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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-02-2014, 11:03 PM
 
Location: Illinois
596 posts, read 651,880 times
Reputation: 710

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve-o View Post
There are mountains. Nothing like the Rockies, but there are mountains. There are also plenty of flat, featureless areas of the West, too. Whats the difference?

And here in PHX, it gets humid as a muthafunka in July and August, coupled with extreme heat. Summers in the Midwest are glorious in comparison.
Really? Whats the difference? The Midwest vs. the West Coast in topography? Aren't you being a little ridiculous here? I actually think the Midwest can be charming, but comparing them as far as natural beauty, c'mon. Most rational people would agree that the West Coast is far more diverse in it's landscape and far more scenic than the Midwest. In fact, the West Coast always wins in polls comparing the two.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-02-2014, 11:28 PM
 
Location: The Pacific Northwest
6,015 posts, read 6,375,531 times
Reputation: 8287
Quote:
Originally Posted by probablyimnotsure View Post
Really? Whats the difference? The Midwest vs. the West Coast in topography? Aren't you being a little ridiculous here? I actually think the Midwest can be charming, but comparing them as far as natural beauty, c'mon. Most rational people would agree that the West Coast is far more diverse in it's landscape and far more scenic than the Midwest. In fact, the West Coast always wins in polls comparing the two.
I don't think he's necessarily saying the Midwest is comparable to the West in terms of topography, which would indeed be a rather silly assertion considering the West has some of the most beautiful, rugged scenery in the world. OTOH, a much more common yet also silly misconception is that the Midwest is categorically flat while the West is categorically mountainous topography. I used to think like that until I got out and traveled a bit. I remember taking the 5 up through the Central Valley and thinking it looked a helluva lot like rural Indiana. I've also visited places like Northern Michigan and Southern Missouri and it completely shattered my preconceived notions of what the Midwest was supposed to look like. And I've only been to a relatively small part of both regions.

The problem is that the cool looking areas in the Midwest are fairly remote, while the opposite is true out west. Most of the large Midwestern population centers are located in rather dull geographical locations, except lake cities like Chicago and Cleveland. That I'm sure contributes to the idea that all of the Midwest is like that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 12:54 AM
 
Location: Illinois
596 posts, read 651,880 times
Reputation: 710
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluefox View Post
I don't think he's necessarily saying the Midwest is comparable to the West in terms of topography, which would indeed be a rather silly assertion considering the West has some of the most beautiful, rugged scenery in the world. OTOH, a much more common yet also silly misconception is that the Midwest is categorically flat while the West is categorically mountainous topography. I used to think like that until I got out and traveled a bit. I remember taking the 5 up through the Central Valley and thinking it looked a helluva lot like rural Indiana. I've also visited places like Northern Michigan and Southern Missouri and it completely shattered my preconceived notions of what the Midwest was supposed to look like. And I've only been to a relatively small part of both regions.

The problem is that the cool looking areas in the Midwest are fairly remote, while the opposite is true out west. Most of the large Midwestern population centers are located in rather dull geographical locations, except lake cities like Chicago and Cleveland. That I'm sure contributes to the idea that all of the Midwest is like that.
Yeah, I definitely want to visit the Upper Peninsula when I move to Chicago. I can see what you're saying about California; for instance, the town of Davis in Northern California is very flat all around, no mountains in sight. I have heard people say that Davis doesn't even look like it's in California. OTOH, pretty much all of Southern California and parts of Northern California are mountainous.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 01:00 AM
 
2,025 posts, read 2,355,635 times
Reputation: 1961
The UP is stunning....I sometimes wonder if the Midwest had a few more states, aka, Upper Michigan, Northwoods... If maybe the perception of the region would be different.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 06:41 AM
 
3,963 posts, read 3,498,160 times
Reputation: 6367
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwest1 View Post
The UP is stunning....I sometimes wonder if the Midwest had a few more states, aka, Upper Michigan, Northwoods... If maybe the perception of the region would be different.
I often disagree that Michigan belongs categorized as Midwestern, as it tends to be its own animal in most categories. But I guess you gotta put it somewhere.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 08:51 AM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,434,810 times
Reputation: 10115
Quote:
Originally Posted by probablyimnotsure View Post
Really? Whats the difference? The Midwest vs. the West Coast in topography? Aren't you being a little ridiculous here? I actually think the Midwest can be charming, but comparing them as far as natural beauty, c'mon. Most rational people would agree that the West Coast is far more diverse in it's landscape and far more scenic than the Midwest. In fact, the West Coast always wins in polls comparing the two.
I never said they were comparable, did I? No. The only ridiculousness here is being spawned on your end.

