Jump to content

Talk:Suburb/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Strict definition

"Beyond walking distance"?? Who defined "suburb" that way? A suburb is by definition outside of the city limits. Merely being beyond walking distance from the city's center doesn't put you in a suburb, unless the city is small enough. Michael Hardy 22:16, 20 March 2003 (UTC)

Isn't it defined as outside of the CBD? Usually a city (officially, under one mayor) includes both the oldest/noisist part of Downtown and also the residential or even farming areas. --Menchi 00:22, 25 June 2004 (UTC)
CBDs are small, only up to a few square miles, only occupying a small portion of the central city. Walking distance? To be able to walk to many things, about 20,000 people are needed to live in 1/8 of a square mile for the maximum walking distance of 1/4 mile. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Depends. Suburb is one of those words that have slightly different meanings depending on where in the English-speaking world one is located. In some parts of the world, it describes areas of a city that are on the outer edges away from the center, while in other parts it describes seperate municipalities that exist because of their proximity to the main city, but are politically seperate.oknazevad 12:50, 9 December 2004 (UTC)
I read a good book on the subject of suburbanization - The Geography of Nowhere. The author implies that suburbs are municipalities where most people commute to work in a nearby city.
I'd define a suburb as an urbanized place economically and culturally dependent on and intergrated with an older and/or larger place nearby, without significant rural area between them. The Geography of Nowhere is narrow-minded, foolish, and economically ignorant -- Stolypin 17:50, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
That book is awful, it ignores many things & focuses on his own POV--the way things should be, for his personal tastes; it ignores much of reality & economics. The author, Kunstler, is not even well-versed on the subject; his education is in theatre. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 02:05, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm surprised that we don't have anything on anti-suburban movements, that sort of thing. Rhymeless 07:37, 1 June 2004 (UTC)

Because you didn't write it. --Menchi 07:51, 1 June 2004 (UTC)
I mean, be bold. :-) --Menchi 00:22, 25 June 2004 (UTC)
The Geography of Nowhere is a good, anti-suburban book
So is Suburban Nation 69.255.207.149 (talk) 03:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Is Virginia Beach really still considered a suburb? With nearly half a million people, it is the biggest city in Virginia. Michael Hardy 23:14, 24 June 2004 (UTC)

Virginia Beach is a suburb of Norfolk, I lived there for years. It has more daytime out-commuting than daytime in-commuting, and its history began as a weekend escape and bedroom community of Norfolk. Besides it has more in common with a county than a traditional city. But I think the confusion rests in "What is a suburb?" -- Stolypin 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
And who came up with the idea that Oakland, CA is a suburb? At nearly 400,000, it's far too large to be considered a true suburb. Plus it has 3 major pro sports teams! oknazevad 20:50, 23 October 2004 (UTC)
It's not so much that it has nearly 400,000 people as that it was historically - and continues to be - a major industrial center, has one of the busiest ports on the West Coast, has a major airport, and is a major rail hub. It is also considered by OMB and the Bureau of the Census to be the center of a major metropolitan statistical area in its own right, as well as being one of the three major cities in the whole Bay Area (the MSA being referred to as the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose MSA). See also ongoing discussion on Talk:California. A different city should be selected as an example. Long Beach, perhaps?--Eric 05:52, 16 December 2004 (UTC)
It is not the size of the area that determines whether or not it is suburb or urban, but the overall makeup of the area and the style of growth. 69.255.207.149 (talk) 03:59, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Anaheim and Santa Ana, CA, are not suburbs; both are anchor cities in Southern California. Both Anaheim and Santa Ana have over 350,000 residents apiece.

Santa Ana, a major hub of business and industry, is the second most densely populated major city in the western United States after San Francisco. Santa Ana is a major government center, home to U.S. Federal buildings, U.S. Federal Court House, U.S. Bankruptcy Court, Courts of Appeals, has branches of the California Government based in it, and is headquarters to the Orange County Government, which oversees the nearly 3.5 million residents of Orange County.

The two cities are both destination points, which commuters and consumers drive to each morning. Anaheim, Santa Ana, and their neighboring cities are home to several Fortune 500 company headquarters and the regional and national headquarters to many major corporations.

Before the 1950s’ Anaheim did meet the definition of a suburb; however, that changed with the explosive growth in Southern California over the past half century.

http://www.calmis.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/oran$PDS.pdf

http://www.ocbc.org/

http://www.locationoc.com/

Flyingarrow 03:52, 29 March 2005 (UTC)


I think the problem comes with "How do you define suburb?" -- Stolypin 17:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it really necessary to list three cities that Mesa is bigger than, and thirteen (!) smaller than Mississauga? I propose that one prominent example for each would be sufficient. Anyone agree? -- Gellersen 09:12, 24 June 2005 (UTC)

-History-

The History section needs more actual history. In the Geography of Nowhere, the author states that Llewelyn Park in New Jersey was the first American suburb - being a town where everyone commuted to work in either Newark or New York City.

I thought the history section was lacking, as well. Therefore, I added a brief history of suburbs in places such as Classical Rome and Industrial-Age London. I was unsure if there should be a citation here. The section consists mostly of general knowledge, but it is all laid out in Bruggeman's Sprawl: A Compact History, cited elsewhere on this page. In the spring, I will begin a masters thesis on the suburbs of Classical Rome. -- Stolypin 17:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

i live in Billerica which is a suburb or Boston MA...people in this suburb try to act like they are from the city as if that would make them cool personally i dont like suburbs Voldpotter 17:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Favelas?

