Agree 100%. When all is said and done, we are still left with subjective interpretations. We may agree is the ‘most obvious’ instances, but that leaves a lot of room in between. Your NY-Nashville analogy is excellent example.

First, I think population density is a critical factor. When your reader sees urban, are they thinking of New York City with a population density of 18,640 people per square mile, or are they thinking Nashville with a population density of 1,301 people per square mile. Based on the above definition, both of these have neighborhoods with populations typical of a city. Which would your reader think of as urban?

Second, I don’t think the population of a city is the determining factor. Certainly there are neighborhoods within city limits that can still be characterized as suburban. Even in New York there will be neighborhoods that could be characterized as suburban rather than urban. Where I live there are high-density neighborhoods that are classified as urban, but there are also very low-density neighborhoods with homes on acreage around a golf course, all within city limits, and I would not classify this urban even though the population of the city is over 300,000.

Third, I think the present land uses are a primary factor. If I have a well-defined neighborhood boundary that is nearly 100% residential even though it is within city limits, I think it is best characterized as suburban provided it is not high-density residential such as 2-4 unit and multi-family.

These definitions are somewhat lacking given the urban/suburban sprawl that has characterized many cities in the US. I think you need to keep your reader in mind when choosing this characteristic. Take for instance a nearby city where I live. It has incorporated huge swaths of agricultural land for future development of light industrial and residential neighborhoods. A new residential neighborhood is under development in this area, and it is several miles from the city center, adjacent to agricultural uses and small homes on acreage. By the definitions above, being within city limits, it should be urban, but realistically it is a suburban neighborhood surrounded by rural uses.

So, without a hard and fast definition which would best incorporate population density and land uses percentages, stick to reporting your neighborhood in a way that best describes to your reader what the neighborhood is like.

LOL!

Long ago I read in a FNMA or Harrison Guide, (can’t remember which) that an urban area was one in which the population was 25,000 or more. Maybe I read it in  California Coastal Commission Plans or City Planners course materials when I was studying to take their test a century or so ago. IF that were a valid standard today then pretty much everything in California would be urban.

In Metropolitan Los Angeles, as well as the (separate) San Fernando Valley area of the City of Los Angeles we DO have primarily residential neighborhoods with no  cross traffic or commercial influences. IF my boundary is within a definable neighborhood (vs competitive market area) like this, I call it suburban. Examples; Encino South of Ventura Blvd.. Beverlywood and a host of others. The “character” is suburban. I would not argue with anyone that took the broader view that they are urban.

Can kids reasonably safely play in the streets? Not definitive by itself, but a possible indicator.

We also have easily defined areas that are more urban in character; high rise residential dwellings; commercial corridors predominating, strip retail and or offices nearby (very nearby).

I don’t rely on the box so much as an honest, non boilerplate description of the competitive market area that I have defined; and yes, I have often included quoted AI text on the difference between neighborhood and competitive market areas.

Descriptions change just as “neighborhoods” change. A premium defined neighborhood is often ‘annexed’ by an adjacent area being built out that wants to capitalize on the recognized premium area. Old timers may know the difference, but to NEW BUYERS its the same.

Webster says:
Simple Definition of urban: of or relating to cities and the people who live in them

CloseStyle: MLA APA Chicago

Full Definition of urban:  of, relating to, characteristic of, or constituting a city

Real concise, right?