Difference between Exurbs and Suburbs

[mileslunn]

It seems suburbs once bastion of GOP support now trending Democrat and in 2020 while a mix, Biden won more than Trump and with few exceptions like Macomb County, most saw Biden outperform Obama  from 2012.  For exurbs I believe more GOP but still some swing.  Also while I know difference in general at what point does one go from suburb to exurb?  My understanding is exurbs are more rural in nature but still part of metro area and much of population commutes to main city.  Suburbs are usually residential but have little in countryside while exurbs in terms of land use are mostly farmland or low density but have higher population density than rural areas outside metro areas.

So what separates two and would exurbs still be heavily GOP?  In Canada where I live Tories definitely dominated exurbs in Western Canada and Ontario while in Quebec mostly went Bloc Quebecois.  Suburbs Liberals did far better in.  In UK it seems both are Tory but exurbs go Tory no matter what even in bad elections like 1997 whereas suburbs have gone mostly Tory in recent elections but there is some Labour support depending on more specific demographics and under Tony Blair, they won all except most posh ones.

[EastAnglianLefty]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

[YL]

Yes, you need to remember that these terms aren't used consistently across the English speaking world, and some of that is because of different patterns of development.

I'd concur that the word "exurb" isn't used much in the UK, and in this part of the world "suburb" can be used for places quite close in to the city centre. E.g. Wikipedia calls Netherthorpe one, it's certainly not unique in doing so, and it's right next to the city centre. (And it certainly doesn't vote Tory.) Places outside the main urban area I'd probably call "commuter villages", "commuter towns" or "dormitory towns".

(Curiously I think that the adjective "suburban" has more connotations of being further out and having lower density development than the noun "suburb" does, but even so it certainly doesn't require being outside the official city boundaries or anything like that. And some UK cities, e.g. Leeds, have such loosely drawn official boundaries that it would be crazy to use the word in that way.)

[kwabbit]

In the US I'd say the most critical factor is land use. A suburb becomes an exurb when development is interrupted my woods or farmland, where houses come in clusters rather than as a network of continuous development. Some rich suburbs do this artificially by preserving farmland or woods, but in a true exurb there's just not enough demand for housing that far away from the CBD to turn it all into housing.

If you go by land use one interesting result is that you'd classify a lot of places farther away from the CBD but along the highway as a suburb and a lot places closer to the CBD but farther from the highway an exurb.

[King of Kensington]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

In London, it seems fairly common to refer to places like Finchley and Wimbledon as suburbs.

[YL]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

In London, it seems fairly common to refer to places like Finchley and Wimbledon as suburbs.

I'd find it very odd if anyone claimed that they weren't.

[Linus Van Pelt]

Honestly the word "exurb" is barely used in the US either, aside from online urbanist/geographer nerd types.

[oldtimer]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

In London, it seems fairly common to refer to places like Finchley and Wimbledon as suburbs.

I believe the appropiate dividing line for London and Manchester are their ring roads.

[mileslunn]

While not used as much in Canada, I can think of some examples that would likely fit in as exurbs

Northern Saanich peninsula in Victoria area

Township of Langley, Lions Bay, Anmore and Belcarra in GVRD

Okotoks, Airdrie, Cochrane and other smaller settlements would be exurbs of Calgary

The donut region around Edmonton is more exurban than suburban

East St. Paul, Headingley and even Selkirk are of Winnipeg

riding of Carleton where opposition leader Poilievre comes from is one for Ottawa

For Toronto, I would consider Durham, York-Simcoe, Caledon portion of Dufferin-Caledon and Halton Hills portion of Wellington-Halton Hills as exurbs as well as Uxbridge part of Pickering-Uxbridge, King part of King-Vaughan, and Stouffville part of Markham-Stouffville.

For Montreal ridings like Riviere du Nord, Montcalm, Mirabel, and Beloeil-Chambly are examples.  In fact two of the federal leaders coming from exurban ridings. 

Parts of Portneuf-Jacques Cartier and very western part of Charlevoix-Beauport-cote de Beaupre-Ile d'Olreans for Quebec City

Halifax has some in areas further from city

Portugal cove-St. Philips an example for St. John's.

Toronto and Montreal are where most numerous but Vancouver, Victoria, Calgary, Edmonton, Winnipeg, Ottawa, Kitchener, Windsor, Hamilton, Quebec City, Halifax, and St. John's have them.

