Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
All of these cities would take a hit without their main city.
The worst dropoff would probably be Chicago and Houston, since it would take such a big chunk of jobs, entertainment/nightlife, and population if the centeal city vanished. New York and DC would be hard hit as well, but they have some more urban suburbs, so they wouldn't fall as far as Chicago or Houston.
LA and Miami would probably be the best off, since there are many urban suburbs and top neighborhoods outside the city limits. In LA, you would still have W. Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, the Beach Cities in the South Bay, RPV, Long Beach, and OC including Anaheim and Newport Beach. In Miami you'd still have Ft. Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Miami Beach, and all those nice cities on the barrier islands going north.
Out of the two, I think Miami would lose less by losing its central city (since it is a smaller percentage of the overall metro), but I would still prefer LA/OC.
All of these cities would take a hit without their main city.
The worst dropoff would probably be Chicago and Houston, since it would take such a big chunk of jobs, entertainment/nightlife, and population if the centeal city vanished. New York and DC would be hard hit as well, but they have some more urban suburbs, so they wouldn't fall as far as Chicago or Houston.
LA and Miami would probably be the best off, since there are many urban suburbs and top neighborhoods outside the city limits. In LA, you would still have W. Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, Malibu, Pasadena, Glendale, Burbank, the Beach Cities in the South Bay, RPV, Long Beach, and OC including Anaheim and Newport Beach. In Miami you'd still have Ft. Lauderdale, Coral Gables, Miami Beach, and all those nice cities on the barrier islands going north.
Out of the two, I think Miami would lose less by losing its central city (since it is a smaller percentage of the overall metro), but I would still prefer LA/OC.
I think people also forget that Miami metro also includes West Palm Beach and other really nice places like Delray Beach or Hollywood Beach.
Nope. Doesn't have anything close to the downtown of either Oak Park or Evanston, nightlife, elite feel, public transit, and upper middle class urban/suburban housing either. There is nothing "trendy" about Hamtramck.
Although Hamtramck does kind of remind me of Berwyn or Forest Park.
Nope. Doesn't have anything close to the downtown of either Oak Park or Evanston, nightlife, elite feel, and upper middle class urban/suburban housing either.
It wasn't made clear in the OP's response that they were emphasizing the bolded characteristics in their comparison, but if so, fair enough.
It's a high density, walkable town in Metro Detroit just like Oak Park in Chicagoland.
The question is, what *YOUR* point?
There are plenty of other suburbs that are more like it than Oak Park. Berwyn and Cicero are two that come to mind. Just because they are high density and walkable does not mean they are alike.
Miami and Chicago are about the same in density, but they are nothing alike in their vibrancy or urbanity.
If that's your criteria, would you say that Miami and Chicago are totally alike and the same type of city?
1.) LA Metro - Southern California and everything that comes with it
2.) NY Metro - Still tons of options abound
3.) Miami- Ft Lauderdale Metro - South Florida and everything that comes with it
After that I'd say it's a toss up.
Does LA Metro include OC? Fort Lauderdale would be the core of the South Florida metro without Miami, and it pucnhes its own weight. Not sure about NY Metro, it seems like everything is centralized in Manhattan.
What about Atlanta Metro without Atlanta? Most of the metro outside the city is pretty nice, even though there's a few trouble spots.
1. LA
2. Chicago
3. Boston
4. Miami
5. New York
6. DC
7. Dallas
8. DC
Personally, I'd move Chicago down.
Chicago is Chicagoland.. The metro more reliant on the city than just about anywhere not named NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
