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.
Chicago: Naperville definitely, but what about Schaumburg? Or even Oak Brook? I don't think Elmhurst or Oak Park are that prominent.
Philadelphia: King of Prussia, Cherry Hill.
LA: Long Beach, Riverside
San Jose: Sunnyvale, Santa Clara (Actually SF and SD are probably fighting over whose suburbs these Silicon Valley towns are.)
Miwaukee: Brown Deer, Brookfield (I assume Green Bay is not a suburb).
Sorry to dig up an old post, but someone repped me, and I feel the need to respond.
Bellevue may not be considered a suburb of Seattle in 2012, but up to about 1985, it was. So where do you draw the line? At one point does an obvious suburb become it's own city? There is no real definition on this. If two cities grow at about the same time, (take for example Tacoma and Seattle), then I agree, Tacoma is not a suburb of Seattle. But Seattle was established atleast 100 years before Bellevue was more than farmland with an occasional general store. So, Bellevue, to me, despite its impressive skyline, is still a suburb of Seattle. History may change this, but in 2012, that is how I see it.
Sorry to dig up an old post, but someone repped me, and I feel the need to respond.
Bellevue may not be considered a suburb of Seattle in 2012, but up to about 1985, it was. So where do you draw the line? At one point does an obvious suburb become it's own city? There is no real definition on this. If two cities grow at about the same time, (take for example Tacoma and Seattle), then I agree, Tacoma is not a suburb of Seattle. But Seattle was established atleast 100 years before Bellevue was more than farmland with an occasional general store. So, Bellevue, to me, despite its impressive skyline, is still a suburb of Seattle. History may change this, but in 2012, that is how I see it.
I totally agree. While Bellevue (and the entire Eastside, really) is a very, very major part of the Seattle metro, it's still a suburb - although a VERY nice one.
Boston- Cambridge
New York- Jersey city, Yonkers, Mt. Vernon, LI
Philly- Mainline, Cherry Hill, KOP
Bmore-townson
DC-PG, Silver Spring, Alexandria, Arlington, Bethesda
ATL-Marietta, Alphretta, Decatur
NOLA- St. Bernard Parish
Miami-Miami Beach, Ft. Lauderdale
Houston-Katy, Sugarland, Galveston
DFW-Plano, North Dallas
PHX-Scottsdale, Glendale
LA- Beverly Hills, Burbank, Pasadena
SF- Richmond, Berkely, South SF
Seattle-Bellvue
Chi-Evanston, Naperville, Joliet, Gary
The Bolded are not suburbs but cities that happen to be near larger cities.
Cambridge Has 70,000+ workers within the city, certianaly not a suburb.
and Ft. Lauderdale must be larger than Cambridge.
Phoenix: Scottsdale, Mesa, or Tempe
Portland: Hillsboro or Vancouver, WA
Seattle: Bellevue or Everett
San Diego: Carlsbad or Coronado
Las Vegas: Henderson
Albuquerque: Rio Rancho
Denver: Aurora
Miami: Coral Gables, Hialeah, and Hollywood
Orlando: Winter Park
Ft. Myers: Cape Coral
Charleston: Summerville
For St. Louis -- St. Charles, Clayton, Fenton, Kirkwood and East St. Louis have all been mentioned in this thread. Here's my take:
St. Charles is notable because it was the first capital of Missouri (1821-1826).
Clayton is notable because it contains the "second downtown" of St. Louis, and it's the county seat representing a million people.
Fenton? Really? Waaay down the list, sorry.
Kirkwood is no more notable than Webster Groves, Florissant or U-City.
East St. Louis is notable because it was, at one time, the second major railroad and business center of St. Louis. And it's population reached higher than any other suburb ever has: 82,366.
I suppose one might consider O'Fallon, MO, as notable, in that it's the most populous suburb of STL today (it will soon pass ESL's all-time high.)
And let's not forget Ladue, which is notable because of it's reputation. It's long been synonymous with wealth in STL.
All told, St. Charles was perhaps the most notable back in the early 1800's; East St. Louis was the most notable in like 1880-1950, and Clayton is probably the most notable since then.
Atlanta: Marietta
Baltimore: Elicott City
Boston: Cambridge
Chicago: Elmhurst
Houston: Sugar Land
Miami: Hollywood New Orleans: Baton Rouge
New York: Hoboken
Orlando: Kissimmee
Philadelphia: Cherry Hill
Raleigh: Cary
San Francisco/San Jose: San Rafael
Washington DC: Silver Spring
Very few people will take this up, but LA has many memorable suburbs. I wonder why no one wants to talk about LA as much as other cities...
Anyway, some places everyone would know:
Beverly Hills
Santa Monica
Pasadena
Anaheim
Compton
And some less well-known places:
Irvine
Burbank
Glendale
Torrance
Long Beach
Downey
Just my opinion, but LA has many, so it deserves a small list of its own.
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.
