SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 16 of 16 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
9,194 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
How archaic is it that we look at city and metro area as two separate entities?

City limits only means that there is a governmental shift of services. Beyond the city limits of virtually every American city is a felt that is call suburban, but isn't. Vast areas of suburbia is anything but suburban, but thoroughly urban. Why don't we recognize that the distinctions we make between city and suburb are far less than we think?

On a related subject, as our metro areas continue to fill in between each other and join up, what effect does that have on cities? If you live in a megalopolis, do both city and metro area lose some meaning as the region becomes more and more interconnected and interrelated?

Perhaps the answers might be most appropriately found in metros that have traditonally had more than one major city. Are these cities in less control of their destinies because their metro areas have more than one major hub? Personally don't think that would be the case for San Francisco, but believe it would affect the other Bay Area hubs, Oakland and SJ (as well as Mpls, StP, Dallas, FW).

Does Baltimore being drawn into a larger metro area with DC hurt Baltimore's profile?
 

·
Registered User
Joined
·
1,652 Posts
My worst fear is if the LA metro consumes the San Deigo metro, we've watched as the inland empire became "desert LA". As well as ventura into "northern LA". :eek:hno:

As for the city itself, San Diego is really more of a metro and not a city. All 18 cities in the county have really become one, as well as the unicorperated towns around them. The only split is between North County and the rest of SD county, and thats filling fast.

Cities used to be the center of a metro, but now they share them with other major centers as well. Its not city anymore, its metro. :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
Edsg25 (do you have an easier name to remember? :)) - this is one of my biggest headaches - city identification. For some cities, there are actually three distinctive levels, primarily the multi-nodal sattelite city metro areas. As for Atlanta there are two realities - the relatively small city with a small urban core & the massive sprawling mass of development, the 'city' & the 'metro'. I do feel the two are often confused & likewise cause a problem for those that defend it.

One of the impressionable identifiers for urbanity is the urban spatial relationship - a belonging. Modern suburbia confounds this by eliminating the sense of place & replacing it with an unidentifiable product. This has become more & more an issue as the concept of 'Atlanta' is not the city, but of the office park wastelands of Alpheratta & the dull subdivisions of Gwinnett county. Suburban non-sense of place replacing urban sense of place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
240 Posts
I often get pissed off when Baltimore is clustered together with Washington. They are two distinct cities with their own cultures, street life, etc. but because of their geographic location and sprawl, people have increasingly put them together. Hell no! I think we should build a great wall between the two just to get the message across. The issue is further complicated as Washington commuters move into the Baltimore area. While the extra development is welcome, people need to recognize that there are two different centers of gravity that, while close to eachother, have very contrasting characteristics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
396 Posts
What about cities where the suburbs are within the city limits? For example a person who lives in Kansas City North, is still officially inside the city limits of KC, but they live in a very suburban area, while a person who lives in North Kansas City lives in a very urban area, but it is officially a suburb.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,857 Posts
The Baltimore/Washington Metro is a very interesting one. These are two very old and established cities. Unlike cities in the west and the south, DC and Baltimore city propers will NEVER, EVER take on its suburbs, nor will the suburbs ever be confused with the city propers. What makes this metro so interesting is that the two major cities are not in a county (obviously D.C. is its own thing and Baltimore is an independent city). Atlanta, Phoenix, LA, and other cities like those can just swallow up its burbs in our area, that'll never happen.

People will always live in Baltimore and work in DC or vice-versa, but they'll always be distinct places.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
568 Posts
CU_rak said:
I often get pissed off when Baltimore is clustered together with Washington. They are two distinct cities with their own cultures, street life, etc. but because of their geographic location and sprawl, people have increasingly put them together. Hell no! I think we should build a great wall between the two just to get the message across. The issue is further complicated as Washington commuters move into the Baltimore area. While the extra development is welcome, people need to recognize that there are two different centers of gravity that, while close to eachother, have very contrasting characteristics.

I just recently visited DC. and while i was there i thought it was so convinient that my friend drove us to Baltimore for sightseeing and that it was just so simple. i think you guys should definetely be thankful that two major urban centers that are as different are so close to one another :cheers:
 

·
Texas Bred
Joined
·
60 Posts
edsg25 said:
How archaic is it that we look at city and metro area as two separate entities?

City limits only means that there is a governmental shift of services. Beyond the city limits of virtually every American city is a felt that is call suburban, but isn't. Vast areas of suburbia is anything but suburban, but thoroughly urban. Why don't we recognize that the distinctions we make between city and suburb are far less than we think?

I don't exactly agree with this. In many cases when people think of a city, they think ONLY of the metro area and not always the suburbs. They think of many cities but for some reason associate their thoughts as 1 city and not a metro. So IMO, they think more of metro areas than actual cities.

Example 1 - the city of London covers just under 1 square mile. That is not a typo.. that is 1 as in ONE. When most people think of London, they think of the immediate metro area and cities like Westminster(the city west of London where most of everything that everyone thinks about London actually is). That area is called Greater London..1,584 km²/ approx. 611.6 mi²(and people in this forum like to claim that most cities in "The South" are too big! :bash: ). When people from the US think of the word metropolitan,(in London's case) that area is 27,224 km²/ 10, 511 mi².

Example 2 - the city of Los Angeles. no explanation needed. When people around the world(and the US) think or talk of Los Angeles, other than cars and the skyline almost no one ever thinks of the city. They usually think of seemingly every other city/area in the metro..Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Venice Beach, Burbank, Anaheim, Orange County, etc.