And Id venture to say the Midwest is just as diverse as the west as far as topography goes. Dont laugh, its true. About the only thing the West has over the Midwest, that I can immediately think of, is giant mountains (ie 10K' and above). We have the hills, the forests, the lakes, the waterfalls, and even desert (high desert in South Dakota and far western Kansas). We also have cypress swamps, tallgrass prairies, etc, that the West does not have. Well, they might have tallgrass prairies, but you catch my drift. I know that Oklahoma is considered by some to be the Midwest, and considered the South by others, but I consider it more Midwest than Southern, and Oklahoma has the most diverse terrain in the USA. Its a shame that the Midwest doesnt get the recognition that it deserves, just because it doesnt have the snow-capped peaks that you can find in the Tetons.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 08:55 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,401,664 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I often disagree that Michigan belongs categorized as Midwestern, as it tends to be its own animal in most categories. But I guess you gotta put it somewhere.
How do you figure? LP is a WI/OH combo, and the UP is Wisconsin's hat. You can't tell where the UP starts and the WI northwoods end. MI is very beautiful, especially the UP, but the UP is the same basic culture/animal as northern WI or northern MN. MN/WI/MI are "its own animal," but it makes little sense to break the 3 apart. Or are you that one juvenile who can't get over sports and border rivalries? I think that was you...

I don't think anyone but the most delusional would say the top landscapes in the Midwest can stack up to the magnificence of much of the Western landscape. What the contention seems to be is that the whole of the Western landscape is beautiful (a significant % is in actuality flat and brown and amongst the least scenic in the country) and that the hills and forests in the Midwest can't be scenic because they're not as high as the Rockies. Well, the Rockies are foothills compared to the Himalayas. Does that mean that the Rockies cannot be appreciated as "scenic" because they're tiny next to other mountain ranges? This line of thought is completely ridiculous. If the tables were turned, I'm sure there'd be a whole different line coming out of some people's mouths.

Basically, the Western landscape at its best can hold its own with anywhere in the world; it also has vast, ugly wastelands. The Midwest contains much flat farmland, but even in the flattest states there are Great Lakes and bluffs and forests; and in the Upper Midwest, you have the hilly Driftless and vast northwoods and Great Lakes beaches; in MO you have the Ozarks and OH has Appalacian foothills. There is much Midwestern beauty outside the interstate farming corridor that is all most visitors see.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 09:53 AM
 
7,602 posts, read 9,459,597 times
Reputation: 8967
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese plate View Post
How do you figure? LP is a WI/OH combo, and the UP is Wisconsin's hat. You can't tell where the UP starts and the WI northwoods end. MI is very beautiful, especially the UP, but the UP is the same basic culture/animal as northern WI or northern MN. MN/WI/MI are "its own animal," but it makes little sense to break the 3 apart. Or are you that one juvenile who can't get over sports and border rivalries? I think that was you...

I don't think anyone but the most delusional would say the top landscapes in the Midwest can stack up to the magnificence of much of the Western landscape. What the contention seems to be is that the whole of the Western landscape is beautiful (a significant % is in actuality flat and brown and amongst the least scenic in the country) and that the hills and forests in the Midwest can't be scenic because they're not as high as the Rockies. Well, the Rockies are foothills compared to the Himalayas. Does that mean that the Rockies cannot be appreciated as "scenic" because they're tiny next to other mountain ranges? This line of thought is completely ridiculous. If the tables were turned, I'm sure there'd be a whole different line coming out of some people's mouths.

