What's more important: the city itself or the metropolitan area?

[QuantumX]

Originally Posted by Ichiban

San Francisco's metropolitan area is way more important than the city itself. The city itself is tiny compared to the metro and the region's biggest industry (tech) is anchored further south in Silicon Valley. I would include Los Angeles as well. California's major metropoli are more multinodal than what you would typically find in the eastern part of the country.

The same holds true for Miami, which I consider to be the most like a west coast city than any other east coast city. The city of Miami itself is actually smaller than San Francisco, but like San Francisco has a huge skyline because of the metropolitan area it services.

Downtown Los Angeles long had a reputation for being dead after dark and so has downtown Miami, even though that is rapidly changing. People just have so many options surrounding the city other than the city itself for nightlife. Los Angeles has Beverly Hills and West Hollywood and South Beach in Miami Beach with its now world famous nightlife is just a short hop across the bay from Miami. Then, just southwest of downtown Miami, there is Coral Gables, which has a pretty lively nightlife as well. South Florida is quite multinodal.

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by ducus

What do you think it's most important: the city you're living in, or the metropolitan area?
Let's take an example: Detroit city, with a population of ~713000 people, and the metro area ~4296000 people. If you're living in Detroit, what interest you most? Your city or the suburbs and the metro area in the surroundings? I supose you want playground, parking lots, parks, jobs in your city, right? I sure don't want and i'm not interested in a job or recreation place 20, or 40 miles outside the city, because of the time, distance, gasoline spended etc.

Lets think about this. The Center of Culture and Beauty, or the boring outer lying wasteland of strip malls and tract boxes in "country styled" slums. The center of new ideas and what has been the center of civilization since the beginning of the industrial age, or random chunks of clapboard and plastic plopped out on a cornfield, and whose designers main interests were to make bigger and more of a cash cow. The Sustainable resource independent walk able community friendly neighborhoods of the city, or the dumps built for the car to guzzle gas all day until the oil runs out. This should be very simple. no matter how many strip malls, tract developments, or shopping malls get built. our cities are always more important.

PS Do tourists in New York like to go visit Jersy or long island. I dont think so

[hudkina]

It's not as black and white as that. There are plenty of historic, walkable, cultural, sustainable suburbs.

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by hudkina

It's not as black and white as that. There are plenty of historic, walkable, cultural, sustainable suburbs.

A few but not many

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by hudkina

If you were to fly into "Detroit", have a meeting at Ford Headquarters, spend the afternoon at the zoo, go shopping at the area's premier mall, catch a Pistons game that evening, and then stay the night at the most luxurious hotel in the area, you would never set foot in the city... The idea that the areas outside the primary city's municipal boundary are irrelevant to the identity of the city is silly. Nobody says, "Hey I'm flying into Romulus and heading over to Dearborn before going up to Royal Oak and then over to Troy and then up to Auburn Hills and then back down to Birmingham." They say, "Hey I have a business trip in Detroit..."

On the other hand, if you are a resident of a metropolitan area, you obviously have a stronger identity with your municipality of residence. You obviously care more about the taxes, schools, parks, emergency services, etc. of your particular municipality than you would about any other. But you still would have a sense of regional identity, and you still do have a stake in certain regional issues.

remember you're talking about Detroit which is in much worse shape than your average american city

[CNB30]

Originally Posted by hudkina

It's not as black and white as that. There are plenty of historic, walkable, cultural, sustainable suburbs.

If youre talking about streetcar suburbs i consider them part of the city.

[mhays]

A lot of newer suburbs are in their second generation, with denser growth supplanting old business nodes etc. Also, a lot of first-generation suburbia is denser and mixed-use, sometimes in a ptomkin-like way and sometimes real. It's not just the older places.

[hudkina]

Originally Posted by CNB30

remember you're talking about Detroit which is in much worse shape than your average american city

The shape of the city has nothing to do with what I'm talking about...

Originally Posted by CNB30

If youre talking about streetcar suburbs i consider them part of the city.

Yeah... It doesn't work that way. Only the parts of the city that are part of the city are actually part of the city...

[Avian001]

"What's more important: the city itself or the metropolitan area?"

What do you mean by "important?" Important relative to what??? An identity? Influence? Rapid transit? Widgets per capita?

[Xusein]

Metropolitan area simply because the city proper only shows part of the picture. Most Americans don't live in the central city, they live in the suburbs.

Originally Posted by Shawn

Or how about Providence? 18 sq miles in total land area! Hartford is even smaller, something like 16 sq miles. These cities are forced to work with their neighboring communities a lot more closely and cohesively than a city with larger borders does.

Yup. Hartford proper is pretty much simply the downtown area and a number of inner city neighborhoods. Less than 10% of the CSA actually lives in Hartford.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by hudkina

It's not as black and white as that. There are plenty of historic, walkable, cultural, sustainable suburbs.

You are exactly right about that...some people don't like to admit it, but MANY suburbs are dense and walkable and often historic towns that are nothing like the bland strip malls someone described above. There are certainly areas that are bland and lifeless, just like in any city anywhere, but it usually isn't anywhere near the entire town or even most of it. There are exceptions of course.

Some people simply have a strong hatred for suburbs and that causes a very narrow and unrealistic view of them.

[Manitopiaaa]

Agreed, I recommend a book by Joel Kotkin called "The Next Hundred Millions" that talks about this very topic in detail. Many suburbs like in the Los Angeles MSA are just as dense as Los Angeles neighborhoods. It's definitely not as black and white as one thinks.

[goonsta]

Those LA suburbs have grown into cities of their own right, with their own individual "sub" suburbs.

LA's interesting, because its living proof that no (growing) city can sustain suburban development over a long period. One way or another, a growing city will be forced into urbanity. There was a time when areas such as the Westside, the Valley, were similar to modern day Atlanta and Houston. Decades of development and millions of people later, they have densities similar to inner city neighborhoods, and leaders and residents are demanding urban development and transit to ease congestion.

[chicagogeorge]

LA has geographic restrictions that forced smaller lot development, which most Midwestern and Southern cities do not have.

[WeimieLvr]

Originally Posted by goonsta

Those LA suburbs have grown into cities of their own right, with their own individual "sub" suburbs.

LA's interesting, because its living proof that no (growing) city can sustain suburban development over a long period. One way or another, a growing city will be forced into urbanity. There was a time when areas such as the Westside, the Valley, were similar to modern day Atlanta and Houston. Decades of development and millions of people later, they have densities similar to inner city neighborhoods, and leaders and residents are demanding urban development and transit to ease congestion.

Some of Atlanta's suburbs are dense/walkable cities themselves and have been for years. Many of them predate Atlanta itself. Don't assume Atlanta (or any city for that matter) is one-dimensional.

[LtBk]

Unfortunately most suburbs are auto-centric crap. There are few walkable and urban suburbs in the US.

[hudkina]

There are plenty of walkable suburbs, at least to an extent.

[spencer114]

Most cities are auto-centric too.

[chicagogeorge]

Even New York City outside Manhattan


Los Angeles is the best example of a multi nodal city. When we visit my wife's uncle in Orange County, we very rarely drive into LA. In fact the locals are quite opinionated of LA, and 99% of the comments I heard were basically don't need or want to go into LA.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by chicagogeorge

Even New York City outside Manhattan


Los Angeles is the best example of a multi nodal city. When we visit my wife's uncle in Orange County, we very rarely drive into LA. In fact the locals are quite opinionated of LA, and 99% of the comments I heard were basically don't need or want to go into LA.

good cause we dont want the OC crap up here anyways lol, the orange curtain is alive and well