially agree with my argument that definitions of "urban" and "suburban" have to be flexible.

As for the buffer theory, there is some method to the madness with it. Basically any time that Houston has had a growth spurt, it creates a lot of affordable housing along its developed periphery. Then we stop growing for a while, the affordable housing ages quickly and poorly (as it is apt to do), and is filled with occupants of commensurate income and socioeconomic status. When growth kicks into high gear once more, nobody capable of buying a new home--even one that also will not age well--actually wants to start off living near the already-crappy and still-declining housing from the last burst of development. Not only is proximity a concern, but so is the zoning of schools and school districts, which can have impacts that radiate outward for miles. But whereas the kind of transportation that gave rise to the compacted suburbs which you honor and revere has been greatly improved upon (and certainly in comparison to pre-WW2 technology and wealth, it has) the tradeoff of driving a few more miles pales in comparison to the value that people place upon their children's health and education.

And really and truely, most desirable suburban areas do have better air quality, better recreational infrastructure and opportunities, better schools, lower crime rates (and different kinds of crime), etc. than urban areas. I personally like the urban area and near suburbs. It is a personal preference. But I do not begrudge others their choice and in fact celebrate the individuality and the freedom to embrace it.

[InTheLoop]

If there are folks who swear that inclusion into a city equals exclusion from a suburb(an status)...

If they believe Kingwood is not a suburb and Conroe (founded 19th century as a town now a city) IS, then, please:

Do some research.

...cause that's a cry for homework....maybe an Urban/Regional Planning course?

There are real-life definable SUBURBS less than a 10 minute drive from DOWNTOWN HOUSTON...and then there's Cornroe, a CITY that in fact has its OWN SUBURBS. See the problem with your analysis? Guessing not.

Also, after the refresher course, please advise: What's an exurb? Does Greater Houston include any? (Centerville? La Grange? Victoria? Hint: no.).

Gee whiz.

[kylejack]

There are real-life definable SUBURBS less than a 10 minute drive from DOWNTOWN HOUSTON.

Nope.

[westguy76]

If there are folks who swear that inclusion into a city equals exclusion from a suburb(an status)...

If they believe Kingwood is not a suburb and Conroe (founded 19th century as a town now a city) IS, then, please:

"Remember.....

What the good book said,

FEED YOUR HEAD (please)

FEED YOUR HEAD"

-G. Slick (nee Wing)

1966

...cause that's a cry for homework....maybe an Urban/Regional Planning course?

There are real-life definable SUBURBS less than a 10 minute drive from DOWNTOWN HOUSTON...and then there's Cornroe, a CITY that in fact has its

OWN SUBURBS.

Also, after the refresher course, please advise: What's an exurb? Does Greater Houston include any? (Centerville? La Grange? Victoria? Hint: no.).

Gee whiz.

Just because it is in a book does not make it true. Yes even referances books, or especially referance books.

"We are an arrogant species who thinks we can understand and impact this world" = me

[LTAWACS]

Yeah, ok. Urban areas are apples; suburban areas are oranges. Both are elements of a metropolitan area; they are both fruit, different kinds of the same thing. Why is that not kosher?

Apples and oranges are different kinds of the same thing: Fruits.

Kingwood is part of an incorporated City. It is also a neighborhood. It is both a suburb and part of Houston. And since more than half of the region's jobs are outside the urban core of Houston, it is as much a suburb of various suburban areas as it is a suburb of some particular urban area.

It is NOT a suburb. It is Houston.

Conroe is 40 miles north of downtown Houston. Prior to areas 40 miles from downtown Houston having been considered suburbs, Conroe developed to a particular size of its own economic merit. Many of its pre-existing jobs now are filled by Houstonians on account of that Houston has grown nearer by way of annexation and also that it is now considered within a commutable distance. Therefore, might it be reasonable to state that to some people (but not others) the City of Houston is a suburb of Conroe? And along those lines, surely people who live in Willis that commute to Conroe also might think of Conroe as a central city. Along this line of thought, what is suburban or urban is even more blurred.

Houston is the primary city. Now you are talking about commuter belts.

I think you're too caught up in the idealistic and theoretical monocentric city model of urban growth. Reality is starkly different than a simple theory with many limiting assumptions.

No I am not. Nobody said this theory you speak of is simple.

Nope.

Uh... yes there are... I can get on I-10 and be in Jacinto City in about 10 minutes. With no traffic.

[kylejack]

Uh... yes there are... I can get on I-10 and be in Jacinto City in about 10 minutes. With no traffic.

That direction is dead to me.

[LTAWACS]

That direction is dead to me.

I should have mentioned it's east...

[InTheLoop]

TheNiche:

Thanks for acknowledging my agreement with you. I'm just short of ecstatic.

As to your Method/Madness explanation, yes, you spelled out the how the entire "white flight" phenomenon evolves - continuously. (In admirable detail)

Given the thesis of my post, I wonder why, though. I'm seeking a viable distinction between the suburbs and the exurbs; my assertion is that however they evolved, these non-suburban "buffers" (in my view) offer an opportunity to draw the geographical distinction people have grappled with for ten pages now. I tend to read your posts; your argumentative nature gets my attention and respect, in general. Perhaps I'm surprised you missed my point - if you didn't, you chose not to meaningfully entertain the notion. That's OK-your perogative.

Finally, you offered a bouquet to those who choose to live the exurban life. I've stated almost the same thing in other posts. There are some excellent reasons for some to live the exurban life (schools, econ, kidspace). I try to make that clear, but since you felt compelled to "celebrate the individuality, etc"....ditto. (yawn). Your pollution assertion was a bit ironic, given the jammed freeways delivering the exurbanites contributes heavily to the problem, but not especially relevant point taken.

My post was made IN RESPONSE to numerous vehement assertions that the five (5) Houston suburbs I've lived in (3 inside the loop, 2 just outside) and many others somehow lost their status as suburbs because, in short, they wound up "compacted" (your term) by the "messy" (my term) growth that followed. I have run a business in the "buffer" areas for decades. Why? It's cheap! So even ugly buffers offer benefits to my beloved H-town.

Anyway, I would have enjoyed a responsive post...not required, though. Your prerogative.

Houston suburbs are suburbs. Others disagree. I find their evidence unpersuasive, and offered a model. I think it has merit.

"There's a lot in there that I disagree with or I think is overstated, but I'm I'm glad you essentially agree with my argument..." ROTFLMAO ! I smell a new signature line for InTheLoop...making people glad.

Gee whiz.2