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.
Once again. Born and raised in Upstate NY. Albany area. Been to 44/50 states. Lived and schooled in New Jersey.
For the second time, save yourself the sermon.
North Jersey and Central Jersey are no different than Connecticut.
Densely populated, culturally split between two major metros, wealthy suburbs, crime-ridden cities, lush and green, beaches, etc.
Southern New England includes Massachusetts, didn't think you were focusing on CT. We were comparing forested amounts. The NY side of the NY-MA border is noticeably more farmed than the MA (or northern CT side) and further westward excluding the more mountainous parts of the Catskills. I did a drive out through upstate NY and lived there; again the difference is noticeable. Yes, the Adirondacks is nearly all forested but it's a nearly uninhabited forest preserve. I was responding earlier to CookieSkoon, who lives in western NY.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarbanzoBeans
Yes, for a very specific type of biomass, which doesn't tell the whole story.
CT, MA and RI are literally no different than most of NJ.
So true. It seems many New Englanders are obsessed with gatekeeping who or what is authentic New England and how different New England is from the rest of the Northeast.
It is true that New England has its own characteristics and history, but realtive to American culture at large, it is superficial minutia. Comoared to the rest of the country, everything noryh of D.C. and east of Cleveland is pretty much the same thing just as people lump Southern culture or the Southwest.
I completely agree that it's silly to judge what is or is not New England -- New England is every square inch of the six New England states, nothing more, nothing less, period -- but what's with the obsession here lately with proving that New England isn't special? What would possess someone to care so much about this? There's definitely more weird New England bashing around here lately than there is promotion of New England as different.
Here's the truth. New England is essentially a state. It's just about the size of Washington or Oklahoma. It is distinct from the rest of the Northeast as New York is distinct from Pennsylvania or Maryland is distinct from New Jersey. Tourists are interested in visiting "New England" like they're interested in visiting "California" or "Texas." There are guidebooks published about New England as there are guidebooks published to entire states. There aren't really guidebooks published about other parts of the Northeast as a cohesive whole; instead, there are guidebooks published about Northeastern states.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GarbanzoBeans
Somewhere, Californians look at this conversation and laugh their ****ing asses off. Or any Westerner for that matter. They have ****ing counties that are larger than most New England/Mid-Atlantic states.
Cause "we're so ****ing different over here."
Oh my God, I sat here at my keyboard for a few minutes trying to let this go, but I can't let it go because I hate this game. "I'm going to invent a hypothetical person and pretend this person has a reaction that validates my point of view, and therefore I am right because this fictional person I just invented agrees with me." Oh my God, you so totally can't do that! That is not allowed, I'm sorry, it's just not allowed.
Oh my God, I sat here at my keyboard for a few minutes trying to let this go, but I can't let it go because I hate this game. "I'm going to invent a hypothetical person and pretend this person has a reaction that validates my point of view, and therefore I am right because this fictional person I just invented agrees with me." Oh my God, you so totally can't do that! That is not allowed, I'm sorry, it's just not allowed.
If it actually was a hypothetical, you'd have a point.
I am still amazed how Rhode Island can fit 1 million people in such a small space, yet still have a suburban/rural feel for a good part of the state. I swear Rhode Island has to be counting pets as people.
Southern New England includes Massachusetts, didn't think you were focusing on CT. We were comparing forested amounts. The NY side of the NY-MA border is noticeably more farmed than the MA (or northern CT side) and further westward excluding the more mountainous parts of the Catskills. I did a drive out through upstate NY and lived there; again the difference is noticeable. Yes, the Adirondacks is nearly all forested but it's a nearly uninhabited forest preserve. I was responding earlier to CookieSkoon, who lives in western NY.
what's wrong with the map?
I was initially talking about CT, but then included Southern New England (MA/CT/RI) as a whole.
I was just in that region last year and am going next weekend. I saw my fair share of farmland coming from NY and going into Southern New England.
I really disagree with you on this. It's literally no different than any other densely populated small state ie: NJ. NJ has farmland as well.
You're trying to make it out like it's literally 99% tree canopy. 1) It isn't, and 2) it's no more tree canopied than it's peers ie: NJ, NY).
The Southern Tier and Finger Lakes are flatter than the Valleys and Mountains east of Syracuse, but it's not like it's Kansas. It's still filled with trees.
I was initially talking about CT, but then included Southern New England (MA/CT/RI) as a whole.
I was just in that region last year and am going next weekend. I saw my fair share of farmland coming from NY and going into Southern New England.
I really disagree with you on this. It's literally no different than any other densely populated small state ie: NJ. NJ has farmland as well.
You're trying to make it out like it's literally 99% tree canopy. 1) It isn't, and 2) it's no more tree canopied than it's peers ie: NJ, NY).
No, roughly 55% treed [upstate NY] vs 85% or so [Massachusetts]. The New Jersey comparison sounds odd to me; maybe the eastern 1/3, but the western half of the state looks like little of New Jersey I've seen.
You're trying to make it out like it's literally 99% tree canopy. 1) It isn't, and 2) it's no more tree canopied than it's peers ie: NJ, NY).
Anecdotal, but: I grew up on Long Island taking the commuter train into the city all the time. Today I live in Rhode Island and occasionally take the commuter train into Boston. I did just that today, in fact. Every time I do (and I do it seldom enough that it hasn't lost its novelty), it strikes me how different the experience is. When you take the Long Island Rail Road, almost all the trip is through dense areas with little tree cover, including the residential parts. The trip from Rhode Island to Boston includes vast swaths of woods, even when you get very close to the city. I remember how disappointed I was the first time I took that train, because I used to love looking out the window at all the neighborhoods on Long Island and in Queens -- it never really got old. The trip to Boston is boring because it's all trees.
No, roughly 55% treed [upstate NY] vs 85% or so [Massachusetts]. The New Jersey comparison sounds odd to me; maybe the eastern 1/3, but the western half of the state looks like little of New Jersey I've seen.
55% vs. 85%? What's the source?
I find it silly that the area I live (Upstate NY) is only classified as 55% treed.
Honestly, that's ridiculous. Are they only considering certain types of trees? Because the Adirondacks are different than the rest of the state.
Anecdotal, but: I grew up on Long Island taking the commuter train into the city all the time. Today I live in Rhode Island and occasionally take the commuter train into Boston. I did just that today, in fact. Every time I do (and I do it seldom enough that it hasn't lost its novelty), it strikes me how different the experience is. When you take the Long Island Rail Road, almost all the trip is through dense areas with little tree cover, including the residential parts. The trip from Rhode Island to Boston includes vast swaths of woods, even when you get very close to the city. I remember how disappointed I was the first time I took that train, because I used to love looking out the window at all the neighborhoods on Long Island and in Queens -- it never really got old. The trip to Boston is boring because it's all trees.
When I was in Rhode Island last May, I saw lots of open land, and lots of Trump signs. We camped out on the border.
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.
