Thank you for your comment.

This panel is the first time I’ve encountered the term “in-between city,” so please bear with me if my response is less than adequate.

The “in-between” in Thomas Sieverts’ term, “in-between city” or “Zwischenstadt,” has a couple connotations.

One of these refers to being between city and country, which, as you’ve addressed in your comment, isn’t the most productive way of defining any space if it suggests we characterize it by what it is not.

Another meaning for “in-between,” one that probably inspired Young to advocate a change in language, refers to being between states and in some form of transformation where the outcome has yet to be made clear.

Now, whether an uncertain identity is more useful than an identity confined to signify particular spatial form, is open to debate. Though, to speculate, perhaps Young prefers “in-between city” because he feels its inherent uncertainty could at least account for complexities not afforded by its more rigid precedent.

Personally, I appreciate Young’s recognition that the suburb/in-between city doesn’t necessarily revolve around 2.5 kids and a white picket fence anymore. However, were someone to ask me where I’m from in the near future, I’m doubtful “in-between city” will be the response.

Thanks again for reading and sorry my piece failed to properly capture these ideas!