Would a favela be considered a suburb in the same sense as the bidonvilles or shanty-towns? I've put in the reference but if it's inappropriate someone should take it out again. HDC 07:47, 19 March 2005 (UTC)

Needs cleanup - particularly WRT Australia

Directly conflicting statements in paragraphs three and five under 'semantics' with respect to Australia. Which is it--merely residential neighbourhood outside of a city or...?

Also, use in US is more fluid than the paragraph under sematics suggests. Often means simply a residential area outside of a city. Quill 03:04, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I have fixed up the Australian definition. Hope it is clearer. --Bass hound 11:15, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge with suburbia

Keep this article as it is! This article when merged with suburnia will not be as good as it kept in this state! (Unsigned)

I think merging is a good idea. CarolGray 12:24, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
I do not think so at all.

Not a good idea. Suburbia also has a cultural connotation that doesn't belong in Suburbs. --BWD (talk) 18:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject I agree with BWD, Suburbia is a concept different thant the suburbs, that has to do wiht uniformity adn conformity.--Mrdthree 22:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

Reject I'd agree with the above a 'suburb' is a functional term used in planning or the charcter area of a settlment 'suburbia' is more of a concept Bjrobinson 19:57, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Note to whoever tries to merge with suburb again. If you are going to merge with suburb do a better job or dont try.-- an encyclopedia should not be losing information.Mrdthree 17:42, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Virginia Beach

I've removed the mentions of Virginia Beach. Virginia Beach is the product of a city-county merger and therefore really is not comparable to suburban municipalities like Beverly Hills or Berkeley. It is more comparable to a jurisdiction like Baltimore County, Maryland, which most people would not refer to as "a suburb." In addition, Virginia Beach has its own downtown (sort of), and could legitimately be called "a city near Norfolk" rather than "a suburb of Norfolk." -- Mwalcoff 02:36, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would refer to both Baltimore County and Virginia Beach as suburbs. Many suburbs are quite large and have their own downtowns: Mesa, AZ; Plano, TX; Naperville, IL; Fairfax County, VA; Missaugua, ON; Long Beach, CA; etc.-- Stolypin 17:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Long Beach, CA, is no more of a "suburb" than Oakland or Jersey City, to which it is often compared. Its urban development occurred somewhat separately from Los Angeles, having originated as a port city, prior to the sprawl of both merging into one metropolitan area in the mid-20th century. It only might seem "suburban" because it is significantly smaller than Los Angeles, but if located in any other county in California it would dominate said county. The suburban stereotypes listed in the article certainly don't apply to Long Beach. Admittedly, in Los Angeles County, the definition of "suburb" becomes difficult to establish because of the large number of smaller municipalities, and the relative inapplicability of the term "inner city" outside of downtown LA, mid-Wilshire, and Hollywood - for example, Beverly Hills is closer to downtown L.A. than the area where the 1992 Rodney King riots in South Los Angeles is.To get back to the topic at hand, I wouldn't consider Long Beach a suburb (although I would consider Glendale and Pasadena to be suburbs) **** —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.106.208.36 (talk) 02:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Canada

The term is used in Canada the same as is it in Britain, etc. The section of this article seems to imply that it is used here like the definition given for American English. I've never heard of a suburb as being outside of city limits before — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sensfan3789 (talk • contribs) 01:14, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I have - Surrey, Burnaby, Langley, Maple Ridge, &c are referred to as "suburbs" of Vancouver - all of which are spearate municipalities in their own rights (that is, electing their own councils, &c).

The term is used exactly as it is in America. Do you actually live in Canada because your claim is hard to believe. There are plenty of examples of suburbs outside of a main city.70.72.83.190 (talk) 10:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Xenophobia

I have removed this sentence from the "Controversy" section:

"It is thought by some people that many residents of the suburbs seem to embrace elitism, racism, homophobia and all around xenophobia."

For one, it was grammatically inconsistent with the structure of the list. Secondly, it talks about suburban residents rather than suburbs themselves. I also doubt that suburbs are more homophobic than central cities, except perhaps in places like NYC and San Francisco. -- Mwalcoff 23:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Songs About Suburbs

Two sections about this, suggest deleting one.

Hecho. -- Mwalcoff 02:04, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

UK

Someone changed the UK section of "Semantics" to make it read as if British people use the word like Americans do. But I know that, for instance, Clifton, Bristol is called a "suburb" even though it is in the inner part of the city. Can someone please clarify that section? Thanks -- Mwalcoff 02:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Minneapolis-St.Paul suburban area

Perhaps adding in this area as an example. With a total metro area population of roughly 3 million, yet only 600,000 or so in the cities themselves, is seems a perfect example of urban sprawl. -- Steelcobra 20:44, 14 June 2006

