U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: What states make up the north?
Maine 126 90.65%
New Hampshire 126 90.65%
Vermont 127 91.37%
Massachusetts 123 88.49%
Rhode Island 124 89.21%
Connecticut 125 89.93%
New York 125 89.93%
Pennsylvania 119 85.61%
New Jersey 119 85.61%
Maryland 73 52.52%
Delaware 76 54.68%
West Virginia (even if just in part, specify in comment) 29 20.86%
Ohio 92 66.19%
Indiana 83 59.71%
Michigan 111 79.86%
Illinois 92 66.19%
Wisconsin 108 77.70%
Minnesota 109 78.42%
Iowa 86 61.87%
Missouri 36 25.90%
North Dakota 94 67.63%
South Dakota 88 63.31%
Nebraska 58 41.73%
Kansas 35 25.18%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 139. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Old 11-28-2011, 09:11 PM
 
400 posts, read 502,364 times
Reputation: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
I don't see many similarities at all if you compare Concordia to Winfield.
Have you actually been to Concordia and Winfield, or are you just speaking based on what you think those places are like. Because I have actually been to both of those towns, and been in the area around both of those towns, and there is very little that is different about them. Big white grain elevator, wheat fields, houses look the same, same type of people, same accents.

You saying that you don't see many similarities AT ALL between Winfield and Concordia is precisely the type of exaggerated talk that pollutes this forum daily. They are both small Kansas towns that are alike in far more ways than they are not alike. And yet to you, you take a small difference that you perceive, such as Concordia being more "northern" because it is closer to Nebraska, and Winfield being more "southern" because it is closer to Oklahoma and I presume because it has a bluegrass festival, and blow that up into a big thing, exaggerating to the point where you don't see many similarities AT ALL between those towns.

Think about what you are saying. You are not comparing a town in southern Florida to a town in northern Alaska. You are comparing two towns in rural Kansas which are extremely alike in almost every way in terms of the culture that exists in those towns. The culture in small town Kansas doesn't change remarkably when you go from north to south, especially as you go further west in Kansas. By the time you pass US-81, there are almost no differences whatsoever between northern and southern Kansas.

You could go to Concordia and Wellington and it would feel very much the same. Beloit and Pratt, pretty much the same. Oberlin and Greensburg, same thing. Even in the larger cities, Wichita is not more "southern" than Topeka. Garden City is not more "southern" than Hays. Newton is not more "southern" than Leavenworth.

There just is not that much of a difference between northern and southern Kansas in terms of the culture. It is not like Indiana, where there is a discernible shift when you go south of Indianapolis. That does not exist in Kansas. There is not a north-south divide in Kansas. There never has been. In fact, the first southerners who settled in Kansas settled in NORTHEAST Kansas, in the Leavenworth and Atchison areas. It is incorrect to divide Kansas into a north and south region, as if there is a transition zone in the middle of Kansas where the culture becomes more "southern". It simply is not accurate. The place where the transition to the south begins in Kansas is at the Oklahoma border. Look at this map and you'll see it:

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

Southern Baptists on the Oklahoma side of the border, Catholics and Methodists on the Kansas side.

Last edited by Blue Earth; 11-28-2011 at 09:22 PM..
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2011, 09:17 PM
 
400 posts, read 502,364 times
Reputation: 359
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
I know that we Americans are not necessarily known for our geography prowess but, I was hoping that some of the twenty-or-so people that think Pennsylvania is Northern but North Dakota (you know, the one that borders Canada) is not, could explain what their thinking is on that one.

After all, the Southern border of North Dakota if extended eastward, would be somewhere North of Ottawa and more than 270 miles North of the Northern PA border.
It's because when some people think of "The North", they think of the North as being represented by the Union states in the Civil War. North Dakota did not become a state until the 1880s, so it is not identified with the Civil War definition of the North.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2011, 11:03 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
4,117 posts, read 4,606,249 times
Reputation: 2674
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ghengis View Post
I know that we Americans are not necessarily known for our geography prowess but, I was hoping that some of the twenty-or-so people that think Pennsylvania is Northern but North Dakota (you know, the one that borders Canada) is not, could explain what their thinking is on that one.

After all, the Southern border of North Dakota if extended eastward, would be somewhere North of Ottawa and more than 270 miles North of the Northern PA border.
In addition to what Blue Earth said it is possible that the very names of our regions causes some confusion. Look at the poll, "Which states are Northern"?

Your choices are states from the NORTHeast and the Midwest. Note how the word NORTH is found in Northeast but not the Midwest. I know this sounds too simplistic but it may very well be a factor in some people's minds.