London, Saskatoon & Regina on a more limited basis but you could easily just call those outright rural.

In terms of politics it seems exurbs are largely still Republican unlike suburbs but nonetheless following similar trend.

[walleye26]

To me exurbs are places with high populations that are not connected by land to other cities, but are within a 40-mile radius from a major city. For example, using Milwaukee as a clear example, places like Brookfield, Greenfield, Franklin, Mequon, etc are all suburbs since they all touch other cities  (and Milwaukee).

Places like West Bend, Hartford, Fredonia, Waterford, Oconomowoc, Mukwanago, and Rochester would all be exurban; they don’t touch Milwaukee, and are mostly “standalone” areas surrounded by some rural areas, but still contain a lot of people who commute to the city on a routine basis.

In places like the Twin Cities, places like Inner Grove Heights, Bloomington, Blaine would all be suburbs; they all touch other cities that “sprawl” from the major city. However, places like Chicago City, North Branch, and Hastings, which have some space and woods around them would be exurbs.

[YL]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

In London, it seems fairly common to refer to places like Finchley and Wimbledon as suburbs.

I believe the appropiate dividing line for London and Manchester are their ring roads.

Manchester is complicated, because some of the places in the metropolitan area are historically important centres in their own right, and the municipal boundaries are weird. Would you call Stockport or Bolton a suburb? What is Salford exactly? Do Manchester United Football Club play in Manchester?

How do the posh commuter areas to the south like Alderley Edge fit the "exurb" concept? I feel they're more upmarket than most places described thus.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The traditional inner dividing line in London was the boundary of the London County Council, though there were always some areas outside that were not generally thought of as suburbs (West Ham primarily) and a few areas just inside that were generally thought of as suburbs (Hampstead, Putney, Streatham, Eltham etc). The outer dividing line was always a trickier thing to define, especially as the boundary of the Greater London Council (which remains the 'official' boundary) was a political compromise rather than a rational, geographical calculation.

Manchester is even trickier as the Manchester Region/S.E. Lancashire is a polycentric conurbation in which it just happens that Manchester is the central and largest urban unit. And things then got a lot messier as the city council was one of the few large ones to be enthusiastic about building 'overspill' estates under the Town Development Act in the 1950s, meaning that large public housing estates owned and managed by Manchester City Council (and not the borough they were actually located in) for many years are a characteristic feature of the conurbation.

Birmingham is even trickier again and requires at least an essay to explain, but suffice to say that 'the Birmingham Metropolitan Area' and 'the West Midlands Conurbation' are related and overlapping but are not the same thing.

[oldtimer]

Exurbs aren't really a UK thing. AIUI, in America these are new communities for people who work in cities but live a long way away. Our labour market has fewer long-distace commuters, but also most new development is in or one the edge of existing settlements, rather than being new communities.

Broadly speaking, I think in a UK context I'd define a suburb as a residential community that is a contiguous part of the urban area but is remote from central areas, whereas if it's beyond that and not part of a separate urban area then it's a village.

In London, it seems fairly common to refer to places like Finchley and Wimbledon as suburbs.

I believe the appropiate dividing line for London and Manchester are their ring roads.

Manchester is complicated, because some of the places in the metropolitan area are historically important centres in their own right, and the municipal boundaries are weird. Would you call Stockport or Bolton a suburb? What is Salford exactly? Do Manchester United Football Club play in Manchester?

How do the posh commuter areas to the south like Alderley Edge fit the "exurb" concept? I feel they're more upmarket than most places described thus.

I'll do some New York City to Manchester equivalents:

Spoiler alert! Click Show to show the content.

Show

The M60 cuts right through the center of Stockport, so Stockport is complicated, closest comparison Hackensack.


Salford starts only 2-3 miles from Manchester's city center, it's high density too, so it's practically part of the urban core, no meaningfull change in density on the border.
The Bronx is the closest equivalent.

Bolton, Bury, Rochdale, Oldham fall in the suburb/satellite town categories.
You can notice the drop in population density when traversing the M60 towards them.
The New Jersey towns, perhaps what Trenton is to Philadephia, would be the closest equivalent.

Alderley Edge fits "exurb", the equivalent would be Dutchess in New York.