-I agree — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.177.46 (talk • contribs) 13:55, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Think New York City. Out of 22 million people in the metro area, only 1.6 million live in the non-suburb part.
Brooklyn is not a suburb, and is in fact the most populous borough. The Bronx is also very much urban. According to the US definition not even Queens and Staten Island are suburbs, even though they are more suburban in character (i.e. density, development patterns etc.). There's definitely sprawl in the NY metro area, but mostly in Jersey, Long Island and northern areas. The city itself is pretty much high-density development throughout, with Manhattan as a unique (to the US) super-high-density area oknazevad (talk) 02:41, 5 October 2008 (UTC)
"Mostly in Jersey, Long Island, and northern areas"?? That is where all of the land is! Anyway, this is why I think US descriptions of "suburbs" are pointless. Even Brooklyn and the Bronx are suburbs, in a traditional definition of the word. They largely consist of people commuting into Manhattan for work and recreation. Using city limits to define what is or isn't suburban is pointless, because most land in American city limits is very suburban in nature, and was originally "suburbia" when it was built. Even a dense city like Chicago, of 3 million people, is mostly urban sprawl, with much of the original "urban" areas demolished and full of vacant lots. If it wasn't for changes in annexation, most suburbs today would be considered part of the "core city"... and if annexation was as limited in the past as it is today, then most of the dense neighborhoods in the USA (and most other countries) would be "suburbia" in the way people statistically categorize it today. Prospect 2000 (talk) 22:48, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

movies, TV, books

It's kind of silly to have a list of movies and TV shows with suburbia references - that would encompass 2/3 of the American sitcoms made over the past 35 years. There's no reason why some have been mentioned, and others haven't. That whole section could be reduced to a couple of paragraphs saying something like "many works of 20th-century art and culture, especially since WWII, have been set in, or have commented on, the role of suburbia in modern life," IMHO.

I started to try editing it down, but gave up after removing one particularly egregious discussion of one move; there's no reason some should be mentioned and not others. I think the entire list of movies and songs should be removed entirely. Or perhaps create a whole new article, such as Suburbs in pop culture, where all the fancruft could be dumped. - DavidWBrooks 10:57, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

The references to suburbs and suburbia in popular culture are so many, that a list of popluar works dealing with, taking place in, or being somehow related to, suburbs, is impossible to maintain, not to mention unencyclopedic. The same goes for the list of songs. I therefore deleted both these sections.

I aknowledge the impact of suburbs and suburbia on popular culture, and a section dealing with this could concievably be a good thing, but then it should be a section, in prose form, of the general impact. Not a list of random examples.

Please read wikipedia:trivia before re-creating any of the deleted sections.Dr bab 12:59, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Controversy Section

I've renamed the Controversy Section -> Public Health and Environmental Impact. I couldn't find much evidence of controversy while researching this section so I think it is a misleading section name. The claims in the section appear to be agreed upon by most planners. Please let me know if anyone disagrees. Midwestmax 22:27, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

While I think some of what you have included improves the article, it surely swings the article far too much toward the anti-suburb side. There are a lot of libertarian-oriented people who think suburban sprawl is just okee-dokey, and their claims should be included too. Indeed, I'd say encylopedic style would emphasize simple facts and not allocate too much space to competing pros and cons. -- Mwalcoff 23:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The [Urban Sprawl]] article may be the more appropriate place for "controversy." Why not simply refer to that article? Phmalo 00:40, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

"Components"

The "components" section should either be eliminated or largely changed. While it's true that sprip malls, office parks and subdivisions are typical of postwar U.S. suburban development, they do not define it -- many suburbs do not have those characteristics. -- Mwalcoff 22:41, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

This section is also massivly US-centric. -- Tom. 19 June 2008 (BST) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.188.195.198 (talk) 12:50, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

History Section

The history section of this article has a number of sentences that need citations. I will work on cleaning this up. Also, I am going to remove the initial paragraphs that discuss Mesopotamian and Roman "suburbs." These ancient communities outside of the city were not suburbs in the modern sense. Please let me know if anyone disagrees. Midwestmax 23:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the articles should be put back in (and I will do so later). This article isn't about "suburbs in the modern sense" nor is it about "urban sprawl" (the uninformed authors of this article seem to believe so,however).--Rotten 22:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree. The article is about suburbs and a history of suburbs should include a "historical" context. I rememeber seeing a refernce to the Roman suburb of Ostia on this page. I think that would be relevant.
The history section should have a larger focus of the development of the suburb in eighteenth century London. The then largest city in Europe suffering from an "inability of premodern cities to cope with explosive and modern urban expansion". Chapter 1 'London: Birthplace of Suburbia' of Fishman's book 'Bourgeois Utopias: The Rise and Fall of Suburbia' (1987) is just one of many respected published works that sources the original development of suburban areas to the physical and social conditions of London at that time. If you read the history section currently you get the impression that suburbinisation first became popular in post-WWII North America. Suburbia is such a large part fo modern cities that it is sometimes hard to understand that it had to be pretty much 'invented'. Onefournine 07:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Unbalanced Article

This article paints a very negative view. I guess all the people moving into the suburbs are just simply irrational. GregInCanada 03:34, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

They probably are! Humans make irrational decisions. It's part of our nature. Peoplesunionpro 22:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. People vote with their feet (or automobiles). I'm partial to Bruegman's views. Phmalo 00:43, 8 May 2007 (UTC)


There is a major problem with this article's "tone". Just look at the "see also" section.

