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.
I knew that about Minneapolis, which is why it is fast joining in the ranks with Portland, Seattle, and Austin.
Interesting to learn that about Columbus though. I would have expected it to be more of a blue-dog liberal city.
No columbus is almost purely white collar. It's a pure insurance, banking, fashion, retail, research, government type of city.
Examples of the companies with large presence/headquartered in Columbus are Chase (over 20,000 employees, this is from when Bank One merged with Chase and Bank One was headquarted in Columbus), and headquartered there are also Limited Brands (Victoria's Secret/Express/Abercrombie and Fitch/Bath and Body Works/Lane Bryant), Nationwide Insurance, American Electric Power, Grange Insurance, Safe Auto Insurance, Wendys, White Castle, DSW, Value City, Redroof Inns, Safelite Autoglass, Cardinal Health (ohio's largest company by revenue actually), Emerson Network Power, Huntington Bank, research institutions like Battle Memorial Institute (develops weapons for the government), 13 universities/colleges (including OSU which develops much research), plus being the state capitol of large state brings government jobs.
This is just a brief overview, but as you can tell, Columbus' economy is a vibrant, mix of white collar, creative, and research heavy jobs. It is very much in stark contrast to the perception of Ohio. Columbus is much more in the vein of Austin/portland liberalism (in the central city core) the rest of the metro is more moderate/liberal.
Last edited by streetcreed; 05-10-2013 at 11:28 AM..
I was speaking in terms of how you use two general characteristics to make two cities different. Example: NYC and Boston have different densities and racial demographics, but are they both not part of the Northeast? Both KC and Chicago are Midwestern. You are trying to make them out to be in two different regions. THey may be in two different subregions, but are undebatably a part of the same region. To say KC has more in common with Dallas culturally, linguistically, and demographically than Chicago is a flat-out lie, and you know it.
You're putting words in my mouth. I'll refer you to my post (#39) where I said this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
Culturally, linguistically, okay I could see the similarities to Chicago, historically speaking.
And never did I say that KC wasn't part of the Midwest. It shares some cultural attributes with Chicago, but it is different in many ways as well. It's almost as if you think every Midwestern city is a microcosm of one another. That's simply not true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stlouisan
Here's the difference...Dallas' Catholicism is likely due to a large Hispanic population, which is 42.4%, like much of Texas. KC's Catholicism comes primarily from its white population (KC is only 10% Hispanic). Boom. That is a HUGE difference. And it completely destroys your demographics.
No, it actually doesn't. Kansas City, unlike Chicago and like Dallas, has large numbers of Protestants as well which you chose to ignore. If all the white people in Kansas City were Catholic, it'd be way more than 30%.
KC and its metro are also much more socially conservative than Chicago, again similar to Dallas. And Jackson County is 18% Southern Baptist, probably because of its proximity to the Bible Belt. Why wouldn't you think this would shape its culture?
If you want to believe KC and Dallas are two peas in a pod, believe that. KC and Chicago are more similar in terms of history, industy (meat-packing, blues, etc.) and culture than KC is to Dallas. If you told people in KC they were Southern like Dallas, you'd get stared at. So be a know-nothing and believe KC belongs in the same region as Dallas and not as Chicago. You are truly backwards if you believe that. What you are doing is essentially the same thing as saying that LA has more in common with Miami than with San Francisco, therefore they are more similar and should belong in the same region. Until you can overcome culture and linguistics, your argument of KC being more like Dallas is weak.
Never said KC and Dallas are two peas in a pod. I just think it's very arbitrary to assume that just because a city is in a loosely-defined region it automatically follows that it is more like every single other city in that region than any city outside of that region. I just said that in many ways they are more similar than KC and Chicago. I respect your point of view but the criteria you put forth for defining culture is limited to linguistics, history, some similar industries, and blues music. I don't buy your demographic argument at all except to the extent that it relates to linguistics, and I think there are many other cultural veins from which Chicago and KC diverge markedly, which I have already addressed.
...KC is one of (if not the) furthest large metros from Chicago, retaliative to the Midwest. Hell, even outside the region, Pittsburgh is closer, and even Toronto gives KC a run for it's money in terms of distance.
False. Kansas City and Pittsburgh are actually equidistant from Chicago in a straight line (411 miles). And Toronto is a bit farther (434 miles).