In other words, many people may not think of the Midwest being in the North. The funny thing is that these states could also be described geographically as "Midnorth" just as easily as being Midwest. After all, the country does not end at the Mississippi River anymore and calling some of these states "West" does seem to be outdated.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 10:46 AM
 
Location: Walker, Louisiana (I miss the mountains)
1,839 posts, read 1,652,311 times
Reputation: 1325
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
In addition to what Blue Earth said it is possible that the very names of our regions causes some confusion. Look at the poll, "Which states are Northern"?

Your choices are states from the NORTHeast and the Midwest. Note how the word NORTH is found in Northeast but not the Midwest. I know this sounds too simplistic but it may very well be a factor in some people's minds.

In other words, many people may not think of the Midwest being in the North. The funny thing is that these states could also be described geographically as "Midnorth" just as easily as being Midwest. After all, the country does not end at the Mississippi River anymore and calling some of these states "West" does seem to be outdated.
I fully agree.

For some reason people are not distinguishing region from direction. And it may be due to names.

But on the other hand all one has to do is look at a map and use that wonderful brain tool...
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 12:36 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,713 posts, read 1,929,083 times
Reputation: 886
i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Colts View Post
It's true that Columbus doesn't have a Great Lake shoreline, but neither does Grand Rapids or Indianapolis or Fort Wayne. Columbus reminds me of those cities more than Louisville or Cincinnati, especially in the built architecture of the city, the flatness, the non-navigable rivers, etc.


St. Louis reminds me of places like Baltimore and Cincinnati and Pittsburgh: older river cities with tons of brick rowhouses. I could see some similarities with Great Lakes cities, particularly with regards to industrial heritage, but the physical characteristics are just too different.
I guess I have always felt that culture changes as you go from west to east. Culturally, I think St. Louis and Cincinnati have more similarities to the Great Lakes cities than to Baltimore. Topographically may be another story, although Cleveland is actually quite hilly for a Great Lakes city...most of it is not flat. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are Northeastern....St. Louis and Cincinnati are Midwestern. They just have different mindsets. To call St. Louis and Baltimore part of the same region I feel is grossly incorrect. I also feel like Cincinnati has more in common with Indianapolis and Columbus, and with the Great Lakes cities, than with Louisville...from a cultural and architectural, and certainly demographical standpoint, it has little in common with Louisville. I've always felt like Columbus and Indianapolis were half-linked to St. Louis and Cincinnati, half-linked to the Great Lakes cities. Their weather patterns or more similar to the Midwest cities to the south of them, and to be honest, so is their cultural and political mindset. Indianapolis and Cincinnati both lean more moderate than liberal, maybe even tending slightly towards the conservative side. Baltimore and Pittsburgh just feel like the beginning of the northeast...I feel like they are too eastern in feel and flavor to be linked with the other cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 01:35 PM
 
Location: Madison, WI
14,985 posts, read 19,727,074 times
Reputation: 7468
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blue Earth View Post
Have you actually been to Concordia and Winfield, or are you just speaking based on what you think those places are like. Because I have actually been to both of those towns, and been in the area around both of those towns, and there is very little that is different about them. Big white grain elevator, wheat fields, houses look the same, same type of people, same accents.

You saying that you don't see many similarities AT ALL between Winfield and Concordia is precisely the type of exaggerated talk that pollutes this forum daily. They are both small Kansas towns that are alike in far more ways than they are not alike. And yet to you, you take a small difference that you perceive, such as Concordia being more "northern" because it is closer to Nebraska, and Winfield being more "southern" because it is closer to Oklahoma and I presume because it has a bluegrass festival, and blow that up into a big thing, exaggerating to the point where you don't see many similarities AT ALL between those towns.

Think about what you are saying. You are not comparing a town in southern Florida to a town in northern Alaska. You are comparing two towns in rural Kansas which are extremely alike in almost every way in terms of the culture that exists in those towns. The culture in small town Kansas doesn't change remarkably when you go from north to south, especially as you go further west in Kansas. By the time you pass US-81, there are almost no differences whatsoever between northern and southern Kansas.

You could go to Concordia and Wellington and it would feel very much the same. Beloit and Pratt, pretty much the same. Oberlin and Greensburg, same thing. Even in the larger cities, Wichita is not more "southern" than Topeka. Garden City is not more "southern" than Hays. Newton is not more "southern" than Leavenworth.

