Why some people hate the suburbs

[20thStDad]

i was on the net earlier and if the definite article "the" was used....then you were in the suburbs.

the woodlands

the heights

the etc

Officially Heights doesn't have "the". Houston Heights, Woodland Heights, Norhill Heights, Sunset Heights, etc...

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

[mr. city]

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

As I understand it, place names that begin with "the" general go with names that are descriptive, usually of multiple smaller parts. The Heights refers to all of those neighborhoods with Heights in their name. The Netherlands refers to all of those netherlands.

I think that the most famous one of these is The Bronx, which I believe is derived from a description that sounds like a plural, "Bronck's Land".

Countries get this too, particularly those whose name describes the political structure with which the parts are held together: The People's Republic of China, The Democratic Republic of the Congo, The USSR, etc.

You would never say: The Japan, The Germany, The Brazil, The Britain (although you would say The United Kingdom).

It seems like it is just the same grammatical rule that you use for band names.

[InTheLoop]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

[liammclaren]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

Ok denotatively, yes River Oaks is a suburb, as it was when it was created. But imagine this conversation:

"Where do you live?"

"River Oaks"

"Oh ok, the suburbs"

"what?? "

[InTheLoop]

Liam - it is denotatively and connotatively a suburb!

I enjoyed the dialogue, but the final anticipated response from the RO resident "clangs" a bit...

I suspect the savvy RO resident says: "The suburbs, no. THE suburb, perhaps."

RO denotes suburb, RO also connotes suburb - just a super-rich one.

[Jeebus]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

I do - and I do it easily. All these neighborhoods inside the loop west of downtown are sandwiched in between multiple high density commercial districts. Areas like Downtown, Greenway Plaza, Uptown, and the Medical Center come to mind. If River Oaks is a suburb, then what are these areas? Whether you like it or not, River Oaks and its residential neighbors are inner-city neighborhoods. Some people here just need to grasp that things have change post WW2, especially in cities that grew and prospered around the availability of land and the automobile - like Houston did here in the south.

TKO revoked.

[kylejack]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

I disagree.

[liammclaren]

Liam - it is denotatively and connotatively a suburb!

I enjoyed the dialogue, but the final anticipated response from the RO resident "clangs" a bit...

I suspect the savvy RO resident says: "The suburbs, no. THE suburb, perhaps."

RO denotes suburb, RO also connotes suburb - just a super-rich one.

You're right, I'm just saying calling River Oaks a suburb would strike the average person as a little strange, right or wrong...

[memebag]

You're right, I'm just saying calling River Oaks a suburb would strike the average person as a little strange, right or wrong...

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.

[LTAWACS]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

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.

Liam - it is denotatively and connotatively a suburb!

I enjoyed the dialogue, but the final anticipated response from the RO resident "clangs" a bit...

I suspect the savvy RO resident says: "The suburbs, no. THE suburb, perhaps."

RO denotes suburb, RO also connotes suburb - just a super-rich one.

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

[memebag]

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.

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

[KatieDidIt]

Houston has it's suburban neighborhoods.

All those Master Planned Communities with Town Center, Market blah, Blah and Bellagio Blvd are Exurbs or Exburbs....whatever the term is.

Just don't group where I live in with Sugarland and Kingwood or The Woodlands and think I'm ok with it. Snobbery? Yeah well sure. But that's the way it is when you pay for location. Your entitled not to be grouped in with the suburban sprawl.

[houston-development]

TKO revoked.

agreed.

no one will win this arguement because, as sevfiv said, "Imo, Houston is so bloated that it fails to adhere a lot of standard definitions and it is based more on interpretation..."

urban, suburban, ubersubnonurban is based upon individual perceptions.

a+ thread, btw, would read again.

[sevfiv]

Ehh...Pasadena, Baytown, Sugar Land are independent municipalities in the Houston metropolitan area. Exurb perhaps, but not by strict definition.

For nostalgia's/history's sake, Montrose, River Oaks, Bellaire, and so on are suburbs, but I would argue that if you break it down, they are for sure sub urban.

[totheskies]

I'm calling a TKO for memebag!

Westbury, River Oaks, Heights (the), Tanglewood, Montrose - all Houston suburbs. They were at birth, and they are today.

