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 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
 
 
Old 05-05-2013, 11:06 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
1,704 posts, read 2,762,345 times
Reputation: 2335

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Caesarstl View Post
Midwest = Great Lakes + Great Plains Sub-regions, why do you feel so strongly that they should be split? You seem to think Midwest only refers to the Great Plans, it doesn't, that sub-region is a part of the Midwest just like the Great Lakes. If you separated the Great Lakes sub-region, what would you call the other half? Would it just be the "Midwest" as you seem to think of it or the Great Plains?
But this is the problem, because the Plains extend into Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, and the Great Lakes extend into the Northeast and Canada.
And what about Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and most of Wisconsin? I certainly don't think of Duluth and Buffalo in the same category. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have more in common with each other than with either of the other two regions. Missouri is definitely not part of the Great Plains, but it also doesn't border any Great Lakes.
AND what about cities like Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Indiana and Ohio tend to always be considered Great Lakes states, but neither of these two cities is anywhere near the coast.
Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-05-2013, 11:28 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
I meant that, given the choice of saying they are from the Great Lakes Region or the Northeast Region, they would no doubt choose Great Lakes. Have you been to Buffalo? It has more in common with other Great Lakes cities than it does with Boston or NYC, or Phillie.
I've been to Buffalo once or twice. I know a number of people from Buffalo. None consider themselves midwesterners, regardless of what their city has in common with other "Great Lakes" cities.

Quote:
Originally Posted by nei View Post
The thread on the Buffalo many seemed to agree with Midwest

Is Buffalo "Midwestern"

They seem to like to be group with the Great Lakes region or part of the Midwest rather than downstate NY.



So what? State lines are political lines, they don't define culture, geography, etc. though they do have some influence. Might it make more sense to group Cleveland, Erie and Buffalo together as a Great Lakes region rather than grouping Buffalo with New York City? Most Long Islanders wouldn't feel they had much in common with Buffalo and Buffalo residents would feel the same about downstate, they just happen to share state lines.

I wonder if the regional names based off state lines are very meaningful. The Midwest is very broad.
However, the Buffalo residents on that thread for the most part dis-agree that Buffalo is the MW. As has been pointed out on yet another thread, Buffalo is older than the Great Lakes cities. If anything, people should be saying that the GL cities resemble Buffalo.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 11:33 AM
Status: "Summer!" (set 17 days ago)
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
86,996 posts, read 102,568,112 times
Reputation: 33059
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03 View Post
But this is the problem, because the Plains extend into Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, and the Great Lakes extend into the Northeast and Canada.
And what about Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and most of Wisconsin? I certainly don't think of Duluth and Buffalo in the same category. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have more in common with each other than with either of the other two regions. Missouri is definitely not part of the Great Plains, but it also doesn't border any Great Lakes.
AND what about cities like Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Indiana and Ohio tend to always be considered Great Lakes states, but neither of these two cities is anywhere near the coast.
Too true. Nor is Minneapolis, the largest city in Minnesota, on a Great Lake, and its twin is the state capital. Peoria, Champaign and Springfield IL are all far from any Great Lake as well. So is every city in Pennsylvania except Erie, which only has ~ 280,000 people in its metro, out of a PA population of 12,800,000, roughly 2%. Lake Ontario goes well into New York state as well.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 11:47 AM
 
Location: Toronto
1,570 posts, read 2,811,986 times
Reputation: 1591
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03 View Post
But this is the problem, because the Plains extend into Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, and the Great Lakes extend into the Northeast and Canada.
And what about Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and most of Wisconsin? I certainly don't think of Duluth and Buffalo in the same category. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have more in common with each other than with either of the other two regions. Missouri is definitely not part of the Great Plains, but it also doesn't border any Great Lakes.
AND what about cities like Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Indiana and Ohio tend to always be considered Great Lakes states, but neither of these two cities is anywhere near the coast.
Well, I think that, much like Appalachia or the Gulf Coast, portions of a state or province may be part of the Great Lakes region, but not necessarily the entire state or province. Look at Ontario, where a small southern peninsula juts out into the Great Lakes, but the northern part of the province makes up the Hudson's Bay coast, and is covered in Boreal Forest and considered to be part of the Canadian Shield. You can't say the whole province is part of the Great Lakes Region, but Southern Ontario certainly is. The same is true of New York State - lower New York is the East Coast, but Western New York is part of the Great Lakes Region. Other states similarly have areas that are part of the Great Lakes Region, but not necessarily the whole state - Minnesota and Illinois come to mind. Then there are states like Indiana and Pennsylvania which just graze the Great Lakes, and the influence of the Lakes on the state's culture is questionable.