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 5,093,968 times
Reputation: 1028
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox
You're putting words in my mouth. I'll refer you to my post (#39) where I said this:
And never did I say that KC wasn't part of the Midwest. It shares some cultural attributes with Chicago, but it is different in many ways as well. It's almost as if you think every Midwestern city is a microcosm of one another. That's simply not true.
No, it actually doesn't. Kansas City, unlike Chicago and like Dallas, has large numbers of Protestants as well which you chose to ignore. If all the white people in Kansas City were Catholic, it'd be way more than 30%.
KC and its metro are also much more socially conservative than Chicago, again similar to Dallas. And Jackson County is 18% Southern Baptist, probably because of its proximity to the Bible Belt. Why wouldn't you think this would shape its culture?
Never said KC and Dallas are two peas in a pod. I just think it's very arbitrary to assume that just because a city is in a loosely-defined region it automatically follows that it is more like every single other city in that region than any city outside of that region. I just said that in many ways they are more similar than KC and Chicago. I respect your point of view but the criteria you put forth for defining culture is limited to linguistics, history, some similar industries, and blues music. I don't buy your demographic argument at all except to the extent that it relates to linguistics, and I think there are many other cultural veins from which Chicago and KC diverge markedly, which I have already addressed.
Religion does not have that huge of a bearing on culture. if you had any common sense, you'd know that. I don't respect your point of view...you should just stick to being the stubborn, region-destroyer that you are. IF KC AND DALLAS ARE MORE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER THAN KC IS TO CHICAGO, THEN INDIANAPOLIS IS MORE SIMILAR TO LOUISVILLE THAN CHICAGO. YOU'VE JUST EXTENDED THE SOUTH INTO ROUGHLY 50% of the Midwest. Which makes you, short and sweet, a lunatic. If you don't like what I'm saying, keep it to yourself or f*** off. If you'd ever set foot in any of these three cities like I have, you'd realize KC is a lot more like Chicago than Dallas. And even furthermore, it's more like Omaha and Des Moines than Dallas.
No. Of those 3, KC and Minneapolis are probably the MOST similar.
Yes. Indianapolis and KC have a great deal in common.
???
Well, I'm from Minneapolis, been to Milwaukee several times, KC a few times, and Cleveland a few times. My opinion is that Minneapolis has way more in common with Milwaukee and KC than with KC. Look at the built environment, for instance. Minneapolis's housing stock is older, on smaller lots, includes a lot more early century, brick apartment blocks, and even a few rowhouse developments. KC has a lot more ranches and other mid-century styles within the city limits.
But, we're arguing opinion vs. opinion, right now. You certainly have a right to yours...
I knew that about Minneapolis, which is why it is fast joining in the ranks with Portland, Seattle, and Austin.
Interesting to learn that about Columbus though. I would have expected it to be more of a blue-dog liberal city.
Minneapolis has been a "liberal haven" for far longer than Austin or Portland were even on anybody's radar. Minneapolis's DFL was a forerunner in many ways to the national Civil Rights movement. The American-Indian movement and Honeywell protests were liberal, activist movements that originated in Minneapolis in the 60's and 70's.
The roots of Minneapolis's current political climate are very, very much in the labor movements of the DFL in the early century. A very established, democratic cause. Sure, it has the granola hippie feel of the West Coast, too, just because we really value the outdoors and nature back home. But, it was a reliably democratic-- and liberal-- city looong ago...
Religion does not have that huge of a bearing on culture. if you had any common sense, you'd know that. I don't respect your point of view...you should just stick to being the stubborn, region-destroyer that you are. IF KC AND DALLAS ARE MORE SIMILAR TO EACH OTHER THAN KC IS TO CHICAGO, THEN INDIANAPOLIS IS MORE SIMILAR TO LOUISVILLE THAN CHICAGO. YOU'VE JUST EXTENDED THE SOUTH INTO ROUGHLY 50% of the Midwest. Which makes you, short and sweet, a lunatic. If you don't like what I'm saying, keep it to yourself or f*** off. If you'd ever set foot in any of these three cities like I have, you'd realize KC is a lot more like Chicago than Dallas. And even furthermore, it's more like Omaha and Des Moines than Dallas.
Completely off base, in the US religion and how it is or is not practiced is one of the best indicators of local culture we have. Peoples religion affects how they socialize, vote, spend thier money and choose to live. Religion is 100% about culture
KC has a lot of evangelicals large Baptist and other American grown religions (Assemblies of God, etc...)- they do have a Roman Catholic presence, but it is not dominant.