Just because somebody threw up homes in distant rice fields, swamps, and former prison lands doesn't give those folks

(or anyone else) the right to mislabel Houston's original SUBURBS. What are they suburbs of, you ask? They are suburbs

of the city of Houston, which began downtown. The question of whether they are "suburban" vs. "in suburbs" is silly in this case:

they are BOTH! A suburb, by definition, is suburban - duh. On the other hand, a house may look "suburban" but not be in the

suburbs - look at Heritage Park in the middle of downtown (extreme example!)! Or, more to the point: Look at every single home in The Woodlands and greater Sugarland; they are suburban homes located in the exurbs!

If this is snobbery, so be it. The alternative view seems to feel that, e.g., 75 years as suburb, with no meaningful change in character, qualifies

a neighborhood for the disparaging "inner city" label, applied only because of what haphazardly followed. Not a chance, in my book. Exurbs are

the relative latecomers, and their developers/homeowners don't get to grab the label just because "suburb" sounds more appealing to most

than "exurb". The only possible fair alternative is to call exurbs "the distant suburbs" while waiting for more exurbs to be built. I could live with that. Houston's suburbs will remain...fewer foreclosures, for the most part, and less hampered by things like national recessions, as property values adhere to that boring, fundamental first rule of real estate: Location, location, etc.

Come on, does anyone really deny that River Oaks is a suburb?

Just b/c an area started as a suburb doesn't mean that it still is a suburb... especially in the case of Houston. The Medical Center used to be an empty field and forest too, but Houstonians recognize it as part of the city. TMC meets every possible qualification of a CENTRAL Business District... including transit connectivity. by my definition, TMC would be classified as "inner city Houston"... at least in the 21st century. Same thing for the Galleria... it is an N-CBD within Houston... mixed use, decent population concentration, transit options that are coming soon.

In the case of Sunbelt cities, it's really unfair and inaccurate to try and classify pre-WWII areas as "suburbs"... especially if the city has grown in and around them. Beyond the general nature of sunbelters to be more spread out, we live in HOUSTON... the king of randomness. If we're going to argue that Montrose or River Oaks is the suburbs, we may as well say that St. Joseph hospital is suburban b/c it's not "interconnected with the rest of downtown.

[sevfiv]

There's a lot of semantic play between the suburbs, a suburb, and suburban...alas.

[musicman]

Just don't group where I live in with Sugarland and Kingwood or The Woodlands and think I'm ok with it.

you're in the burbs too.

[liammclaren]

I think it's safe to say that when most people in Houston use the term "suburb" they're usually referring to large "master-planned" communities that are far from the city center.

[totheskies]

Houston has it's suburban neighborhoods.

Just don't group where I live in with Sugarland and Kingwood or The Woodlands and think I'm ok with it. Snobbery? Yeah well sure. But that's the way it is when you pay for location. Your entitled not to be grouped in with the suburban sprawl.

LOL... Houston's major suburbs

Kingwood

Friendswood

The Woodlands

Sugar Land

Pearland

Cypress, Katy and the EAST (ya know... the parts no one ever talks about)

[houston-development]

Cypress, Katy and the EAST (ya know... the parts no one ever talks about)

katy is no more suburban than bellaire!!1!

: ducks for cover after stirring pot :

[memebag]

Just b/c an area started as a suburb doesn't mean that it still is a suburb... especially in the case of Houston.

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.

I think it's safe to say that when most people in Houston use the term "suburb" they're usually referring to large "master-planned" communities that are far from the city center.

Really? This forum is the first place I've heard that assumption.

[kylejack]

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.

Actually, when the city expanded well beyond Westbury is when Westbury failed to meet the dictionary definition of a suburb.

[TexasVines]

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

[memebag]

Actually, when the city expanded well beyond Westbury is when Westbury failed to meet the dictionary definition of a suburb.

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

[kylejack]

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

That avatar is terrible.

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

Incorrect, it is the Memebag Mystery Definition which is not useful.

[memebag]

Incorrect, it is the Memebag Mystery Definition which is not useful.

Why?

[kylejack]

Why?

Because you can't make up your own definition for a word and expect everyone to accept it. If your particular definition comes into popular usage, then the dictionary will adjust and accommodate for it, but as it stands now, the majority who have expressed an opinion in this thread do not believe Westbury to be a suburb. The dictionary contradicts you and so does the popular response.

[liammclaren]

Really? This forum is the first place I've heard that assumption.

Then you should get out more.

[memebag]

Because you can't make up your own definition for a word and expect everyone to accept it. If your particular definition comes into popular usage, then the dictionary will adjust and accommodate for it, but as it stands now, the majority who have expressed an opinion in this thread do not believe Westbury to be a suburb. The dictionary contradicts you and so does the popular response.

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

[kylejack]

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

Citation needed.