I lived in a old part of a city, before zoning. I had an auto repair shop just 15 feet from the back of my apartment. Beginning at 7:30am, air tools started. At the same location, I was 200 feet from a factory that made windows. At 10pm 6 nights a week, a 30-60 second sound of breaking glass occured as a front-end loader dumped glass into a dumpster. This is exactly why suburbs came into existance.

This article is full of stereotypes. The "see also" section includes: Conspicuous consumption, Consumerism, Herd instinct, Herd behaviour, Over-consumption, and White people.

I recommend taking down this artilce until it is rewritten with a proper balanced tone.

Suburbs I don't believe are particular to zoning. Zoning is common practice to most cities influenced by post WW2 Euro-American planing policies, most noticebly the ideas of the CIAM (collective of architects). Suburban identity is found through several factors: 1. Nature of Built Form, commonly low to medium density single dwellings and repditive in construction typology. 2. Values, preference for investment in or desire for, material ownership of livable property and/or dwelling. 3. Lifestyle, preference for closer relationship to natural and/or social environment. 4. Planning Approach, somewhat championed by Frank Lloyd Wright, the reliance of inhabitants on private, automobile transport. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.211.158 (talk) 15:02, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Article heavily biased against suburbs

Not only is it biased, it's confusing issues. Suburbs may be urban and transit-oriented in nature, this article confuses urban sprawl and suburbs, which may be often one and the same but are not always. There are plenty of transit-oriented suburbs out there. Plus it makes it seem like suburbs are responsible for all our evils in society. I'm going to scrap large parts of this article (rightly so).--Rotten 22:09, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to pare down, trim and consolidate the claims against suburbs into a single, smaller section. This article is obscenely long as it is. Let me know if anyone has any objections.--Rotten 22:30, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Greater London - Largest suburbs worlwide list

I am puzzled as to the absence of Greater London not topping the current list of largest suburbs worldwide. Am I missing something? Isn't central London around 7 million with Greater London adding about a further 7 million? Therefore London's suburban population must be some 7 million. Why is it excluded? Thanks. Tumblingsky 14:18, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Greater London has only 7.5 million inhabitants. Central London has only 2.8 million inhabitants Greater London is the city.. so the 7.5 million inhabitants of Greater London officialy don't live in the suburbs. Minato ku (talk) 18:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

In the American sense of suburb, the suburbs of London are the 2million or so people who live in Metropolitan London but outside Greater London. Lord Cornwallis (talk) 16:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

There isn't a clear modern divide between "city" and "suburb" for London. The City of London's boundaries have never been expanded so it remains a tiny core with a population of 8,000. Central London isn't a formal definition of anything. Inner London & Outer London are the main divides but there's no single definition for them. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Strip mall mis-redirect

The "strip mall" link redirects to the play "strip-mall' when it should redirect to the article about "strip-malls'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.45.254.11 (talk • contribs) 02:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

I'ts been corrected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Runt (talk • contribs) 3:59, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Pertaining to Australian section

This article is about The Suburb, and the charactaristics, shortcomings, commuting difficulties, sociology and psychology of the suburbs, difficulty for pedestrians, and other mechanical characteristics of the suburbs. Yet, in the Austrian section of the article, all there is is telling about individual suburbs, and telling about it's/their various attractions.

This is irrelevent, and takes away from the article. If a person wants to tell about the various sports teams, activities and other charming things about of an individual suburb, they should be told about in a seperate article about that particular suburb. Whoever wrote all of that "chamber of commerce" type of information about specific suburbs and their attractions is missing the point of this particlular article. Slater79 22:48, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Suburbanisation seems to cover much of the same ground as suburb. It makes sense that the article relating to the suburb also covers the process (suburbanisation). --Joopercoopers 12:07, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Suburbanization is a unique phenomenon that is suitable for an article on its own. Suburbanization gets 489,000 google hits; surbanisation gets 110,000 gh. A poorly written article on the process of suburbanization is better than none. – Freechild (¡!¡!¡!¡) 14:30, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
If the process article duplicates part of the thing article, the answer is simple enough. Move the process information from this article to that, leaving a "Main article" pointer. Jim.henderson 02:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

No, don't merge, the suburb article is long enough and suburbanization involves more than just the creation of suburbs.futurebird (talk) 01:12, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Reject These articles should NOT be merged. The suburbs article is already quite long and still has the potential to expand. The suburbs article should be a description of what the suburbs are. The suburbanization article should be an article about the effects (good or bad) of suburbanization. HeWasCalledYClept (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Columbine HS pictures?

I find it kind of tasteless that a picture of columbine high school in Littleton, Colorado is used to show a suburban HS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.57.115.103 (talk) 00:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it can imply an unfounded cause & effect. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Suburb definition

According to Jza84 various districts around the outskirts of Liverpool, that are outside the actual boundary of the council but nevertheless form part of the city, its people and culture, are not suburbs...places like Huyton and Kirkby. These places exist in their own right but are also heavily linked to the city of Liverpool. Hence, suburb. The inhabitants are commonly referred to as scousers and many are Liverpool born. And just because they are not within the city boundary does not mean they are not Liverpool in general terms, it is an insult to their inhabitants !!!! 79.76.187.182 (talk) 22:51, 12 March 2008 (UTC)Dmcm2008 (talk) 23:16, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

The Reason for the suburbs is due to the benefits of the GI bill. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.31.108.247 (talk) 03:23, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

We need a criticism section!

