I would say exurban as while close enough one can commute to St. Louis, it is still largely countryside not housing subdivisions. Never mind population density is only 110 people/square mile which is not that much above US overall density and well below most European and Asian countries. In England, I believe there are around only 5 constituencies at most that have population densities below that so unless you want to classify Low Countries, Germany, England as 100% urban (and anyone who has travelled there would say that is not the case), seems awfully low density for suburban.
I generally believe a county needs to have a density above 500 people/square mile to be considered suburban unless much of county is empty and part people live in is mostly suburban. But such counties largely confined to Western US where you have mountains and desert. Heck even 1100/square mile if evenly distributed is still a very low density suburb and most counties at that density likely have some countryside and that is 10x its density.
I don't agree with that. I didn't have a real frame of reference for those numbers, but I checked Williamson County, and it's just 448 people per square mile. Yes, we certainly have some countryside (especially the western part of the county), but the vast majority of people in Williamson County would say that they live in the suburbs, if they're being honest.
448 is pretty close to 500 so 500 is just approximate. But 110 is definitely not suburban except for maybe a few in West where county is mostly desert and mountains and only a small part has people living in them.
Poll
