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.
Imo, the Woodlands and Galveston are great on their own. Sure the Woodlands is just a rich suburb but it’s more than just a residential town. It has its own entertainment districts.
Sugar Land is a nice suburb but there’s nothing worth seeing there.
Fort Worth is outside of Dallas, that alone puts DFW as the top place without the main city as far as Texas is involved.
I'm thinking of this as in what major-ish metropolitan area including the principal city already isn't generally thought of having much to do, and then on top of that the city proper is a massive part of the metropolitan area in terms of sights/sites and attractions. Also, probably can't be in an area that's considered conventionally attractive in terms of its natural surroundings. I think with that, I think Oklahoma City might be a good contender?
Detroit is not the best example, unfortunately. Several of Detroit's suburbs are upscale, and offer a lot of variety, things to do and diversity.
A lot of cool things are in the Detroit suburbs. Ann Arbor is not too far from Detroit (50 minutes or so) and is one of the most interesting, fun, cool and fascinating university cities in the country.
For this thread, my picks would be Indianapolis or Cleveland, for under 3 million. But over 3 million? Hmm, probably Dallas/Fort Worth or Minneapolis?
Cleveland is just like Detroit, but the Cleveland's upscale burbs and burbs that offer variety (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights) are closer to downtown than in Detroit. Akron is then a half hour south. Not a college town like Ann Arbor, but has some cool areas (Highland Square, North Hill, Cuyahoga Falls).
It's 70% white and 20% Asian, in a country where whites and Asians together make up only 64% of the population. We aren't talking about some small farm town downstate or in Wisconsin. We are talking about one of the most prominent suburbs in one of America's most globalized cities. And 7 out of every ten people are white. If that is not homogeneous then the term has no applicability in an American context. That's homogeneous.
Naperville is 65% white if you exclude Hispanics. So your comparison to the 64% national figure doesn’t make any sense. Even in LA and NYC, upper-middle class suburbs tend to have a white or Asian plurality. So I don’t think Naperville is that crazy.
Besides, there are many other suburbs in Chicago that have black or Hispanic majorities.
The idea that the Chicago suburbs don’t offer much because they are homogenous is definitely not true.
I think some people are interpreting the title of the thread in a negative manner, when it's not necessarily a characteristic to be ashamed of. I personally think it's good thing. I've lived in metro Chicago my whole life. There's plenty to do out here in the burbs, but it doesn't matter. The scope of the city and what it has to offer absolutely dwarfs what you can do in the burbs. If anything that's a net positive and speaks to how dynamic Chicago is as a city. Last I checked most folks don't visit cities to check out thier burbs anyway. I would think this to be true for most if not all of our truly urbane and visited cities. I'm not an expert, but I can't imagine New York's burbs really go toe to toe with it in terms of what they offer? Of course I could be interpreting the OP wrong, but I fail to see how this is a negative
It's usually not so much that folks are checking out the 'burbs themselves, but rather the attractions and sites of interest that are located in the 'burbs of many cities.
Houston & New Orleans come to mind. Though I suppose Houston does have Galveston in its orbit if that's your thing. I'm sure there's some western cities that take up like 6,000 square miles that I'm not thinking of.
I'll probably catch some disagreements for this, but I'll throw Philly into the mix here. While I acknowledge that the Main Line is a really nice suburban area, it's not like it's a destination that people visiting Philly would venture out to (or even people that living in Philly, unless they're house hunting). Hershey and some of the other attractions are too far to be considered in that orbit (southern Jersey Shore beaches potentially could be, but a bit of a stretch).
If I compare Philly to the other big cities in the Northeast, NYC has the Hudson Valley, beaches of Long Island & Jersey, some satellite cities big enough to have their own orbit (Jersey City, for example). Boston has the north/south shore coastal areas, Salem, Cape Ann, Cambridge/Somerville, etc.
Cleveland is just like Detroit, but the Cleveland's upscale burbs and burbs that offer variety (Lakewood, Cleveland Heights, Shaker Heights) are closer to downtown than in Detroit. Akron is then a half hour south. Not a college town like Ann Arbor, but has some cool areas (Highland Square, North Hill, Cuyahoga Falls).
Actually, Gross Point and the other Points are just a few miles from DT Detroit and are some of the most upscale suburbs in the metro.
It's usually not so much that folks are checking out the 'burbs themselves, but rather the attractions and sites of interest that are located in the 'burbs of many cities.
In a way, this topic is a catch 22. If you don't have interesting things and attractions outside your central city, it's negative. If you do have attractions outside your central city, then there are plenty of people on this forum who will tell you that your city is terrible for not having those attractions in the central city.
I'll probably catch some disagreements for this, but I'll throw Philly into the mix here. While I acknowledge that the Main Line is a really nice suburban area, it's not like it's a destination that people visiting Philly would venture out to (or even people that living in Philly, unless they're house hunting). Hershey and some of the other attractions are too far to be considered in that orbit (southern Jersey Shore beaches potentially could be, but a bit of a stretch).
If I compare Philly to the other big cities in the Northeast, NYC has the Hudson Valley, beaches of Long Island & Jersey, some satellite cities big enough to have their own orbit (Jersey City, for example). Boston has the north/south shore coastal areas, Salem, Cape Ann, Cambridge/Somerville, etc.
I think you're definitely underselling the Delaware Valley. And there are many nice suburban areas outside of the Main Line.
Certainly Philly doesn't have the immediate coastal areas of Boston or NYC, but it has plenty of its local historical sites and unique points of interest across the 'burbs, much like the NYC and Boston areas. Lots of hidden gems tucked away that you really don't appreciate unless you're a resident of the region. And South Jersey beaches are definitely within a reasonable distance for day trips. Used to do it all the time when I lived even on the Pennsylvania side of the 'burbs.
One unknown gem of the Philly area that I haven't seen in any other area: a plethora of public gardens. There's a bajillion of them (including the crown jewel Longwood Gardens), and they're lovely: Philadelphia is America's Garden Capital
Last edited by Duderino; 06-10-2022 at 07:31 AM..
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.