Suburbs are often critisized for -cookie cutter housing -lack of grid system/lack of public transport -lack of diversity -lack of sidewalks -Ugliness

We need a unbiased section on how suburbs are criticized. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.243.177.46 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Then that would need to be balanced with a criticism of high density, which entails higher prices, more crime, more noise, less privacy, more pollution, more traffic, less nature, etc. 68.180.38.31 (talk) 01:53, 6 July 2008 (UTC)


Will you shut up? Do you have evidence that those things are true? -What the hell do you mean cookie cutter housing? You mean it's all the same? Not true. My neighbourhood isn't. You're thinking of a gated community. -We use a hydro system, better for the environment than the BS that anyone else uses. -Seriously now, do you have evidence? How about you come to my neighbourhood and then you speak. -We have sidewalks, get over it. -Our houses are beautiful, so shut the hell up asshole.

Everything you said WAS biased, I doubt you even live in a suburb, you likely live in a city, which is 10X worse for the environment.

High density? How does that entail higher prices? Nope, no crime here that you wouldn't find in the city. A few firecrackers go off now and again, a couple of attempted muggings, and I think we have a crack dealer, but anyways, you'd find that about 10X worse in the city. We don't have ANY traffic. That's the city. Honestly, are you retarded? More pollution. You have... no... just no... shut your mouth, now. Less nature... yeah, because in the city, you guys are all about green.

Don't spread your BS around here, got that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.157.19.186 (talk)

I don't think you understood what he was saying... lol —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentosx (talk • contribs) 15:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but your comment was incredibly rude and unnecessary. The original post was just suggesting a criticism section and listing possible criticisms that could have been mentioned. There is no need to attack the poster and assume so many things about him. Also, I completely agree with the original post, and this was the first thought that came to my mind about this page. Ybrik222 (talk) 01:13, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Definitely would agree with the previous post. Criticisms was also the first thought that came to my mind. Experience of Australian suburban pattens present in all major cities are an increasing problem for efficiency and quality of life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.211.158 (talk) 14:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Sorry guys although i think the insults by Agentosx were unnecessary, i think he is true. some of you don't live in Egypt where we wish we had places like that here you have to rent (or rarely buy) a flat in a tower and they are not cheap a good one would cost 0.5 million pounds and that's 100s of times higher than the governments minimum wage (private sector has a much lower minimum wage) so you'll have to rent a flat which will still be quite pricey and share the tower with some neighbors if those things were here people would live happily in houses with their families for a good price so we shouldn't criticize them. Thank you Madooo12 (talk) 19:20, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

The entire components section is extremely similar to the wording used in the first chapter of the book Suburban Nation by Andres Duany, Elizabeth Plater-Zyberk, and Jeff Speck. I'm not sure where the exact line should be drawn with respect to paraphrasing, but it certainly at least needs to be referenced.

The text of the first chapter can be seen on Amazon.

Example: From the book: "Office parks and business parks. There are places only for work. Derived from the modernist architectural vision of the building standing free in the park..."

From the Wiki article: "Office parks, also known as business parks or corporate campuses. Derived from the modernist architectural vision of the building standing free in a parklike setting..."

--Derigiberble (talk) 22:46, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

You appear to be right. I'm removing this section immediately. - Aucitypops (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Worldwide view

Part of the problem is that the U.S. seems to dominate this article, in particular in the lead. Other countries need to be described and mentioned along with the U.S. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:51, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Copyvio and plagiarism