Much of the midwest has stronger European Roots in religion, Catholic, Luthern, UCC, Orthodox etc.. KC's culture reflects this demographic, its not wrong, its just different.
Well, I'm from Minneapolis, been to Milwaukee several times, KC a few times, and Cleveland a few times. My opinion is that Minneapolis has way more in common with Milwaukee and KC than with KC. Look at the built environment, for instance. Minneapolis's housing stock is older, on smaller lots, includes a lot more early century, brick apartment blocks, and even a few rowhouse developments. KC has a lot more ranches and other mid-century styles within the city limits.
But, we're arguing opinion vs. opinion, right now. You certainly have a right to yours...
Kind of my thoughts. I actually do not see many similarities between Kansas City and Chicago or Milwaukee. Kansas City looks more like Indianapolis meets Omaha to me, even the outskirt neighborhoods of Cincinnati could be a fit. Some people from Kansas City say St. Louis is similar, I also do not agree with this. I think St. Louis (brick) and Milwaukee (frame) have the most similar architectural styles to Chicago. Minneapolis has similar architectural styles and similar prairie feel, but Minneapolis is a lot more compact and urban.
Completely off base, in the US religion and how it is or is not practiced is one of the best indicators of local culture we have. Peoples religion affects how they socialize, vote, spend thier money and choose to live. Religion is 100% about culture
KC has a lot of evangelicals large Baptist and other American grown religions (Assemblies of God, etc...)- they do have a Roman Catholic presence, but it is not dominant.
Much of the midwest has stronger European Roots in religion, Catholic, Luthern, UCC, Orthodox etc.. KC's culture reflects this demographic, its not wrong, its just different.
Do people still go to church everywhere though? I've been in Chicago for twelves years and I think I can think of two people ever who actually mentioned something about going to church on a sunday. I think most people realistically have moved on from actually going to church and buying into everything. You might say you're christian or religious because it's what you're suppose to say, but most people understand it's all just stories.
Well, I'm from Minneapolis, been to Milwaukee several times, KC a few times, and Cleveland a few times. My opinion is that Minneapolis has way more in common with Milwaukee and KC than with KC. Look at the built environment, for instance. Minneapolis's housing stock is older, on smaller lots, includes a lot more early century, brick apartment blocks, and even a few rowhouse developments. KC has a lot more ranches and other mid-century styles within the city limits.
But, we're arguing opinion vs. opinion, right now. You certainly have a right to yours...
Funny, I was thinking about built environment, specifically, when I posted. KC's urban core is contemporary to Minneapolis, having primarily been built between 1900 and 1940, and is about 300K people in 75 square miles and very little of it is mid-century or later.
Now KC annexed a lot of suburban land (which looks a lot like MPLS suburbs). But in town, KC and Minneapolis look alot more similar to my eye than Minneapolis and Cleveland or Milwaukee, which I agree look kind of similar to one another, and share some of the same vernacular that is more common in KC and Minneapolis. All 4 are wood-frame and single family (or subdivided single-family) dominated, but Cleveland and Milwaukee are structurally (and historically) denser. Like Minneapolis, KC has lots of brick apartment blocks dating to the 19-teens and 20s, and the rest is single family homes (often subdivided) on small lots.
In addition tot he built environment similarities, I tend to think KC and Minneapolis are culturally more like one another than either is like Cleveland or Milwaukee. Both KC and MPLS are majority white, which is a pretty big factor in determining culture, they're both around 60%, and they both have about 10% Hispanic populations, while Cleveland and Milwaukee have around 37% white populations. KC and Minneapolis are less Catholic, less Eastern and Southern European immigrant influenced, lest industrial, less rust-belty and more Great Plains-style cities.
Not that I think they are very alike culturally. MPLS is bigger, much more densely populated (though its also much denser than Cleveland), more successful in many way, more liberal and certainly has its own kind unique culture, I just think that culture is MORE similar to KC than Milwaukee (which is more like a satellite or "island off the coast of" Chicago than anything else) or Cleveland, which is 100% Rust Belt, Great Lakes old-school.
Maybe you just haven't been to the right parts of KC? Most of it looks a lot like this:
Last edited by SPonteKC; 05-11-2013 at 12:05 PM..
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.