Basically, the Western landscape at its best can hold its own with anywhere in the world; it also has vast, ugly wastelands. The Midwest contains much flat farmland, but even in the flattest states there are Great Lakes and bluffs and forests; and in the Upper Midwest, you have the hilly Driftless and vast northwoods and Great Lakes beaches; in MO you have the Ozarks and OH has Appalacian foothills. There is much Midwestern beauty outside the interstate farming corridor that is all most visitors see.
Very good post, and I'm in agreement about much of the West being very dry, brown and virtually uninhabited ( esp Utah,Nevada, large portions of New Mexico, etc). Now, the West Coast is an entirely different matter...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 10:33 AM
 
3,963 posts, read 3,498,160 times
Reputation: 6367
Quote:
Originally Posted by cheese plate View Post
How do you figure? LP is a WI/OH combo, and the UP is Wisconsin's hat. You can't tell where the UP starts and the WI northwoods end. MI is very beautiful, especially the UP, but the UP is the same basic culture/animal as northern WI or northern MN. MN/WI/MI are "its own animal," but it makes little sense to break the 3 apart. Or are you that one juvenile who can't get over sports and border rivalries? I think that was you...

I don't think anyone but the most delusional would say the top landscapes in the Midwest can stack up to the magnificence of much of the Western landscape. What the contention seems to be is that the whole of the Western landscape is beautiful (a significant % is in actuality flat and brown and amongst the least scenic in the country) and that the hills and forests in the Midwest can't be scenic because they're not as high as the Rockies. Well, the Rockies are foothills compared to the Himalayas. Does that mean that the Rockies cannot be appreciated as "scenic" because they're tiny next to other mountain ranges? This line of thought is completely ridiculous. If the tables were turned, I'm sure there'd be a whole different line coming out of some people's mouths.

Basically, the Western landscape at its best can hold its own with anywhere in the world; it also has vast, ugly wastelands. The Midwest contains much flat farmland, but even in the flattest states there are Great Lakes and bluffs and forests; and in the Upper Midwest, you have the hilly Driftless and vast northwoods and Great Lakes beaches; in MO you have the Ozarks and OH has Appalacian foothills. There is much Midwestern beauty outside the interstate farming corridor that is all most visitors see.
I Guess what I mean is that places like WI/MN/MI don't really have that much in common with a good portion of the midwest, I hear other posters think that WI/MN/MI look like parts of Oklahoma w/o lots of tree cover and flat. I think a lot of people who have never visited these places have that view. But they are surrounded and saturated by more fresh water than any other place on earth, and all of them are heavily forested. It's going to make a difference, geographically, ecologically, economically, and culturally.

I would argue that the culture of the people in Michigans LP tends to be dissimilar to WI/MN, I can't speak for the UP. That's not always a bad thing, the mismanagement and short sighted planning of cities and infrastructure speak for themselves. Whereas I feel like WI/MN have fared better.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-03-2014, 10:51 AM
 
Location: Milwaukee
3,451 posts, read 3,401,664 times
Reputation: 2896
Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo View Post
I Guess what I mean is that places like WI/MN/MI don't really have that much in common with a good portion of the midwest, I hear other posters think that WI/MN/MI look like parts of Oklahoma w/o lots of tree cover and flat. I think a lot of people who have never visited these places have that view. But they are surrounded and saturated by more fresh water than any other place on earth, and all of them are heavily forested. It's going to make a difference, geographically, ecologically, economically, and culturally.

I would argue that the culture of the people in Michigans LP tends to be dissimilar to WI/MN, I can't speak for the UP. That's not always a bad thing, the mismanagement and short sighted planning of cities and infrastructure speak for themselves. Whereas I feel like WI/MN have fared better.
Sorry, must have been thinking of someone else - I definitely agree with the above, but I don't know that the LP is as different as you're making it (though I included "Ohio" as obviously there's a pull there, just like "Chicago" with SE Wisconsin). Regardless, I'd rep you but I've repped my limit for ya.
Reply With Quote 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.


Reply
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