FYI, I've just removed a large amount of content. Banned User:Jvolkblum plagiarized much of the content from a web site. Compare the Criticism section and United States section to this AmericanCity.org article. Much of the content is taken word for word, and where Jvolkblum changed the wording, he botched it ("the rise of a hip 'creative class,'" changed to "the rise of a the 'creative class'"). This is a very nice example of why we keep banned people banned. —Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Just to play devil's advocate a bit. A different way to treat the material would be to remove it to the Talk page, and have a discussion about it. Offhand, it seems to me the material is relevant and interesting, and the editor has found a good source to be used in developing this wikipedia article. Because the editor made a typo is not a reason to be triumphant about banning the person. About the adequacy of the sourcing, I agree that the material should have been sourced properly: a complete reference footnote should have been included, and there are better and worse ways to quote/paraphrase/otherwise implement use of the material. Also, it is somewhat discourteous to fellow editors to put in material and leave it to the others to fix it up (sourcing-wise). I personally am very disheartened to see pasted in material that is not properly sourced in articles that I work on, and I have personally been involved in very long discussions about the general problem (discussions linked from Talk or Talk archives of wp:plagiarism). On the other hand, i wonder why the editor should bother to do the hard work of sourcing, if it is likely that enforcer types will strip it all out, anyhow, once they make a judgment that the person is Jvolkblum. By the way, and as I have stated elsewhere, I don't necessarily agree that this person is the original Jvolkblum. It could be that this editor has some overlapping interests (and/or may be from the same geo area) and was swept up unfairly in the accusations about Jvolkblum socks. Then, once labelled a sock and treated badly, I don't know what good alternative there would be for a would-be editor, besides going ahead and creating new accounts as needed to continue editing. It seems that Wknight94 and others have engaged in a big game with the user(s). I guess I would suggest trying to make a truce and stop the big game. Instead, I imagine it would be a lot better for this Suburb article for there to be intelligent discussion on the Talk page about the material, how best to use it, how best to quote / paraphrase / restate it, etc. doncram (talk) 13:34, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
Of course it's Jvolkblum. In more than three years here, the WP:DUCK test has been proven over and over. In this case, the original adder of the content, FloridaTie (talk · contribs), was confirmed by checkuser. The IP 84.16.230.15 has since been proxyblocked for the next five years. As for the content removal, it's still in history. Moved to a talk page, the material would still be disseminated throughout the internet and appear to have been written by someone here, rather than by the actual author who clearly spent a good deal of time and energy on actually assembling the content. We don't take people's work word-for-word. We just don't. This was more copyright violation than plagiarism, i.e. more illegal than unethical. I am finding it troubling that so much energy is being spent defending the actions of a copyright violator, plagiarizer, and one of the worst sockpuppeteers on the project. A case could be made that subtle additions of copyright violations with benign edit summaries like "content" (in this case quickly followed-up by a minor image addition to throw off people's watchlists) are far more damaging to the project than blatant move vandals like JarlaxleArtemis (talk · contribs). JarlaxleArtemis, AKA Grawp, is easy to spot and can be thwarted with simple technical means like activity throttles, etc. Jvolkblum managed to hide his copyvio insertion for over a month until I decided to remind myself why I had this article on my watchlist in the first place. Otherwise, it may have been a phone call from the lawyer of the original author to the Wikimedia Foundation that finally got this content removed. Without any hint that this user is willing to accept any responsibility for his/her actions, any time campaigning for him/her is wasted. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:19, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
This incident illustrates several of the habits that I have observed in other interactions with the Jvolkblum socks. Unlike run-of-the-mill copy-paste contributors, who typically either fail to cite any references or else openly cite the source that they plagiarized, when the Jvolkblum socks insert copyvio material into articles they typically disguise its source by providing inline references to other credible-sounding sources (often offline sources that can't be easily checked). Also, these socks have a habit of making other seemingly minor edits, such as shuffling paragraphs and sections or moving images around on the page, that make it much harder for others to review the diffs to identify what was changed -- and can significantly complicate efforts to selectively remove the bad content. --Orlady (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
To continue in a devils advocate sense: I see at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Jvolkblum that FloridaTie was indeed identified by checkuser. By my limited understanding of checkuser, I believe that checkuser establishes that FloridaTie is the same person as some other accounts swept up in this, not necessarily that this account is the original Jvolkblum. You might not appreciate the distinction, but I think if a user is misidentified as being a sock and blocked and have his/her edits removed heavy-handedly, then it would be somewhat natural for the person to feel wronged and to feel justified in continuing to create accounts and continue editing. Certainly, I concede that the user's creating multiple accounts is against wikipedia policy. But also, you must certainly be causing "collateral damage" against other editors in many articles with this ongoing war-game you are engaged in. Also, it's not wrong to use off-line sources, and it seems reasonable that a user who was being hounded and instantly deleted would shift tactics to using difficult-to-contradict sources. And to use following, disguising edits, although for any single edit you cannot determine what was its motivation. It is my understanding that some off-line sources the user has used are legitimate and the user has characterized them correctly, and they add legitimately to the articles. Orlady's judgments on what is bad content are subjective. What doesn't add up here is the evident positive value of the user's edits, and positive persistence and energy put into this, in contrast to some reviewers' views of the person(s) being all bad and malicious. doncram (talk) 20:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite

Something needs to be done about the US section. From what it looks like on this talk page people thought there wasn't enough content from a non US perspective, like everyone in America has the same textbook definition of suburb, so they crammed a whole bunch of myths or popular rumors about it into that one little part. From my own humble opinion, a suburb is simply a neighborhood usually showcasing single family homes instead of densely populated urban centers, obviously not a part of the inner city or downtown, therefore somewhere outside of it. Nothing more. Nothing less. Rodiggidy (talk) 00:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

You're not helping. This is the first edit by a new account, which I assume is and/or will be accused of being a sockpuppet of banned user Jvolkblum. The forthcoming accusations may or may not be fair, in that you may not actually be the same person, but rather someone else caught up in it. However, what you need to do, is to participate in an Unban request and get one account to edit from. Recent wp:an discussions and an arbitration case request did not result in an immediate unban, but the way is open to request one, and to start over. Please contact me via email if you would like my assistance. I have pretty much defended persons involved, but your posting here is putting me in touch with the feelings of administrators and others who have been rather impolite, I thought previously. There comes a point tho. Of course there is some chance this new account is not associated with the Jvolkblum mess, in which case please don't mind my response here. doncram (talk) 01:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The second of these quoted sentences is factually incorrect: "In the United States and Canada, suburb usually refers to a separate municipality, borough, or unincorporated area outside a town or city. This definition is evident in the title of David Rusk's book Cities Without Suburbs (ISBN 0-943875-73-0 ), which promotes metropolitan government." Such a title could just as easily be an agitation against the further building of suburbs in cities. How about a reference to the book itself, rather than it's title? 130.226.217.201 (talk) 10:42, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sprawling booklist

Seems to me this is an important list, likely to become large especially if it gets its own article, the likes of Bibliography of Eastern Orthodoxy in America or Phage monographs or other topics deserving their own bibliographical articles. Jim.henderson (talk) 23:45, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

