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.
Like most others have said, New England as a state would probably be more appealing as a whole over Illinois. The coastal towns, mountains, and cosmopolitan/historic cities make New England an absolute treasure. I'd like to see a massive New England 'state' university form an athletics program and join Rutgers, Penn State, and Maryland in the newly Eastern influenced Big Ten : )
That said, downstate, and north central/northwest Illinois are very underrated. The midwesterner in me can find a quaint beauty behind all of the prarie grasslands and corn/soybean fields. Also, mid-sized cities like Peoria, Bloomington/Normal, Champaign/Urbana, Springfield, and Quincy, while smaller, all have plenty to do and are all charming in their own ways. And as some others have said, southern Illinois from about Carbondale on south is stunning, just like parts of Kentucky. The Carbondale area is a hidden gem that many people (even Chicagoans) don't really know about. Wine trails, artist colonies, beautiful scenery, great hiking/boating, caves, and Southern hospitatility (yes, once you get to Carbondale, you're in the South) abound in this area.
There probably isn't a state in America that is more politcally and culturally polarized than Illinois. This is a generalization, but for the most part, Chicagoans/suburbanites hate everything about redneck/backwoods "downstaters" (even Rockford is considered downstate, for some reason), while downstaters loathe the high-spending, smug, arrogant, big-city folk from "up north". A lot of the people I met from Central Illinois would even root for the Cardinals/Packers/Colts/Blues just to disassociate themselves from that craphole up north.
I expected this massive shellacking being taken by IL in the poll. New England is an amazing area. The gorgeous rural rolling green mountains of Vermont, tons of pretty college towns like Hanover NH, Middle bury VT, Williams town MA, Cape Cod, Boston MA, the Coast of Maine, the White Mountains of NH, the beaches of RI,so much history, so much cool old architecture, etc.... Illinois is not even in the same league! Comparing Illinois to say Indiana or Ohio is a better competition.
I like Illinois best. I enjoy the open prairie and big city contrast of the state. New England is way too clustered for me. Illinois really does have a lot of diversity with beaches, forests, swamps, and interesting towns. One town I don't think many people mention is Galena which I hope to visit one day.
What an odd poll. Chicagoland so dominates Illinois (hard to think of another state where one city is so dominant) and its location in Illinois seems incidental. Is there really much of an "Illinois" culture or identity that's say different from Indiana or Iowa? Isn't the "vacationland" for Chicagoans in Michigan and Wisconsin?
What an odd poll. Chicagoland so dominates Illinois (hard to think of another state where one city is so dominant) and its location in Illinois seems incidental. Is there really much of an "Illinois" culture or identity that's say different from Indiana or Iowa? Isn't the "vacationland" for Chicagoans in Michigan and Wisconsin?
There are many states, but Georgia I think is most notable; Washington, Massachusetts and Arizona also immediately come to mind. Location for many cities is pretty incidental. And I'm not sure sure if where one vacations is really relevant? I think this poll was really meant for economic and population peers than it is anything about cohesive culture. After living in New England for many years, there are many that would rather die than be associated with a place like Boston.
I like Illinois best. I enjoy the open prairie and big city contrast of the state. New England is way too clustered for me. Illinois really does have a lot of diversity with beaches, forests, swamps, and interesting towns. One town I don't think many people mention is Galena which I hope to visit one day.
The midwesterner in me can find a quaint beauty behind all of the prarie grasslands and corn/soybean fields. Also, mid-sized cities like Peoria, Bloomington/Normal, Champaign/Urbana, Springfield, and Quincy, while smaller, all have plenty to do and are all charming in their own ways.
While I like Chicago, I don't think you will find many other people in the country to share those sentiments of being beautiful prairie corn and soybean fields and plenty to do in Peoria / Quincy etc..
Thus stems the problem of many of threads on the board...
What an odd poll. Chicagoland so dominates Illinois (hard to think of another state where one city is so dominant) and its location in Illinois seems incidental. Is there really much of an "Illinois" culture or identity that's say different from Indiana or Iowa? Isn't the "vacationland" for Chicagoans in Michigan and Wisconsin?
If Chicago were actually located in New England it would then become the region's dominant city eclipsing Boston ranking 2nd to NYC in population in the Northeast pushing Philly into the 3rd spot. O'Hare would replace Logan as the main hub for international flights. If Chicago and Boston shared the same region the urbanity would be through the roof. If Boston were located in the Midwest it would still only be 2nd. So when it comes to city it would be Chicago because it's in Illinois but for topography I would say New England for mountains and the ocean. If Lake Michigan and Chicago had mountains then Illinois.
Last edited by urbanologist; 08-09-2013 at 09:10 AM..
New England couldn't support another big previously industrial city... see Lowell history for that answer.
Chicago is as large as it is b/c it is the regional hub for all the farming (wheat, corn, soy, pigs, cows, etc) and processing and transportation associated with it in the Midwest. In that way, Chicago is very much tied to the midwest agricultural areas like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa. More so than cities like Detroit/Cleveland/Minneapolis.
New England couldn't support another big previously industrial city... see Lowell history for that answer.
Chicago is as large as it is b/c it is the regional hub for all the farming (wheat, corn, soy, pigs, cows, etc) and processing and transportation associated with it in the Midwest. In that way, Chicago is very much tied to the midwest agricultural areas like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa. More so than cities like Detroit/Cleveland/Minneapolis.
It's not just the Midwest but for the rest of the country when it comes to the bulk of nation's food supply and the hub for truck and rail logistics for the nation's freight minus the ocean ports. It's not just agriculture that moves out of the city. I work in the logistics industry to know what comes out of there.
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.
