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.
If Boston was lost, the entire New England region would completely lose cohesion. BosWash would probably stop being the most important megaregion in the world, too, just like if it lost New York or Washington.
If Boston was gone then Massachusetts would take a huge hit, Rhode Island and New Hampshire would be affected too, and maybe Maine. But Vermont and Connecticut would do just fine without Boston since they don't rely on it much or at all to begin with.
As for BosWash I think the NYC area, Western MA and central and upper CT would pick up Boston's lost potential, then we might call it YorkWash or Springington (Springfield to DC) or maybe WashChester (Worcester and Washington). Boston's power keeps peoples' focus on the east when people think of New England down to the accent, Rhode Island, Eastern MA, New Hampshire and maybe Maine. In my opinion, Boston's loss is Western New England's and South, Southern New England's gain, Vermont, Western MA, and CT.
Missouri's largest metro is St Louis, and the largest "city proper" is Kansas City. If you removed either one, the other would fill in, for the most part. It would be less of an impact than removing a city from a state with only one big city (such as Illinois or Georgia.).
Maryland without DC would be extremely different. Much less transient and much less developed. It would probably be more like rural Pennsylvania and Rural Virginia in central Maryland outside of Baltimore. Maryand's economy would be much less diverse.
Without Baltimore, Maryland would skip a ridiculous amount of beats. A metro of 2 million would gone would likely make Maryland plunge quite a bit.
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
8,485 posts, read 14,994,819 times
Reputation: 7333
A common joke in Atlanta is that without us, Georgia is like Alabama or Mississippi. However, more realistically assuming Savannah would still be around Georgia would probably be more like South Carolina.
Minnesota would be dramatically different. Maybe. I guess without Minneapolis, you would have St. Paul instead, which is still a pretty decent sized city. St. Paul would probably be much larger in population.
Minneapolis' significance in flour milling around the turn of the 20th century made the area what it is today. So it's tough to tell.
I do know that without the Twin Cities, Minnesota would be another Iowa
A common joke in Atlanta is that without us, Georgia is like Alabama or Mississippi. However, more realistically assuming Savannah would still be around Georgia would probably be more like South Carolina.
Coastal Georgia would be like SC while the rest of the state would be generic deep South.
Jacksonville is only a navy town,not as big as Norfolk but still of great importance,so yes it would be missed along with it being a major industrial city within the state.
Maryland without DC would be extremely different. Much less transient and much less developed. It would probably be more like rural Pennsylvania and Rural Virginia in central Maryland outside of Baltimore. Maryand's economy would be much less diverse.
Without Baltimore, Maryland would skip a ridiculous amount of beats. A metro of 2 million would gone would likely make Maryland plunge quite a bit.
How does Maryland get to claim DC? Virginia has more of a right to claim DC than does MD-- part of VA used to be in DC. But to be fair, neither state should be able to claim a separate district that belongs to no state.
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.