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.
Least negatively impacted if you remove the core city:
01. Los Angeles
02. Miami
03. Dallas
04. San Francisco (Bay Area, not MSA)
05. Houston
Most negatively impacted if you remove the core city:
01. Chicago
02. Portland 03. San Diego
04. Columbus
05. Atlanta
Not sure it's really "negative". Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Del Mar, etc. would just be more like Santa Barbara or Ventura. Very desireable with or without a big city.
San Diego's suburbs are nice on their own and have much of the attraction of San Diego itself: good weather, safe, clean, outdoor activities, etc.
Not sure it's really "negative". Oceanside, Carlsbad, Encinitas, Del Mar, etc. would just be more like Santa Barbara or Ventura. Very desireable with or without a big city.
San Diego's suburbs are nice on their own and have much of the attraction of San Diego itself: good weather, safe, clean, outdoor activities, etc.
The only thing is San Diego proper actually takes up a large area, about half of the metro. Even La Jolla which looks like a suburb is actually within the city limits, believe it or not. But you still will have nice areas as you mentioned as well as the inland valley and even mountains and desert areas to the east.
The only thing is San Diego proper actually takes up a large area, about half of the metro. Even La Jolla which looks like a suburb is actually within the city limits, believe it or not. But you still will have nice areas as you mentioned as well as the inland valley and even mountains and desert areas to the east.
Exactly, San Diego is such a massive chunk of the metro that you're left with some nice areas but a disproportionately large % of the amenities, education facilities, cultural centers, etc. would leave with SD.
Now compare that to a place like Los Angeles or Miami and it's a totally different story.
For me it's easily:
5) LA is an easy option as many of the beach and hillside communities would remain.
Beach yes, hillside...no, with the exception of the small portion of Beverly Hills north of Sunset. Most of the well known hillside neighborhoods are in LA city limits.
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
The Metroplex without Dallas would be the one i would live in.
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.
That’s a rather distorted perception of what the urban core would be. Oak Park, Forest Park, Berwyn, and Cicero are far more centrally located than Gary or Riverdale. If you look at all the cities bordering Chicago, they really run the gamut from affluent, to middle-class, to working class and declining suburbs. I don’t think it’s possible to make that generalization.
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.