There just is not that much of a difference between northern and southern Kansas in terms of the culture. It is not like Indiana, where there is a discernible shift when you go south of Indianapolis. That does not exist in Kansas. There is not a north-south divide in Kansas. There never has been. In fact, the first southerners who settled in Kansas settled in NORTHEAST Kansas, in the Leavenworth and Atchison areas. It is incorrect to divide Kansas into a north and south region, as if there is a transition zone in the middle of Kansas where the culture becomes more "southern". It simply is not accurate. The place where the transition to the south begins in Kansas is at the Oklahoma border. Look at this map and you'll see it:

http://www.valpo.edu/geomet/pics/geo...rch_bodies.gif

Southern Baptists on the Oklahoma side of the border, Catholics and Methodists on the Kansas side.
Yes, I have been too both places. I should have used Columbus, Erie, or Galena instead of Winfield when comparing it against Concordia. Southeast Kansas is definitely a transition zone and has a mixture of influences while Concordia does not. While culturally not southern, most of the state in terms of climate is certainly not like the Midwest at all with temperatures much warmer overall.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 01:39 PM
 
973 posts, read 935,987 times
Reputation: 557
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
i

I guess I have always felt that culture changes as you go from west to east. Culturally, I think St. Louis and Cincinnati have more similarities to the Great Lakes cities than to Baltimore. Topographically may be another story, although Cleveland is actually quite hilly for a Great Lakes city...most of it is not flat. Baltimore and Pittsburgh are Northeastern....St. Louis and Cincinnati are Midwestern. They just have different mindsets. To call St. Louis and Baltimore part of the same region I feel is grossly incorrect. I also feel like Cincinnati has more in common with Indianapolis and Columbus, and with the Great Lakes cities, than with Louisville...from a cultural and architectural, and certainly demographical standpoint, it has little in common with Louisville. I've always felt like Columbus and Indianapolis were half-linked to St. Louis and Cincinnati, half-linked to the Great Lakes cities. Their weather patterns or more similar to the Midwest cities to the south of them, and to be honest, so is their cultural and political mindset. Indianapolis and Cincinnati both lean more moderate than liberal, maybe even tending slightly towards the conservative side. Baltimore and Pittsburgh just feel like the beginning of the northeast...I feel like they are too eastern in feel and flavor to be linked with the other cities.
i completely agree with colts' point of view. as a philadelphia native now living in st. louis, i can say with authority that st. louis is indeed the last eastern city. it's historically and intrinsically linked to baltimore and philadelphia due to early trade routes. st. louis (and cincinnati) grew to be major cities long before any other cities in the midwest, so they do have eastern colorations that cannot be denied. yes, they are midwestern cities, but they have somewhat schizophrenic identities. baltimore, pittsburgh, cincinnati and st. louis all straddle the line between north and south, and they are definitely cut from the same cloth and have more in common with each other than most other cities due to historical ties. cincinnati is the outlier due to its very conservative politics, which does not apply to the other three cities.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 03:17 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,713 posts, read 1,929,083 times
Reputation: 886
Quote:
Originally Posted by slengel View Post
i completely agree with colts' point of view. as a philadelphia native now living in st. louis, i can say with authority that st. louis is indeed the last eastern city. it's historically and intrinsically linked to baltimore and philadelphia due to early trade routes. st. louis (and cincinnati) grew to be major cities long before any other cities in the midwest, so they do have eastern colorations that cannot be denied. yes, they are midwestern cities, but they have somewhat schizophrenic identities. baltimore, pittsburgh, cincinnati and st. louis all straddle the line between north and south, and they are definitely cut from the same cloth and have more in common with each other than most other cities due to historical ties. cincinnati is the outlier due to its very conservative politics, which does not apply to the other three cities.
I feel like colts is saying that they need to be grouped together into a single region, which to me is preposterous from a modern standpoint. And oh...the upper midwest has its own eastern colorations. Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago have strong ties to New England, and Indianapolis and Columbus have strong ties to Philadelphia as well. Historically, the Midwest and Northeast are strongly connected...I won't deny that. As far as schizophrenic identities, I never felt like pittsburgh has ever been thought of as southern by anyone. As far as St. Louis, Baltimore, and Cincinnati go, it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that they are Northern cities with a few Southern influences, but they should not be nearly enough to cause an identity crisis to anyone that is educated. As someone who regularly visits Chicago, Cleveland, and Louisville, I can positively say that St. Louis and Cincinnati have more in common with Chicago and Cleveland than with Louisville in terms of culture, architecture, demographics, and feel. Nor do I feel like the ancient historical ties you point out are enough to warrant breaking up the Bos-Wash corridor and Midwest from a modern standpoint and creating new regions. As much ties as the Midwestern and Northeastern cities may have to each other, they still have more in common with their own regions. That said, I agree that St. Louis is the last eastern city. But if St. Louis is the last eastern city, any city to the east is also eastern. And as far as east and west go, the edge cities on these regions have more in common with each other than with the westernmost western cities or easternmost eastern cities. It just seems like this has gone from what's northern to what's the Midwestern or Northeastern, or if these regions even make sense. I honestly feel like the cities of the Bos-Wash corridor are more connected to each other from a modern standpoint, and that the cities of the Midwest are more connected to each other from a modern standpoint. Historical ties are one thing. Modern ties are a completely different story. Any way you phrase it though, the eastern cities of the Midwest have strong historical ties to the Northeast, while it seems like the western Midwest is more heavily tied to the central-west and north-west. But over time they have grown more or as strongly tied together as the regions they have historical ties to. I'm exhausted...obviously nobody is going to have the same view, so for me to try and explain this any further is probably useless. Not to mention, no region fits together perfectly. And nobody has the same exact view of a perfect region. I'm just done. This a waste of time.

