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.
While DC is de facto part of Maryland it's still separate district,the largest city in Maryland is Baltimore,so to answer to this thread:without Baltimore Maryland is still gonna be ok.Or if you want to remove DC,Maryland will still have better economy than MS,but the thread is asking about one,the largest city,not several ones.
States that qualify would be:
Utah:Salt Lake City
Massachusetts:Boston
Georgia:Atlanta Indiana:Indianapolis
Wait a second. Metro Cincinnati and Chicago both extend into Indiana. Metro Louisville does too.
Illinois would be completely screwed then our main city would have to be like Rockford, Aurora, or Peoria, which all have populations of around 150,000. Washington without Seattle would do the same, leaving Spokane, and Tacoma, which both have populations around 100,000 or 200,000
I beg to differ. Although Illinois would be screwed without Chicago, I think Washington would be okay without Seattle. Washington would still have other cities for places of trade and commerce, including Tacoma, Bellevue, Spokane, Everett, Redmond, and even Anacortes (the third busiest port in the state).
I beg to differ. Although Illinois would be screwed without Chicago, I think Washington would be okay without Seattle. Washington would still have other cities for places of trade and commerce, including Tacoma, Bellevue, Spokane, Everett, Redmond, and even Anacortes (the third busiest port in the state).
And the comment about Rockford, Aurora or Peoria stepping in, if Chicago was removed from Illinois, is wrong. The Metro East area of St Louis is the second-biggest urban area in Illinois by FAR with some 650,000 people. This area would dominate in about every category. It's already the healthiest part of Illinois economically.
No deal we have a nice coast We rather keep Huntsville.
Yeah, but this way you double your coastline and can truly offer Alabama as a "coastal" state.
I have to admit, after Katrina, that part of Mississippi still has a bit of work to do...but think about it...Mobile could be the epicenter of an Alabama coastal metropolis from Gulf Shores/Orange Beach to Gulfport/Biloxi. It could be Redneck Riviera II. Casinos, high rise condos, and Spring Break Madness all along the Alabama coast...it would be a huge boost for tourism. You could market it as Redneck Riviera II.
Why would one want to argue against such blatant ignorance?
As I guessed, you have nothing to back up your point. The only reason anything is in Montgomery & PG counties is because they abut DC. That's called suburbs.
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.
then our main city would have to be like Rockford, Aurora, or Peoria, which all have populations of around 150,000. Washington without Seattle would do the same, leaving Spokane, and Tacoma, which both have populations around 100,000 or 200,000
