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.
Pretend you had to remove the largest and main city of the metro and were left with its remaining towns, cities and suburbs. How would you rank them in terms of favorite? Which would you live in? Which do you think would be the most interesting ones?
How would you rank them:
-New York metro without New York City
-LA metro without the city of Los Angeles
-Chicago metro without the city of Chicago
-Miami-Ft. Lauderdale metro without the city of Miami
-Dallas Metroplex without the city of Dallas
-Houston metro without the city of Houston
-Washington D.C. metro without the city of Washington DC
-Boston metro without the city of Boston
LA by far
Miami
Washington
Boston
Dallas
New York
Chicago
And to emphasize. There’s just no way for me any other area would come anywhere close to LA with this criteria.
1. LA
2. Miami
3. Washington
4.NYC
5. Dallas- benefit of the doubt, since Forth Worth is pretty major/big in its own right.
6.Chicago/Boston
7.Houston
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
The Chicago metro without the city would be like the Detroit metro. A mostly dilapidated urban core (south Cook and northern Lake County, IN) surrounded by middle-class to affluent suburbs, and with much less vibrancy/nightlife and much less ethnic/immigrant diversity than the Chicago metro has now.
Granted, it would lose diversity, but not as much as you make it sound. At least not on a marco level. The MSA without Chicago is as a microcosm of the USA as it comes in that regard. Also, it played a major factor in how Illinois gained 400k residents between 2000 and 2010. A lot of the immigrants and non-natives went straight to the burbs. Skokie is nearly as ethnically diverse (Jews, Indians, Filipinos, Assyrians, etc.) as its inner city neighbor without the vibrant ethnic enclave that is Little India.
Chicago-less MSA Pop- 6.764 million
White 60% (incl. 1% Arab)
Hispanic 20%
Black 11%
Asian 7%
Mixed 3%
Also, southland Cook is a big area with around a million people, subdivided into subregions and townships. Atypical for the suburbs, there exist an ethnic enclave in the form of "Little Palestine" on Harlem Ave in Bridgeview. The thing of it is, despite it's nickname, it serves as the cultural commerce for the metro's Arab community, which makes it an analogue to Dearborn/Hamtramck, though admittedly on a smaller scale. The southwest burbs are solidly middle-class (and some upper-middle class) as a whole, just with a blue-collar flare. The south suburbs (generally east of I-57) have a few gems such as Homewood and Flossmoor. Without this suburban region and NWI Lake County, the MSA probably would've end up losing even more blacks than it has.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CCrest182
I get this and agree, Chicago is possibly the most core-centric city in the entire country.
However with that said, most suburbanites do not rely on, and rarely step foot in the city. A large number simply spend all their time in the suburbs, and only enter the city limits to use airports, see a sports game or concert, or something else every once in a blue moon. There are interesting suburbs that function well on their own, have unique houses, unique downtown, and walkability.
I think Chi's suburbs alone rank easily among the best, even if you removed the city's nearby presence. They are great for raising kids in regardless and there's a vast variety of them for any income bracket. And several of them are unique with character.
I think many are forgetting(or don't know) how much of a draw in tourism, visitors that the suburbs contribute. For instance, Woodfield Mall(pre-Covid) in Schaumburg sees 27 million visitors a year, which is half of Chicago's annual. The general area is called the "Golden Corridor" for all of its commerce/entertainment that even city-dwellers benefit from. Oak Brook Center sees 20 million visitors, and the general area is known for it's concentration of Fortune corporations. Six Flags in Gurnee also attracts millions. Also, all of the casinos are in the suburbs or satellite cities.
Here are 30 other metros that I've evenly divided into tiers in terms of my relative impression regarding how complete the metro is without its city.
Low impact
Orlando (Disney, Sea World, and most of the other tourist spots. Other underrated suburbs like Winter Park and Kissimmee shouldn't be overlooked).
Las Vegas (The Strip. Enough said).
Phoenix (Tempe, Scottsdale, and Mesa easily can carry it on).
Atlanta (Small city limits as well as the new MLB park help it).
Raleigh (Being just a third of the triangle, with a city that hardly feels urban helps).
Tampa (St. Pete and the beaches carry it up here).
Minneapolis (St. Paul and a huge mall carry itself up here).
Norfolk (It's only a small part of Hampton Roads and doesn't include the beaches).
Salt Lake City (The lake, nearby mountains, and even nearby Provo for more authentic "Utah" culture).
San Francisco (borderline low/medium since there's plenty of things to see outside of SF's small square limits in a similar manner to how I'd rank NYC)
Medium impact
Denver (The Mountains and Boulder help, but outside of the main city, the rest of the metro isn't too noteworthy).
Baltimore
St. Louis
Cleveland
Detroit
Indianapolis
Portland
Seattle
Kansas City
Charlotte
High impact
Philadelphia (right on the cusp between medium and high, since there are some neat towns on the PA side especially, but the city by far is the heart and soul of its metro).
New Orleans
Austin
San Antonio
Nashville
Pittsburgh
Columbus
Louisville
Jacksonville
Milwaukee
Last edited by Borntoolate85; 11-03-2020 at 04:58 AM..
I'll agree with most here and say LA would probably come out on top if you removed the core city, partially owing to the de-centralization of "stuff", and partially owing to the gorgeous scenery that doesn't heed city limits. I might also be tempted to put Detroit here, since decades of urban decay have pushed a lot of the dining/nightlife/etc. out to the suburbs already, even if that is starting to reverse.
I'd probably put Miami and Boston next, which both happen to be physically small cities with a lot of "urban core" outside of the city propers of Miami and Boston. You could probably throw SF in here as well, and probably Phoenix (for a completely different reason).
At the bottom, I'd put NYC and Chicago. The cities themselves are just too massive and centralized, if you removed them you'd be left with tidy suburbs and industrial areas. I say that as someone who lives in an area immediately adjacent to but outside of Manhattan, and (along with Jersey City) it's great. But most of the "good stuff" is still in the city or Brooklyn.
LA - Favorite ex. City
Detroit
Miami
Boston
Phoenix
NYC
Chicago - Least Favorite ex. City
I think LA only wins because its metro is so huge, but I can't think of any city proper that is more of an afterthought than CO Miami is for South Florida.
LA and Miami are in a different tier from the rest where this list is concerned
Miami is small and the region has lots of people, so it makes sense.
It's weird how it also works for LA, given that LA has 4 million people. It's mainly due to LA's activities being decentralized among many places and mostly outside the city limits, but it's at least partly due to LA being a city in decline. If LA were eliminated, economic statistics would be better on average. Also, more people leave LA for work than travel in from somewhere else. That's a bad sign.
1) Bay Area - Still have solid urban options in Oakland/East Bay and the peninsula. But it also has great topography and an abundance of interesting places to live.
2) Boston - As others pointed out, you still have Cambridge/Somerville as well as Brookline, Newton, and urbanity in Chelsea, Everett, Malden, Revere, etc. The suburbs are great and the coastline is tough to beat.
3) Miami - Miami Beach, enough said. It's the primary draw for visitors anyway, so the fact that it still exists would keep the area appealing. Plus you still have access to Ft. Lauderdale, the Keys, Everglades, etc. Plus many of the suburbs are more appealing for average Americans than much of the city itself.
5) LA is an easy option as many of the beach and hillside communities would remain.
4) DC - big hit, but you still have great suburbs and Alexandria remains a gem.
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.
