The strange non-urbanity of NYC Suburbs (NJ/Queens)

[nei]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Vienna was much, much bigger than Philly during the 19th century. In fact it was larger than even NYC during much of the century. And it was an impossibly grand seat of a powerful empire. That's largely why it looks and feels so big, at least from a pedestrian perspective.

Vienna is probably the "grandest" city in Europe outside of Paris. It was built with incredible opulence and ambition.

Here's a 19th century population comparison of Vienna and Philly-

1800
Vienna-272,000
Philly- 41,000

1850
Vienna 551,000
Philly- 121,000

1900
Vienna- 1,769,000
Philly- 1,294,000

Philadelphia in 1850 had tiny city limits, barely more Center City today. It merged with the county in 1854. The county's population in 1850 was 408,762. So, in the second half of the 19th century, Philadelphia was smaller than Vienna but hugely so. First half of the 19th century, much smaller. Philadelphia was among the top 10 largest cities in North America and Europe during this time period.

[Cirrus]

As others have said, there's no case for claiming DC's surrounding suburban jurisdictions are more urban than NY's. They're not. It's undebatable.

I would posit, however, that much like Portland or Vancouver, DC's suburbs get a lot of attention (and perhaps seem more interesting than NY's to some development/planning people) because DC's suburbs are urbanizing *now*, whereas NY's have more or less always been urban.

If you're sitting in suburban Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver, DC's suburbs offer meaningful examples for how you might urbanize your own community, because DC's urbanizing suburbs started off as low-density sprawl, and are only recently changing. NY's suburbs, while more dense and urban than DC's, don't offer as useful an example to suburbs elsewhere, because they've been dense walkable neighborhoods for decades.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

If you're sitting in suburban Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver, DC's suburbs offer meaningful examples for how you might urbanize your own community, because DC's urbanizing suburbs started off as low-density sprawl, and are only recently changing.

Its probably the best model of how much of our sprawl will urbanize in the decades to come.

[uaarkson]

Hey guys. Downtown Houston is urban as fuck.

[nei]

Originally Posted by Cirrus

As others have said, there's no case for claiming DC's surrounding suburban jurisdictions are more urban than NY's. They're not. It's undebatable.

I would posit, however, that much like Portland or Vancouver, DC's suburbs get a lot of attention (and perhaps seem more interesting than NY's to some development/planning people) because DC's suburbs are urbanizing *now*, whereas NY's have more or less always been urban.

If you're sitting in suburban Atlanta or Kansas City or Denver, DC's suburbs offer meaningful examples for how you might urbanize your own community, because DC's urbanizing suburbs started off as low-density sprawl, and are only recently changing. NY's suburbs, while more dense and urban than DC's, don't offer as useful an example to suburbs elsewhere, because they've been dense walkable neighborhoods for decades.

Many NYC suburbs aren't that dense, and even when moderately dense don't have much of a town center. Take Long Island: there are some old town centers near train stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ro...3a94406928fe9f

plenty of spots don't have much. Suffolk County and parts of eastern Nassau aren't all that urban, and could use some infill. The DC suburbs do new TOD development really well — perhaps the best in the country. Inner NYC suburbs have been rather stagnant and anti-development, their urbanity or lack of urbanity is from what was done half a century ago or more. Outer ones could be urbanized more easily and aren't that urban, but the distances are so large, TOD on long-distance commuter rail is less practical.

[chris08876]

This area is probably the densest part in NJ outside of NYC and the satellites bordering the Hudson. Coast is dense too, but if we head north to Warren, Sussex, and West to Hunterdon County, it starts to look more like Western PA. Density drops dramatically, but the area bordering the North East Corridor is city like. You will find the densest suburbs of NJ here. Almost seems to follow a South Western trajectory as it heads towards Trenton. Central Somerset county is probably the cutoff point to where density drops, but anything headed Northeast towards NYC, and Essex/Union/Hudson/Bergen County is dense in its nature.

Map of General Area: https://www.google.com/maps/@40.5202...!3m1!1e3?hl=en

[eschaton]

Originally Posted by nei

Inner NYC suburbs have been rather stagnant and anti-development, their urbanity or lack of urbanity is from what was done half a century ago or more. Outer ones could be urbanized more easily and aren't that urban, but the distances are so large, TOD on long-distance commuter rail is less practical.

