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.
That gets thrown around here a lot. It is believed that the Great Lakes is more "typical" of the Midwest because the largest density and population exists therein.
But when we consider what actually the Great Lakes is statistically, we find that some faulty logic is employed to make this claim.
The Great Lakes Megalopolis is included as one of the "super regions" of the US. Chicago is its heaviest population center and the cities within a sort of spider web network are considered to he part of this chain of cities. Sounds easy right?
Except that it's a VERY loose term that has no bearing in cultural or even geographical connections! Let's look at which cities make the Great Lakes Megalopolis.
Chicago
Detroit
Cleveland
Milwaukee
So far so good...
Columbus (ummm ok I suppose)
Cincinnati (uh....)
Indianapolis (really?)
Pittsburgh (not on the Midwest but oooookay)
Louisville (come on!!)
Buffalo (keep em coming guys)
Rochester (so much sense is made here)
St. Louis (I suppose a Chicago connection but GREAT LAKES??)
Toronto (really man???)
And everything in between.
Can we see how faulty the idea of "Great Lakes represents the Midwest because most people live there" is? I mean considering that we have 3 Ohio Valley cities (including one in the Northeast and one in the South), two cities in New York, the largest city of another country, and then cities that aren't even culturally or even politically connected to the Great Lakes (St. Louis and Springfield).
So when we consider that the term "Great Lakes" really encompasses 3 regions and 2 countries, it isn't really accurate to say that it is the most populous region in the Midwest. The fact that there is an Eastern slant and bias to the Megalopolis honestly should make people rethink the idea that it is "Midwestern" just because it's the Rust Belt.
I have lived around the Megalopolis and from experience I can tell you that while the cities are connected via residents moving around the respective spider web corridor, that is honestly the most in common they have. Let's not even mention that once you get into the outlying cities in this thing that you have actually left the Midwest (and please let's not start saying that Louisville and Rochester can both be Midwestern simultaneously).
I understand the Great Lakes is a vast region (you can see it on any world map) but equating it with the Midwest all the time is silly especially if you're trying to imply that this region is the most populous of the Midwest when it's honestly such a large multi regional zone.
Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 03-10-2017 at 07:43 AM..
The economic and historical prominence of what came to be called the Great Lakes region sprang directly from what is probably the most prominent infrastructural improvement in American history -- namely, the completion of the Erie Canal in the late 1820's. The completion of the canal permitted movement of heavy freight in slack (no current) water from any point on the four lower lakes (Superior would be added in about twenty years via the Soo canals) to Buffalo, and from there to Eastern markets. Since a single horse or mule could move a barge of up tp fifty tons in slack water, the cost of shipping a load of grain from Chicago to the East Coast was reduced by over 90% -- and the economy boomed.
That single event gave New York an advantage that the other Coastal cities never overcame; widespread acceptance of the railroads was another ten years in the future, and the movement of bulk commodities, such as coal, in quantity would require ten years more. By that time, movement of freight via the Lakes had established a dominant position in the emerging industrial economy that would endure for a century. The post-industrial economy revolves around higher-valued consumer goods more suited to highway or intermodal (container trains and ships) movement, but the Great Lakes (further expanded via the St. Lawrence Seaway project of the 1950's) still have a role to play.
Last edited by 2nd trick op; 03-10-2017 at 08:05 AM..
The economic and historical prominence of what came to be called the Great Lakes region sprang directly from what is probably the most prominent infrastructural improvement in American history -- namely, the completion of the Erie Canal in the late 1820's.
This is very true. It essentially connected the Northeast to the Upper Midwest. This is seen especially in how Michigan became an extension of New York state when a lot of settlers there were NYS expats.
This being said, it isn't specifically "Midwestern".
I guess by Great Lakes Megalopolis they mean all the Great Lakes cities + the cities connected to them. I'm not sure what exactly is controversial.
Granted I have a hard time picturing how Louisville is connected to the Great Lakes, but Pittsburgh definitely was (see the steel industry, now not so much).
Also, I'm confused why cities like Buffalo and Rochester are controversial add-ons when they meet the definition of a Great Lakes city to the T.
Cities like Toronto, Buffalo, and Rochester are most definitely Great Lakes cities. They literally sit right on a Great Lake and all have similar cultures, histories, and economic dependencies to your more obvious Great Lakes cities like Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland. I can see how you make the geographic argument of Columbus, Indianapolis, and Pittsburgh not being part of the Great Lakes Megalopolis, but they fit the economic, cultural, and demographic profile of other Great Lakes Cities a lot more than they do of the surrounding rural Midwest, which in my opinion makes them solidly a part of the Great Lakes region.
I guess by Great Lakes Megalopolis they mean all the Great Lakes cities + the cities connected to them. I'm not sure what exactly is controversial.
Granted I have a hard time picturing how Louisville is connected to the Great Lakes, but Pittsburgh definitely was (see the steel industry, now not so much).
Also, I'm confused why cities like Buffalo and Rochester are controversial add-ons when they meet the definition of a Great Lakes city to the T.
One argument is the one you mention, whether a city like Louisville is connected to the Great Lakes. We can debate on that.
But the other argument, the one that I think is more controversial, is whether a Great Lakes Megalopolis even exists. IMHO, there is NO Great Lakes Megalopolis.
Years ago, a geographer wrote about the potential of a there being one day a Great Lakes Megalopolis but for some reason it has been twisted by some people to say it already exists. It doesn't, the cities are far too distant from each other and too much rural land and in some cases huge bodies of water, exist between them.
Can anyone argue that St Louis and Toronto have anything seriously to do with each other?
I never said that cities ON the Great Lakes weren't part of a Great Lakes Megalopolis or Great Lakes region.
I said that the Great Lakes cannot be called the most populous area of the Midwest BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST IN THE MIDWEST. Therefore using the Great Lakes as the "default cultural Midwest" is HIGHLY INACCURATE.
Yes I know that Toronto and Rochester are Great Lakes cities. Can you read the thread title please? Lol
I never said that cities ON the Great Lakes weren't part of a Great Lakes Megalopolis or Great Lakes region.
I said that the Great Lakes cannot be called the most populous area of the Midwest BECAUSE IT IS NOT JUST IN THE MIDWEST. Therefore using the Great Lakes as the "default cultural Midwest" is HIGHLY INACCURATE.
Yes I know that Toronto and Rochester are Great Lakes cities. Can you read the thread title please? Lol
Midwest is a fictatious region anyways. If NYS and Pennsylvania were to suddenly split in half, I'm sure the Western half everyone would call Midwestern.
Midwest is a fictatious region anyways. If NYS and Pennsylvania were to suddenly split in half, I'm sure the Western half everyone would call Midwestern.
It's not a fictitious region, it's just an arbitrary geographic area.
People in the U.S. always get confused because southern is both a region and a culture. They thus expect the other three major regions to share cultural commonalities. But they don't, they're just different flavors of Northern/Generic "American."
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.
