• We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.

What best describe your city

Urban, Suburbs, or Rural?


  • Total voters
    72
Yom said:
Your definition of urban is wrong. It does not necessarily mean metropolitan. The U.S. government defines a city or urban area as one having a population of more than 2,500.

10,000 people as a minimum for defining an urban area is unusually high, but Williamsburg would still be defined as urban.

What you're thinking of is a metropolitan area.
Well there's plenty of places with a population of more than a certain number. If I took a forest in Siberia where the next house is 20 miles away, but I took a large enough area, I bet I could make 10,000 people, but that doesn't make it urban in any way. EDIT: I've found one: Evenkia

IMO it's meaningless to define a city, town, village, urban area, etc. by simply its population. I'd rather define it by its population density (or something per square km)
 
I voted suburb, although So. Cal. is really just one big megalopolis. I would refine the definition of an urban area to account for population density too.
 
I am sure that the definition of an urban area includes population density, but I didn't bother to look it up.

@Mise: It's ridiculous to say that an urban area must simply have a certain number of people. Obviously, the people must be living in close proximity.

Here's a definition, but it is vague regarding the terms.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm
 
Voted urban, as opposed to suburb. I think of a suburb as a mainly residental area, where the inhabitants commmutes to the "urban" area. For me it's also about how the block area is arranged. The suburbs often have tower blocks with a lot of space between them and no shops etc. The urban blocks(houses) are built around a small yard to which only the residents have access and have streets on the outside with traffic lights etc. Did that make sense?:crazyeye:
 
Yom said:
I am sure that the definition of an urban area includes population density, but I didn't bother to look it up.

@Mise: It's ridiculous to say that an urban area must simply have a certain number of people. Obviously, the people must be living in close proximity.

Here's a definition, but it is vague regarding the terms.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/census/faqa2cdt.htm
Result! :) Ok so that means that I live in an urban area! But colloquially, I'd say I live in the suburbs, since it's a sparsely populated housing-estate-slash-village with big gardens and greenery off a main road away from the city with most of the population commuting into the more commercial city centres of Newport and Cardiff. So I live in a suburban urban area, opposite a farm.
 
Mise said:
Result! :) Ok so that means that I live in an urban area! But colloquially, I'd say I live in the suburbs, since it's a sparsely populated housing-estate-slash-village with big gardens and greenery off a main road away from the city with most of the population commuting into the more commercial city centres of Newport and Cardiff. So I live in a suburban urban area, opposite a farm.
Here's more evidence that Williamsburg is urban, but not metropolitan. ;)

Edit: Since the picture is a JPEG it's hard to tell, but here's the source. It's obvious that it's designated as urban. The circle is also a too far northwest.
 

Attachments

  • Urban Williamsburg.JPG
    Urban Williamsburg.JPG
    81.5 KB · Views: 94
I live in Bismarck ND and therefore am not exactly sure what to put. The city of Bismarck is about 60,000. Adding the cities of Mandan (sister city directly accross the Missurie river) and Lincoln (suppose you could call it a suburb being it was founded in the 80's and has the sole purpose of housing people who work in Bismarck) you get about 80,000 people. The US goverment then clasifies an area it calls (which i think is the two counties Bismarck and Mandan occupy) "the Bismarck Metropolitan Statistical Area" as having a little under 100,000. Appart from the downtown area, Bismarck seems pretty suburban to me but then it can't really be a suburb with no city to commute to. Any thoughts on what I should put? Maybee we need a small city category.
 
Yom said:
Here's more evidence that Williamsburg is urban, but not metropolitan. ;)

Edit: Since the picture is a JPEG it's hard to tell, but here's the source. It's obvious that it's designated as urban. The circle is also a too far northwest.
Hmm I guess "urban" as opposed to "rural" fits nicely there then.
 
I live in a small college town. Its about 4,000 people I think. It isnt really rural, because its rather densely populated. Village is the best word to describe it
 
Traditional nuclear family in a white picket fence suburban wine valley.
 
Mise said:
How is it a city if it's a suburb? I'm confused... a city, to me, is somewhere that is densely populated with a large economic output density. A suburb is more sparsely populated, and is mostly private houses with white picket fences etc.
I define a city as 10,000+ people and an urban city as one that is a large metropolitan center.

@Yom, I don't give a crap what the government says, I live in the suburbs, I'm not an idiot.
 
Clearly, we need seperate categories for metropolises and small cities or towns. The city I live in is scores of miles away from any really urban area, but its certainly not rural. It really does closely resemble a suburb, but there is no "urb" to be a "sub" of.
 
It would be defined as an urban area... But really, I don't know.

Sort of a decently sized town but not that big. Not rural. I guess I'll vote urban then.
 
I consider living in my town a suburb :).
 
I live in what I beleive is the most populous borough of the most populous city in America (Brooklyn, NY). Or at least the most awesome.
 
I spent my childhood in rural towns along the St-Lawrence and my recent years in Montréal, wich is pretty urban.
Suburbs is something I can't understand nor do I wish to.
 
Back
Top Bottom