The same is true for virtually every metro in the Northeast or Midwest. Basically all of the "suburban" neighborhoods which are reasonably dense and walkable were built out prior to 1945. Minor-scale reinvestment in the existing walkable fabric here can result in further density, but basically nowhere wants to create a true urban community where it didn't exist before.

In contrast, the Sun Belt (in the broadest sense, meaning the South and West as a whole) is comparably full of examples where densification of "suburban" areas has taken place. I cannot help but conclude the major reason is less municipal fragmentation. The Northeast and Midwest allow suburban residents to have a great deal of control over zoning in their neighborhood (as municipalities are typically fairly small) whereas elsewhere in the country you typically end up with broader city limits and fewer (and larger) incorporated suburbs.

[Cirrus]

Originally Posted by eschaton

The Northeast and Midwest allow suburban residents to have a great deal of control over zoning in their neighborhood (as municipalities are typically fairly small) whereas elsewhere in the country you typically end up with broader city limits and fewer (and larger) incorporated suburbs.

This is a good point, and it is one way DC follows the south more than north. Counties are the dominant local zoning body for most of the DC region, meaning individual neighborhoods full of NIMBYs have relatively limited power compared to places where townships or incorporated cities have zoning authority.

[mhays]

In Seattle's case, the state (i.e. voters) have mandated growth management, with the specifics (and tightness/looseness of the limits) controlled at the county level. A city like Bellevue controls its own zoning. But it has to accommodate a targeted amount of infill under the county plan. Bellevue has chosen to do that mostly in its downtown and other nodes.

[fleonzo]

Originally Posted by nei

Many NYC suburbs aren't that dense, and even when moderately dense don't have much of a town center. Take Long Island: there are some old town centers near train stations:

https://www.google.com/maps/place/Ro...3a94406928fe9f

plenty of spots don't have much. Suffolk County and parts of eastern Nassau aren't all that urban, and could use some infill. The DC suburbs do new TOD development really well — perhaps the best in the country. Inner NYC suburbs have been rather stagnant and anti-development, their urbanity or lack of urbanity is from what was done half a century ago or more. Outer ones could be urbanized more easily and aren't that urban, but the distances are so large, TOD on long-distance commuter rail is less practical.

This use to be true up until about tens years ago - where big development projects are now occurring in the inner ring suburbs....see my initial comment to the first OP;


I hope he's not trolling because otherwise I'm wasting my time to put this response but here goes....

I was born in DC and lived down there until '96 when I moved up here to NYC. I've lived in Manhattan (W/E Village, Financial District, etc...) and I even lived outside the City up in the Hudson Valley before mvoing back to the City. Now I live in LIC (Long Island City- Hunter's Point to be very precise). My career has been in Sales/ Dist so I have customers all over the Tri-State Region (if you don't know what that means -Google it). My wife and I still have most of our family down in the DC Area (N.VA/ Silver Spring/Rockville/Potomac, MD) so we still go down often and yes we've seen the growth down there , too, over the past 18 years.

To understand what you're saying try to follow me...
- DC (city proper is only 61 sq miles) is four sections: NE, SE, NW, NW
- NYC (city proper is over 330 Sq Miles...i.e. "5" times the size): Manhattan, Queens, BKLYN, Bronx, and Staten Island. These are called "Boroughs" and NOT Suburbs
The NYC "Metro Area" is comprised of 30 Counties....if you went from one end to the other extreme end it would be like going from Baltimore to Richmond! Outside NYC (proper) the areas you're mentioning comparable to DC's burbs (like Bethesda, Tyson's Corner, Rockville,Silver Spring, etc....which Yes, they are urban town centers for technicallly being in the "Suburbs" ) would be the following up here: Jersey City (far larger in density and highrises than anything in the DC area), Hoboken, Fort Lee, Edge Water, Weehawken, New Rochelle, White Plains, Stamford, etc...ALL of which have taller towers than the height restrictions in N.VA or S. Maryland. Final food for thought- the NYC Metro has 20 "Million" people vs DC's 5.7 Million. Trust me, as a native Washingtonian, but now a transplant to NYC....there s NO comparsion in regards to "Urban" feel.. Yes, go 35 miles north into the Hudson Valley, 60 miles East into Long Island, 45 miles NE into interior CT, 40 miles West into NJ, 60 Miles South into Central NJ and yes, you'll feel like going to Gainsville/ Haymarket, VA or Fredrick, MD.
Hope this helps if you're for real! Good luck nonetheless