Perceptions: Is Buckhead suburban? (Atlanta: live, suburbs, rated)

[Mutiny77]

Originally Posted by ATLJR

That's the issue though, JoeP. Using the term suburban to describe a style of development is just lazy, considering the definition of suburb and the range of suburbs all across the country. There are many suburbs whose fabric is very urban in nature (Decatur for one) and those which are very low density, cul-de-sac centered residential base. The definition of suburban is simply, "of or characteristic of a suburb". However, if suburbs can range in density and developmental patterns, to use the word "suburban" as a catch all for a certain type of developmental pattern is pointless. Sure, you can use it, but it's incorrect.

How so? Terms evolve in meaning over time; that's simply a function of language and in a very technical sense, the term "suburban" has come to be strongly associated with postwar autocentric development. It's not lazy to recognize that and also retain the original meaning of the term.

[toll_booth]

"Yankee" actually means American. Thus I'm both a Southerner and a Yankee.

[ATLJR]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

How so? Terms evolve in meaning over time; that's simply a function of language and in a very technical sense, the term "suburban" has come to be strongly associated with postwar autocentric development. It's not lazy to recognize that and also retain the original meaning of the term.

It's lazy because it's a word that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone, thus the conversation we're having here. If you want to have an intelligent discussion concerning the developmental patterns of a certain place, or any topic really, its important that both parties acknowledge the terms being used. There are suburbs all over the place and as I have said before, many do not have the attributes that one would associate with "suburban". With such a wide range of suburbs, many with different attributes, it's lazy to use the word suburban to describe specific developmental patterns. Why not, for example, use the word postwar autocentric development? Insular developments? Segregated uses? Because it's easier to just say suburban? There's no argument from me that the term "suburban" has come to be strongly associated with postwar autocentric development, but using a catch all term (that is incorrectly labeled at that) to describe a very broad issue with many complexities is lazy.

[nature's message]

Originally Posted by bigstick

Does this look suburban? I don't think so. Plus this pic does not show many buildings that are now built.

Yes. Yes it does.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by isawooty

Buckhead is a district with an extremely urbanized core, and unaffordable suburban in nature residential neighborhoods.

It's not one or the other, it's both.

My take as well. It's clearly both. But here is the thing to remember... ALL American cities are mixed. I'm sorry but it's true. Even New York City has large chunks of suburban neighborhoods. In Queens, In Staten Island, and even in Brooklyn. They might be very close together, but row upon row of nothing but single family homes IS SUBURBAN character. I would think that "urban" would require some type of commercial elements also. Atlanta has lots of old cores that have become nodes of neighborhoods today. From the way it looks, I would say that Buckhead DID develop as an "edge city" so to speak. It sprang from the Lenox Mall and changed into a business park like area. It is now evolving into an urban neighborhood. It is the Southern equivalent of Tysons Corner in Virginia. Both areas are following the exact same development pattern. The ONLY difference is that technically Tysons Corner is a SUBURB while Buckhead is WITHIN the city limits of Atlanta. To be a true suburb it must be outside the boundaries of the city proper. However, there can be suburban style development within city limits of course.

[JoeP]

It's lazy because it's a word that doesn't mean the same thing to everyone

To the vast majority of people, it means the same thing.

[Nast]

Originally Posted by AtlantaIsHot

They might be very close together, but row upon row of nothing but single family homes IS SUBURBAN character.

Why? I live in a part of Lake Claire which is made up almost entirely of single family homes built on a grid system without a lick of commercial or retail space in its borders. Would that then be "suburban" despite the fact that it was developed pre-WW2? Would you argue Candler Park, which developed around the same time in much the same fashion, is also suburban because it, too, is also primarily SFHs? After all, we don't have a single highrise in either neighborhood.

This whole argument is silly, as it based on a supposition that others have a restrictive understanding of the term "suburban" by itself restricting the understanding of the word "urban."

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by Mutiny77

Buckhead is not a suburb; it is a district within the city of Atlanta. But in terms of built environment, it's a mix. The residential areas are old-school suburban (not too dissimilar from streetcar suburbs), the commercial district centered around Lenox is more new-school suburban, and the old "downtown" has urban elements.

Buckhead very similar to the city of Atlanta - a mixture of single family homes and urban/suburban areas in an overall lower-density environment. It's one characteristic that attracts SO many people to our city.

[JoeTarheel]

Originally Posted by isawooty

Buckhead is a district with an extremely urbanized core, and unaffordable suburban in nature residential neighborhoods.

It's not one or the other, it's both.

It may not be traditionally urban in the core, but I wouldn't consider it suburban either. It's kind of a hybrid that people seem to love.

[AtlantaIsHot]

Originally Posted by Nast

Why? I live in a part of Lake Claire which is made up almost entirely of single family homes built on a grid system without a lick of commercial or retail space in its borders. Would that then be "suburban" despite the fact that it was developed pre-WW2? Would you argue Candler Park, which developed around the same time in much the same fashion, is also suburban because it, too, is also primarily SFHs? After all, we don't have a single highrise in either neighborhood.

This whole argument is silly, as it based on a supposition that others have a restrictive understanding of the term "suburban" by itself restricting the understanding of the word "urban."

Yes I would argue that. I just feel that "suburban" is virtually devoid of commercial activity/restaurants/businesses. I feel that true "urbanity" must contain a mixture of apartments, businesses, street level restaurants/clubs, etc., and some street activity. I didn't say anything about a need for highrises. Highrises don't make urbanity either. I don't regard an area with nothing but rows of houses as urban. Every American city contains them and they are definitely part of the city fabric, but they are not "urban" to me. You'll note I did say "me" so this is my opinion. But I will add that if you regard rows of nothing but houses as urban when it's inside a city proper, you must also regard it as urban when it's in the 'burbs. I don't think we can have it both ways. I feel both areas are part of the makeup of any developed area and both have their places.