If someone can make a case for giving this booklist its own article, more power to them, but I do not think it belongs in this article. Also, the books listed as Sources are not footnoted. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I have tagged it as a possible split. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:40, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
this is a large subject with a very large bibliography running to thousands of titles. Library catalogs that list everything are little help in finding important items. Most users writing papers on suburbia will need the kind of help the reading list provides if they intend to find topics to work on. People uninterested in further reading can skip right over--it's at the end. Rjensen (talk) 20:46, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Cultural depictions

according to jim should be added. it's one of the best family shows ever and it plays in a chicago suburb. please add it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.153.109.44 (talk • contribs) 23:55, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

THIS GIVES UNESSESCARY INFO ON THIS SUBJECT (Suburb)

We or atleast I do not want to know about its usuage and emthoyology (???).... :)— Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.242.86.12 (talk) 00:45:19, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article could be improved with a considerable trim of the etymology, and either a proper re-write or simple removal of the Cultural depictions section. / edg ☺ ☭ 01:22, 22 September 2010 (UTC)

Move "history" section to sub-section of "United States"

Since clearly the history depicted there is American history, it should not be presented as the definative history of global suburbia but rather of its US variant. If no one objects I will move it shortly. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 20:08, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

Now done. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Arcade Fire

Please consider adding a note about the album "the suburbs" by Arcade Fire. I believe it's widespread critical acclaim and unified theme of suburbia to be worth note. (uh.. sorry but I don't know how to sign this) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.192.221 (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

a suburban community is very quite its like you are in a place full of people sleeping and its like you are about to fall asleep —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.107.85.114 (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2011 (UTC)

"Sources"

I have removed the overly long list of "sources" and "bibliography" (after checking) - there is no evidence they are used in the article. There is evidence at least some where simply added at random to the list. Even if used, how can the reader figure out which book out of several dozens was used where, not to mention the page of that book? Materialscientist (talk) 23:43, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Kensington

I would like to propose the removal of the picture of Kensington Gore from the article, sine Kensington (an affluent inner-city district of London) is like a suburb in neither character, nature nor geography. Any thoughts? --ThunderingTyphoons! (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: Suburbia (1999), Owens & Shimshack] (see also Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/Noodleki). Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl (talk) 02:07, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

Suburbs in Italy

As for suburbs in Italy (usually known as periferia, English periphery), I agree that the case of Rome mentioned in the page is quite exemplar and, in particular, Italian suburbs come across as low-class neighborhoods, often poorly-manicured and filled with public housing. They are very different from the American and British pattern, also in the very culture of the country (I might mention several songs and movies that hint at this particular status of Italian suburbs).

That's different when you get out of the city boundaries, right into the city province, where suburbs are relative small towns that, just like Italian big cities, have got a long history going back to centuries ago and are not a consequence of the urban sprawl of the 19th and 20th century - unless you mean the urban sprawl of the original small town center into the surrounding lands, likewise the sprawl within a big city municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.40.36.45 (talk) 01:05, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

First large–scale suburban area in the United States

These two statements seem to be contradictory:

  • "The first large–scale suburban area in the United States to develop was Westchester County"
  • "The first large–scale suburban area in the United States to develop was Long Island"

I don't think both can be true, can they? Kendall-K1 (talk) 03:23, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 31 March 2020 and 11 June 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KevDuguay. Peer reviewers: Rnguyenhist463uo, Ghodsonuo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 10:23, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Suburb vs Suburban: Nomenclature

A suburban area has a certain "feel" to it. A suburb is more specific. For instance: Staten Island is the most suburban of New York City's boroughs. However, Staten Island is NOT a suburb of New York City, as it's part of the city proper. In contrast, Newark, New Jersey is not suburban, it's almost completely urban. Yet, the city of Newark is, indeed, a suburb of New York City, as it's a smaller municipality within close proximity to the dominant city.

Should this somehow be clarified in the article? 73.194.85.220 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Traffic Flows

The only citation in this section is broken and in general the section is sort of a mess.

The first line reads: "Suburbs typically have longer travel times to work than traditional neighborhoods." Besides not having a working citation, this is also misleading because the mean difference in commute times for people who live and work inside the principal city of a metro area and commute times for people who live and work outside the principal city of a metro area is pretty modest in the United States. See Table Five in the US Census Bureau's "Commuting in the United States: 2009" American Community Survey Report. We're talking less than a minute's difference, on average. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:A000:458A:6D00:F4BA:FECD:79E5:D1F2 (talk) 20:34, 22 June 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 12:07, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Classification of Suburb Land Use

In the first line of the synopsis, a recent change suggests that a suburb may be a commercial area, in addition to the previously-added, subsequently-mentioned mixed-use and residential categories. The added citation does not seem to entirely corroborate this, and instead seems to refer to the commercial components of a mixed-used suburb. I suggest this change be reversed until more evidence can be shown for the existence of commercial-only suburbs, which, at least to my own knowledge, do not exist. Blackjackrobo (talk) 04:39, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

