This will probaby be shouted down by the "way-out" survivalists, but I think that one has to take a chance in a small city. My reasons are quite simple, I cannot say that life would be worth living out on a piece of very marginal land, living in fear of every passerby that shows up on the horizon.
I tend to think of humankind as sociology, not psychology. Anything that exists today that is worth keeping (and for that matter worth throwing away) is a product of a group effort. The myth of the lone individual working in isolation creating something of value is so rare as to be considered either extinct or an observation that was just based on wishful thinking in the first place.
That being said, I truly think that living through the storm times that are facing us will be a chancy thing. I feel however, that the probability of success is greater with a group in an urban setting than as a solo in a rural setting. If it is a full blown storm, the casualties in either setting will be staggering.
The requirements are the same in either setting; savings, storage, security, and availability of energy sources.
I think that cities will allow for improved access to all of these requirements. There will be serious issues with maintaining them, but the same can be said of the rural setting as defined by the wayouts.
One of the key things to remember is, that if the world goes mad max on us, a lot will lose even if they did everything right. You just have to figure out how to do it with a little style.