The Great Lakes is a diverse region is very diverse culturally and while Buffalo and Rochester, Chicago and Milwaukee, Detroit and Windsor all have clear geographical and cultural connections, other cities don't have such a clear connection. But every city in the Great Lakes Region has one thing in common - they grew up on the shores of these amazing inland seas, became prosperous from shipping and heavy industry, then had the rug pulled out from under them when shifts in the economy and Great Lakes shipping made their strategic positions less important. Some cities adjusted. Others were less successful. The whole region shares this history, as it does the omnipresent waters of the lakes. I really think people forget that the Great Lakes really are inland seas, and their influence on the region, its culture, history and economy is just as great as the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the Gulf of Mexico is on the Gulf Coast or the Pacific Ocean is on the West Coast. It's part of the region's identity, and its distinct character is too often underestimated.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 01:51 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,227,706 times
Reputation: 998
Quote:
Originally Posted by steel03 View Post
But this is the problem, because the Plains extend into Oklahoma, Texas, Colorado, Wyoming, and Montana, and the Great Lakes extend into the Northeast and Canada.
And what about Minnesota, Iowa, Missouri, and most of Wisconsin? I certainly don't think of Duluth and Buffalo in the same category. Iowa, Minnesota, and Wisconsin have more in common with each other than with either of the other two regions. Missouri is definitely not part of the Great Plains, but it also doesn't border any Great Lakes.
AND what about cities like Indianapolis and Cincinnati? Indiana and Ohio tend to always be considered Great Lakes states, but neither of these two cities is anywhere near the coast.
I would say that the Plains don't dictate culture, as OK and TX are culturally nothing like KS or NE. I would only consider Northern Illinois, Northern Indiana, and Northern Ohio as being a part of the Great Lakes regions. I would say that Missouri has influence from every state it borders..Great Lakes states, Upper Midwest, Northern Plains, Southern Plains, and Southern U.S. While an overall Midwestern state, Missouri is definitely more associated with Iowa and the Eastern Midwest than the Western Midwest (Great Plains states). Missouri is what I would describe as a Midwestern state with strong Southern influences.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-05-2013, 05:19 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
1,704 posts, read 2,762,345 times
Reputation: 2335
Quote:
Originally Posted by TOkidd View Post
Well, I think that, much like Appalachia or the Gulf Coast, portions of a state or province may be part of the Great Lakes region, but not necessarily the entire state or province. Look at Ontario, where a small southern peninsula juts out into the Great Lakes, but the northern part of the province makes up the Hudson's Bay coast, and is covered in Boreal Forest and considered to be part of the Canadian Shield. You can't say the whole province is part of the Great Lakes Region, but Southern Ontario certainly is. The same is true of New York State - lower New York is the East Coast, but Western New York is part of the Great Lakes Region. Other states similarly have areas that are part of the Great Lakes Region, but not necessarily the whole state - Minnesota and Illinois come to mind. Then there are states like Indiana and Pennsylvania which just graze the Great Lakes, and the influence of the Lakes on the state's culture is questionable.

The Great Lakes is a diverse region is very diverse culturally and while Buffalo and Rochester, Chicago and Milwaukee, Detroit and Windsor all have clear geographical and cultural connections, other cities don't have such a clear connection. But every city in the Great Lakes Region has one thing in common - they grew up on the shores of these amazing inland seas, became prosperous from shipping and heavy industry, then had the rug pulled out from under them when shifts in the economy and Great Lakes shipping made their strategic positions less important. Some cities adjusted. Others were less successful. The whole region shares this history, as it does the omnipresent waters of the lakes. I really think people forget that the Great Lakes really are inland seas, and their influence on the region, its culture, history and economy is just as great as the Atlantic Ocean is on the East Coast or the Gulf of Mexico is on the Gulf Coast or the Pacific Ocean is on the West Coast. It's part of the region's identity, and its distinct character is too often underestimated.
Yep, exactly. Regions like the Great Lakes transcend traditional regional boundaries. Doesn't mean it's not a very real region, it just doesn't fit nicely with the systems we already have.
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 02:58 AM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,331 posts, read 3,054,090 times
Reputation: 3925
I don't think the simple dichotomy of plains vs great lakes it has more sub-regions than that. You also have river cities like Cincinnati, St Louis, St Paul and the Quad Cities; then you have cities like Columbus, Minneapolis and Indianapolis that are harder to categorize (Minneapolis is on the river but it isn't a classic river city like the others and was never a port).
Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-06-2013, 08:32 AM
 
Location: Phoenix
1,277 posts, read 4,154,803 times
Reputation: 694
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer View Post
I don't think the simple dichotomy of plains vs great lakes it has more sub-regions than that. You also have river cities like Cincinnati, St Louis, St Paul and the Quad Cities; then you have cities like Columbus, Minneapolis and Indianapolis that are harder to categorize (Minneapolis is on the river but it isn't a classic river city like the others and was never a port).
Columbus is also on the scioto river and Olentangy rivers. Though again like Minneapolis not a classic boomtown river city.
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 $104,000 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.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top