[King of Kensington]

The traditional inner dividing line in London was the boundary of the London County Council, though there were always some areas outside that were not generally thought of as suburbs (West Ham primarily) and a few areas just inside that were generally thought of as suburbs (Hampstead, Putney, Streatham, Eltham etc). The outer dividing line was always a trickier thing to define, especially as the boundary of the Greater London Council (which remains the 'official' boundary) was a political compromise rather than a rational, geographical calculation.

Manchester is even trickier as the Manchester Region/S.E. Lancashire is a polycentric conurbation in which it just happens that Manchester is the central and largest urban unit. And things then got a lot messier as the city council was one of the few large ones to be enthusiastic about building 'overspill' estates under the Town Development Act in the 1950s, meaning that large public housing estates owned and managed by Manchester City Council (and not the borough they were actually located in) for many years are a characteristic feature of the conurbation.

Birmingham is even trickier again and requires at least an essay to explain, but suffice to say that 'the Birmingham Metropolitan Area' and 'the West Midlands Conurbation' are related and overlapping but are not the same thing.

What is the population of the London metropolitan area and what does it contain?  There doesn't seem to be a consistent definition.

[mileslunn]

UK still does have exurbs but big difference is many of those were cities initially in their own right and only as transportation improved become more connected to larger city whereas in US most were built specifically as feeder towns to larger city.  Likewise rural areas in UK have much higher population densities than do in US so if you went purely on population density only areas that in US terms would be truly rural is parts of Southwest, large swaths of Wales outside South and north, Northern areas like Cumbria and Northumberland and a few other more rural areas in North.  Much of Lincolnshire in East Midlands and areas like western parts of Worecestershire and Shropshire in West Midlands.  However pretty much anywhere within 100 miles of Westminister has population density in excess of 500 people per square mile whereas in US asides from maybe NYC and LA, you don't see it go out that far and in those two still largely built up, not countryside with lots of towns close by like in UK.

So if go by commuting patterns and history, yes lack them, but go on pure population density, actually not much of UK is rural in way much of US is.  Mind you in Europe in general things are more densely populated, especially in countries that are part of the Blue Banana (England, Low Countries, Western Germany, Switzerland, and Northern Italy).  Rural interior of Spain and rural Scandinavia only areas in rural Europe which are somewhat like rural America.

[EastAnglianLefty]

The traditional inner dividing line in London was the boundary of the London County Council, though there were always some areas outside that were not generally thought of as suburbs (West Ham primarily) and a few areas just inside that were generally thought of as suburbs (Hampstead, Putney, Streatham, Eltham etc). The outer dividing line was always a trickier thing to define, especially as the boundary of the Greater London Council (which remains the 'official' boundary) was a political compromise rather than a rational, geographical calculation.

Manchester is even trickier as the Manchester Region/S.E. Lancashire is a polycentric conurbation in which it just happens that Manchester is the central and largest urban unit. And things then got a lot messier as the city council was one of the few large ones to be enthusiastic about building 'overspill' estates under the Town Development Act in the 1950s, meaning that large public housing estates owned and managed by Manchester City Council (and not the borough they were actually located in) for many years are a characteristic feature of the conurbation.

Birmingham is even trickier again and requires at least an essay to explain, but suffice to say that 'the Birmingham Metropolitan Area' and 'the West Midlands Conurbation' are related and overlapping but are not the same thing.

What is the population of the London metropolitan area and what does it contain?  There doesn't seem to be a consistent definition.

There are multiple definitions.

• There's the political unit of Greater London. 32 boroughs plus the City of London.
• There's the built-up area. Does not include a few small parts of Greater London, but spills over the edge of the city limits in a number of places.
  
• There's the area within the M25. Includes almost all of Greater London and all of the built-up area, plus large parts of southern Hertfordshire and northern Surrey.
• There's the London Travel to Work Area. Doesn't include Heathrow and parts of west London (which are grouped with Slough) but spills over the edges in all directions.
• There's the London commuter belt. Pretty much anywhere within an hour by rail of a London terminal can plausibly be claimed to be part of this

[morgieb]

From an Australian perspective I really have no idea. In Australia a suburb typically means "a residential area anywhere in a metropolitan area", regardless of how far out from the city it is. Given that the city council areas in the biggest cities (other than Brisbane) only contains the CBD and a few surrounding suburbs it means that the urban core is much trickier to define than in other countries.

I guess you could say exurbs are commuter areas not in the metropolitan area itself (it's not a term used here really)? What's interesting about that is that in many cases these areas are not Liberal batisons, but often quite the opposite.