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.
No. A large portion of Ohio, Cleveland, Youngstown, Akron, Toledo are rust belt type cities. A lot of Eastern Ohio is very similar to Western PA, and extremely different from the Dakotas.
Even aspects like the Polish, Slovak, Italian etc. populations are very, very Northeastern, Mid-Atlantic. The "Midwestern" and "Northeastern" blanket statements are far too broad. Places like Buffalo, Pittsburgh, Johnstown, Binghamton, Scranton, Youngstown, Cleveland all feel similar to me, despite stretching across different regions.
I guess you could almost make the Great Lakes region and the "Rust Belt" synonymous.
I guess you could almost make the Great Lakes region and the "Rust Belt" synonymous.
Let's call that region the "Near West", in analogy to the "Near East" with respect to the "Middle East"! That way, we could say that the likes of Buffalo, Pittsburgh, and Cleveland are in the Near West while cities like Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Louis are in the Midwest proper. And it is a succession from Near West to the Midwest to the West (as in the Plains/Rockies westward)!
I would probably say that Ohio, while it's Midwestern, has more in common with New York and Pennsylvania, specifically Western New York and Western Pennsylvania, which really are nothing like the rest of the Northeast. I really don't understand why people think Pittsburgh has more in common with Philadelphia than Cleveland. It really doesn't. There is absolutely zero difference between Detroit, Cleveland, Buffalo and Pittsburgh IMO. I would also say that cities along the Mississippi River in Missouri, Iowa, and Minnesota share more commonalities with Western Pennsylvania than the Dakotas.
Essentially, Western New York and Western Pennsylvania I would argue should be considered part of the Midwest. They really are nothing like the BosWash corridor at all. The Eastern Midwest certainly has its differences from the Western Midwest.
Then again, Texas and Oklahoma have vast differences from places like Tennessee and South Carolina. Regional diversity exists, but as far as the Northeast goes, there is no question that the Great Lakes/Rust Belt region should be considered Midwestern...it is absolutely NOTHING like the Northeast core.
No, of course not. North Dakota has 700,000 people, South Dakota has 800,000, and Ohio has 11.5 million.
However, the poll options are annoying. How about just letting people answer 'yes' or 'no', or providing numerous options, rather than forcing them to choose one of your two reasons?
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,537,454 times
Reputation: 6253
Ohio - Partly Appalachian, contains major cities, agricultural, great lakes, rust belt, low glacial plains, heavily populated, eastern US.
New York - Partly Appalachian, contains major cities, agricultural, great lakes, rust belt, low glacial plains, heavily populated, coastal, eastern US.
Pennsylvania - Appalachian, contains major cities, great lakes, rust belt, heavily populated, eastern US.
North Dakota - Land locked, high plains, mostly flat, no major cities, thinly populated, majorly agricultural, central/western US.
South Dakota - Land locked, high plains, mostly flat, contains the black hills, no major cities, thinly populated, majorly agricultural, central/western US.
And that doesn't account for racial diversity either.
I think it's pretty obvious. Ohio is much more like PA and NY.
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.