@Blackjackrobo: I agree, the ref provided doesn't appear to support commercial-only suburbs; it reads to me as simply emphasising the commercial relevance of mixed-use suburbs. I'd add that it's essentially an opinion piece for a real-estate blog; not exactly a good source. I'd support cutting "commercial" along with the ref attached to it. (edit: I've gone ahead and done it.) -- Scyrme (talk) 20:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Blackjackrobo: Looks like the same anonymous editor (with a variable IP) re-added "commercial" with two new refs, but looking at them I don't think they support the claim either. Their "better references" don't seem much better at all. Their edit summaries argue:
  • What about office parks? These aren’t mixed uses. They are purely for commercial use. Even in downtowns there are apartments and wouldn’t be classified solely as commercial.
  • Every suburban hotel, every suburban office park, and every strip mall, has to be zoned as commercial before it can be built.
But these examples seem to fall under mixed-use (afaik); in-fact Mixed-use development#Types of Contemporary Mixed-Use Zoning lists several of these. (As a note, the same editor has also been making similar changes at Commercial area.) -- Scyrme (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Well in the US , on major intersections in suburban areas they specifically have the intersections listed for commercial uses. You can’t build houses there , they are only listed as commercial. Maybe I’ll look further into it. But yeah I’m the same guy my up Ip adresss keeps changing.

First line

"A suburb (or suburban area or suburbia) is a commercial, mixed-use or residential area" is so vague as to effectively describe any area used by people as a "suburb". I don't see what's "very British" about the addition of "located between the exurbs and city centres of a metropolitan area"; it's vague enough to apply to any of the regional descriptions given in the article without being so vague as to be completely meaningless. A British description would talk about "countryside" instead of "exurbs" and would specify only residential areas. -- Scyrme (talk) 13:31, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Yeah I put that there because the definition of a suburb, itself is very vague. No one has a set definition. It usually just ends up being peoples description of their neighborhood. Everyone describes their neighborhood differently and is mostly up to opinion. The problem is that in US major cities there can be an area you would consider suburban but it’s still inside city proper since cities have annexed so much land, so it wouldn’t be a suburb. areas usually white and wealthy are described as suburban and poor areas are described as urban ignoring the fact that they are near city centers or not, at least in the us. This has been debated and there is no distinction between suburban and urban. Unless you can finally answer the question of what a suburb really is. ( Same guy btw my IP address changes) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.120.164.222 (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Your change suggests that there are suburbs, or [what I would call those neighbourhoods that are] defined, recognized, and bounded districts of a particular metropolitan centre, that are zoned purely for business use. I personally am not aware of any such suburb, and your examples that @Scyrme mentioned above seem more to be examples of business zoning within a mixed-use suburb. When I read your comments, I think there might be confusion about mixed-usage, and that since businesses are used only for business purposes, that they cannot be part of a mixed-use district. On the contrary, it is the combination of something like a business park near a shopping mall, transit centre and perhaps a residential neighbourhood that would make that whole community mixed-use.
I do agree that the definition of suburb seems a little vague, but I'd assume that municipalities, counties and broader forms of government have some sort of working definition that they can use. A quick search online showed me this page written by Statistics Canada, which is more relevant to me than you probably based on our nationalities, but it gives some insight into the discussion. In any case, just because the layman's definition is broad, I don't think that means you can say what you want about suburbs. And that would go for all of us. But since you are the one suggesting an implementation, it would be up to you to provide a reliable source that corroborates the idea that there are solely commercially-zoned areas in the outskirts of a city, with no residential, industrial or otherwise non-commercial zoning at all.
Looking forward to more discussion on this matter Blackjackrobo (talk) 09:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Regarding the inclusion of "commercial", I entirely agree with Blackjackrobo's statements above.
I acknowledge that the definition of "suburb" is vague, but I don't think it's so vague as to apply to literally any part of a metropolitan area. Some "suburbs" may be near to the city centre, close enough to be considered "inner city" areas, but they aren't the city centre itself. No city in the English-speaking world is regarded as being centred around a suburb; afaik that's something all varieties of English agree on, even if they disagree about which areas around the city center can qualify as "suburbs". Similarly, "exurb" is unambiguously defined as 'beyond' the suburbs, regardless of English variety. Additionally, "located between the exurbs and city centres of a metropolitan area" doesn't suggest any firm line between "urban" and "suburban" but encompasses any line that might be drawn. Even if no-one agrees on what a "suburb" is, we can at least (vaguely) agree on where a "suburb" is. -- Scyrme (talk) 03:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

(Same guy) Well there is another problem in the US. It’s the existence Principle cities. There can be multiple principle cities in a metropolitan area unlike Canada which only ever has one. Those principle cities wouldn’t be considered suburbs due to their employment numbers. Just look at the Los Angeles area on this link (for example) there are many principle cities. US Cencus page As far as the “commercial” thing goes, I’ll try to find a better reference for commercial zoning in areas outside of major downtowns. I know every strip mall built is zoned as commercial in the United States. Usually Midwest cities are just giant suburbs with 3 tall buildings at best. Most employment is not near downtown. Give me a few days to find a better reference on that zoning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.98.179.38 (talk) 06:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

no br esse termo ganhou sentido comuna nos eua e mundo normal se refere a bairros de classe media fora do centro denso ve que a parte do br so fala em favela de 3 cidades sequer citam bairros de metros regionais mas ha foto ate de suburbio rico da irlanda ate de bangladesh tem foto se fossem botar do br metiam um morro com favela do rio 187.64.15.47 (talk) 00:38, 25 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Suburb/Archive_1&oldid=1224104782"