Example 3 - Miami, Florida. When most people think of the city of Miami, it is never only the city. They think of Miami plus the rest of Miami-Dade County.

Just for comparison, can someone please pm to me or post the km² or mi² of the last 2 metro areas?

An even bigger example of this would be Hong Kong. There are Kowloon, Sha Tin, Tuen Mun, Tai Po, Kwai Chung, Tseun Wan, Tseung Kwan O, etc. There is also Victoria city on Hong Kong Island.....and of course, Hong Kong city.. Oh wait.. :runaway:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
mvasquez said:
Example 2 - the city of Los Angeles. no explanation needed. When people around the world(and the US) think or talk of Los Angeles, other than cars and the skyline almost no one ever thinks of the city. They usually think of seemingly every other city/area in the metro..Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Venice Beach, Burbank, Anaheim, Orange County, etc.
Hollywood and Venice Beach are within the city limits of Los Angeles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,261 Posts
Nic said:
Is UA (urban area) not the way to define a city? It seems that would be the best IMO.
I would agree - but those whose metro areas are divided among several urban areas such as Charlotte would disagree.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,670 Posts
mvasquez said:
I don't exactly agree with this. In many cases when people think of a city, they think ONLY of the metro area and not always the suburbs. They think of many cities but for some reason associate their thoughts as 1 city and not a metro. So IMO, they think more of metro areas than actual cities.

Example 1 - the city of London covers just under 1 square mile. That is not a typo.. that is 1 as in ONE. When most people think of London, they think of the immediate metro area and cities like Westminster(the city west of London where most of everything that everyone thinks about London actually is). That area is called Greater London..1,584 km²/ approx. 611.6 mi²(and people in this forum like to claim that most cities in "The South" are too big! :bash: ). When people from the US think of the word metropolitan,(in London's case) that area is 27,224 km²/ 10, 511 mi².

Example 2 - the city of Los Angeles. no explanation needed. When people around the world(and the US) think or talk of Los Angeles, other than cars and the skyline almost no one ever thinks of the city. They usually think of seemingly every other city/area in the metro..Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, Venice Beach, Burbank, Anaheim, Orange County, etc.

Example 3 - Miami, Florida. When most people think of the city of Miami, it is never only the city. They think of Miami plus the rest of Miami-Dade County.

Just for comparison, can someone please pm to me or post the km² or mi² of the last 2 metro areas?

An even bigger example of this would be Hong Kong. There are Kowloon, Sha Tin, Tuen Mun, Tai Po, Kwai Chung, Tseun Wan, Tseung Kwan O, etc. There is also Victoria city on Hong Kong Island.....and of course, Hong Kong city.. Oh wait.. :runaway:
Definitely true of Miami. People always talk of one of Miami's strengths being its beaches. The City of Miami has no beaches. The beaches are in the City of Miami Beach, or the Village of Key Biscayne, or the City of Sunny Isles Beach..etc. Miami-Dade County is made up of 35 independent cities. The City of Miami is only one of them, and a rather small (geographically) one at that. These 35 Cities (36 once Cutler Ridge fully incorporates) are under the Jurisdiction of the County government in a sort of unique dual-federalism form of government. When locals refer to "Miami" they are usually referring to the County rather than the city. I actually live in the City of South Miami. Similarly many people refer to Broward County as "Fort Lauderdale" regardless of which of Broward's many cities they are in. On top of all that, in Miami-Dade well over 1 Million residents don't live in any city at all but live in "Unincorporated Miami-Dade County" who of course write their addresses as "Miami, FL".
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
18,171 Posts
dave8721 said:
Definitely true of Miami. People always talk of one of Miami's strengths being its beaches. The City of Miami has no beaches. The beaches are in the City of Miami Beach, or the Village of Key Biscayne, or the City of Sunny Isles Beach..etc. Miami-Dade County is made up of 35 independent cities. The City of Miami is only one of them, and a rather small (geographically) one at that. These 35 Cities (36 once Cutler Ridge fully incorporates) are under the Jurisdiction of the County government in a sort of unique dual-federalism form of government. When locals refer to "Miami" they are usually referring to the County rather than the city. I actually live in the City of South Miami. Similarly many people refer to Broward County as "Fort Lauderdale" regardless of which of Broward's many cities they are in. On top of all that, in Miami-Dade well over 1 Million residents don't live in any city at all but live in "Unincorporated Miami-Dade County" who of course write their addresses as "Miami, FL".
do you think any of this problem is because it is referred to as "miami-dade county" instead of just "dade county"? on maps and whatnot, it's referred to as just dade county. and i read somewhere that some people want to make dade county the official name (making miami-dade obsolete and incorrect), to avoid any confusion.
 

·
hmmm......
New York
Joined
·
10,415 Posts
^Miami-Dade county only came into effect a few years ago (between 5 and 10 years ago, sorry I can't remember). Before that it was just Dade County, but people still referred to all cities and areas within the County when they mentioned Miami. There's actually a push to call the whole county Miami County

Therefore, old maps may still call it Dade County, they probably haven't been updated.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,929 Posts
mvasquez said:
My bad..

Here's a question.. West Hollywood vs Times Square.. which one was seedier??
I don't know, was West Hollywood ever seedy? I know Hollywood still is seedy.
 
1 - 16 of 16 Posts
Top