Zaanstad and Haarlem can hardly be called suburbs of Amsterdam. That would be like describing Oxford and Cambridge as suburbs of London. They are both cities in their own right, in fact Haarlem - and not Amsterdam - is the provincial capital of North Holland (Noord Holland).
With all the respekt, dear Quizmaster, you are absolutely wrong on this subject.
I live in The Netherlands (and lived there for my whole life by the way), and absolutly no one will consider Zaandam, and most definitly nor Haarlem, as suburbs of Amsterdam.
As said, Haarlem is the Province Capital, and by no means part of the metropolitan area of Amsterdam. Than Utrecht, Alkmaar or Leiden could also be suburbs of Amsterdam, nonsense of course....
Utrecth is much farther away and much more populous. There is significantly more green space separating Utrecht from Amsterdam. There is a little bit of green space separating Amsterdam from Haarlem, but none at all separating it from Zaansted. Just the river.
From Wikipedia: Zaanstad is a municipality in the Netherlands, in the province of North Holland. Its main town is Zaandam. It is part of the metropolitan area of Amsterdam.
@quizmaster everything is closer together in the netherlands, soon it will be one big city ;)
(perhaps the 3 provinces in the north east, but give it time, but maybe by then we life in some ultrafuturistic times, where everything is green and only every 30 kilometer there are spaceneedle (no reference to the thing with the same name) where all the people of that area live. So no infrastructure. Earth back to its untainted self and us locked up in ivory towers. With perhaps outings in some flying pods) hmm. Maybe I should write a book haha
::shrug:: Haarlem is 10 miles from Amsterdam, measured city center-to-city center. Has Haarlem's growth been affected by the growth of Amsterdam? Are there a significant number of people who live in Haarlem who commute to work in Amsterdam? My family lives in Gainseville, which is certainly a suburb of Washington DC, is more than 25 miles away.Amsterdam has an urban population of 1.2 million. Haarlem's is just over 100,000. Some population figures for suburbs of Washington: Alexandria 144,000, Arlington 216,000, Fairfax 4.1 million. Sounds like a suburb to me.
It works. Perfectly fine. If cities grow into each other they do in fact become urban agglomerations. This has been happening since before the United States was even a country. For example about 2000-3000 years ago when several different settlements on hills around the Tiber River grew, merged, and became Rome. Or when Buda and Pest became Budapest.
I think this might be a good and simple definition for a suburb:
"A suburb is an area of a town or city, a little away from Downtown, where there are fewer big buildings and mainly houses, schools and shops"
If the other city has no significant industry of their own and only cornershops, little supermarkets and hairdressers and a bakery etc. Then yea if it is close enough I think you can consider it a suburb. But if it has factories offices and all the stuff the other big city has ( just slightly less) and is not connected. No I would not call it a suburb.
In the 2nd case when it ís connected, I still dont think it is called a suburb is it, it would an aglomeration or even conglomeration if I am not mistaken.
I think satellite-city is a better term to use. "Satellite cities differ from suburbs in that they have distinct employment bases, commutersheds, and cultural offerings from the central metropolis, as well as an independent municipal government"
Satellite cities are completely independent and self-sufficient.
(ps in many countries a suburb per definition can't be a city, only neighbourhoods. For cities that have become joined with another city and/or are dependent on it there are other terms)
Serious question. Would you say Philadelphia is a suburb of New York city? They are relatively close (75 km edge to edge, and if you go by metro it seems to be 0 km border around trenton) and doesnt seem to be much rural area in between. I zoomed in and you can see to go from one to another with always have building in sight (tress etc obscuring view obviously not counted. only around windsor it seems to be a bit thinner spread but still no more than a couple of hundred meters, close enough to see)
Echoing other comments, Burnaby and Surrey are not suburbs of Vancouver. They're separate cities with their own mayors/city councils. They are fellow members of Metro Vancouver, but that does not make them suburbs. Quizmaster, why don't you do yourself a favour and change the instructions to "suburbs or adjacent cities in the same metro area." That way we can stop griping that your quiz is incorrect.
If commuting is the definition, then Milton Keynes, Oxford and numerous other distant unconnected places could reasonably be considered suburbs of London; and my tiny Yorkshire village could be considered a suburb of two separate cities that are each ten miles away. That isn't what a suburb is.
If commuting is the determiner that would paint a weird picture in case of the netherlands, people from all over the country commute to amsterdam (not just amsterdam though) I don't think there is a province where there isn't a single person that commutes to amsterdam.
Being a separate city does not mean they aren't suburbs. A suburb can either be a residential area within a city, or an entirely different municipality within commuting distance of a major city. Burnaby and Surrey fall into the latter definition, which is why they are considered to be suburbs of Vancouver, no different than Mississauga and Brampton being suburbs or Toronto.
Beyoğlu and Sultanbeyli aren't suburbs, they're districts in the municipality of Istanbul. That'd be like calling Manhattan and Queens suburbs of New York City. Sultanbeyli isn't super central, but Beyoğlu is right in the center of the city. I'd choose either outlying districts of Istanbul like Tuzla and Büyükçekmece, or places like Gebze just outside Istanbul city limits.
I live in The Netherlands (and lived there for my whole life by the way), and absolutly no one will consider Zaandam, and most definitly nor Haarlem, as suburbs of Amsterdam.
As said, Haarlem is the Province Capital, and by no means part of the metropolitan area of Amsterdam. Than Utrecht, Alkmaar or Leiden could also be suburbs of Amsterdam, nonsense of course....
Apparently "absolutely no one" was not accurate.
(perhaps the 3 provinces in the north east, but give it time, but maybe by then we life in some ultrafuturistic times, where everything is green and only every 30 kilometer there are spaceneedle (no reference to the thing with the same name) where all the people of that area live. So no infrastructure. Earth back to its untainted self and us locked up in ivory towers. With perhaps outings in some flying pods) hmm. Maybe I should write a book haha
"A suburb is an area of a town or city, a little away from Downtown, where there are fewer big buildings and mainly houses, schools and shops"
If the other city has no significant industry of their own and only cornershops, little supermarkets and hairdressers and a bakery etc. Then yea if it is close enough I think you can consider it a suburb. But if it has factories offices and all the stuff the other big city has ( just slightly less) and is not connected. No I would not call it a suburb.
In the 2nd case when it ís connected, I still dont think it is called a suburb is it, it would an aglomeration or even conglomeration if I am not mistaken.
I think satellite-city is a better term to use. "Satellite cities differ from suburbs in that they have distinct employment bases, commutersheds, and cultural offerings from the central metropolis, as well as an independent municipal government"
Satellite cities are completely independent and self-sufficient.
(ps in many countries a suburb per definition can't be a city, only neighbourhoods. For cities that have become joined with another city and/or are dependent on it there are other terms)
If so I can understand your other choices.
If you ever want to add Halifax for some reason then: Dartmouth, Bedford, Sackville ;3