Last edited by stlouisan; 11-29-2011 at 03:46 PM..
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 04:01 PM
 
973 posts, read 935,987 times
Reputation: 557
st. louisan, you raise valid points, and i don't think anyone is arguing with you. the point colts was trying to make was not to say that pittsburgh, baltimore, st. louis and cincinnati belong in their own geographic region, but rather, they share so much in common culturally that they could be grouped together as a "type" of city. not sure if you've ever been to pittsburgh, but it is has very strong ties to appalachia, with some portions of the city proper resembling rural west virginia. hence the identity crisis that exists there. economically, demographically, developmentally and historically, pittsburgh, baltimore, st. louis and cincinnati are among the most similar to each other as any group of cities in the nation. you could throw in detroit and cleveland to that mix for many categories, but neither of those cities developed in a dense, eastern style like the others. cincinnati stands out politically because it is much more conservative than any of the others. chicago is a notable exception, but it's much younger than the other cities we're talking about and has a whole different set of dynamics that led to its growth. indianapolis and columbus are both much smaller, younger and less urban than the others and never reached the same level of stature in american history.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2011, 04:52 PM
 
2,249 posts, read 3,881,913 times
Reputation: 1946
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan View Post
I feel like colts is saying that they need to be grouped together into a single region, which to me is preposterous from a modern standpoint. And oh...the upper midwest has its own eastern colorations. Cleveland, Detroit, and Chicago have strong ties to New England, and Indianapolis and Columbus have strong ties to Philadelphia as well. Historically, the Midwest and Northeast are strongly connected...I won't deny that. As far as schizophrenic identities, I never felt like pittsburgh has ever been thought of as southern by anyone. As far as St. Louis, Baltimore, and Cincinnati go, it should be obvious to anyone with common sense that they are Northern cities with a few Southern influences, but they should not be nearly enough to cause an identity crisis to anyone that is educated. As someone who regularly visits Chicago, Cleveland, and Louisville, I can positively say that St. Louis and Cincinnati have more in common with Chicago and Cleveland than with Louisville in terms of culture, architecture, demographics, and feel. Nor do I feel like the ancient historical ties you point out are enough to warrant breaking up the Bos-Wash corridor and Midwest from a modern standpoint and creating new regions. As much ties as the Midwestern and Northeastern cities may have to each other, they still have more in common with their own regions. That said, I agree that St. Louis is the last eastern city. But if St. Louis is the last eastern city, any city to the east is also eastern. And as far as east and west go, the edge cities on these regions have more in common with each other than with the westernmost western cities or easternmost eastern cities. It just seems like this has gone from what's northern to what's the Midwestern or Northeastern, or if these regions even make sense. I honestly feel like the cities of the Bos-Wash corridor are more connected to each other from a modern standpoint, and that the cities of the Midwest are more connected to each other from a modern standpoint. Historical ties are one thing. Modern ties are a completely different story. Any way you phrase it though, the eastern cities of the Midwest have strong historical ties to the Northeast, while it seems like the western Midwest is more heavily tied to the central-west and north-west. But over time they have grown more or as strongly tied together as the regions they have historical ties to. I'm exhausted...obviously nobody is going to have the same view, so for me to try and explain this any further is probably useless. Not to mention, no region fits together perfectly. And nobody has the same exact view of a perfect region. I'm just done. This a waste of time.
I didn't say that St. Louis and Baltimore, Pittsburgh, etc should be lumped into the same region, nor did I imply that.

I simply said that from a built environment standpoint, St. Louis and Cincinnati are more similar to eastern cities like Baltimore and Pittsburgh, and less so to Indianapolis and Columbus, which look more like Great Lakes cities. St. Louis and Cincinnati are obviously Midwestern in orientation, it's just that those cities are more "eastern" in physical character. I lived in Indy for a few years before moving up to Northern Indiana and then the East Coast--the core neighborhoods of Fort Wayne and South Bend are identical to those on Indy's north side.

I generally agree with what you've said in this thread, but there's one more thing I'd like to nitpick from an earlier post. Throughout history, Indy and Columbus have never, ever been considered "border cities"--they've always been considered Midwestern towns. When I think of a border city, I think of a place like Evansville, IN which is literally right on the border.
Quick reply to this message
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 update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:
Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top