Quote:
Originally Posted by lammius
Do they touch Great Lakes? Yes.
Is "Great Lakes States" the first descriptor I'd use for either? No.
I think of both as NE megalopolis states first. NYS is probably a megalopolis state first, a Great Lakes state second, and an Appalachia state third. PA is probably a megalopolis state first, an Appalachia state second, and oh yeah, a small piece touches a Great Lake.
Erie, Buffalo, and Rochester indeed have commonalities with other Great Lakes cities, but these places represent relatively small shares of the overall NYS and PA populations.
|
The only state that's overwhelmingly dominated by the Great Lakes is Michigan though. In the Midwest:
Illinois - yes, Chicago overwhelmingly dominates the state, and is on Lake Michigan, but 90% of the state isn't Great Lakes influenced. The Mississippi River is a much bigger water influence.
Indiana - only the extreme northwest corner; barely even worth mentioning.
Minnesota - pfft, Duluth and a few trees are on Lake Superior. This is arguably a less of a Great Lakes influence than in New York. The state is dominated by the Twin Cities, which are not Great Lakes cities.
Ohio - there's a bit more there, but if we go away from Cleveland and Toledo, a majority of the state is away from that. Probably the Ohio River is of roughly equal importance.
Wisconsin - possibly, with Milwaukee being on Lake Michigan and fairly long shorelines with populated areas. But even there, a fairly significant proportion of the state is oriented towards the Mississippi River.
Pennsylvania falls into the "barely Great Lakes" category, probably analogous (or even slightly less) than Indiana. New York has a bit more substance, definitely exceeding Minnesota. By land area infrastructure, I would say New York exceeds Illinois and is probably on par with Ohio, even though New York City is huge and dominant.
So yes, New York and Pennsylvania are Great Lakes states, and have an important place at the table when discussing issues related to them.