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 03-15-2017, 10:23 AM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,099 posts, read 4,735,887 times
Reputation: 5374

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by BaskingIguana View Post
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.
Pretty much.

Some people here already identify as midwestern.

In truth, the Midwest and the northeast are just "the north". I know people hate that but it's fact. Minnesota is no less northern than Rhode Island.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 03-15-2017, 10:29 AM
 
2,006 posts, read 1,019,562 times
Reputation: 2672
Agreed, GraniteStater. The Twin Cities are far too removed from a Great Lake, to be considered a GL city. Same with many of these other cities. How anyone can argue that St. Louis, Indianapolis, or any other cities that don't sit on a Great Lake, are Great Lake cities, is stretching it. If one can't drive to the north, south, east, or west of your city's boundary, and run into a Great Lake, I have trouble calling that city a Great Lakes city. It can be as simple as that. I understand some of the points people are trying to make, but that doesn't bring a lake any closer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 11:27 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,136 posts, read 9,907,336 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by Enean View Post
Agreed, GraniteStater. The Twin Cities are far too removed from a Great Lake, to be considered a GL city. Same with many of these other cities. How anyone can argue that St. Louis, Indianapolis, or any other cities that don't sit on a Great Lake, are Great Lake cities, is stretching it. If one can't drive to the north, south, east, or west of your city's boundary, and run into a Great Lake, I have trouble calling that city a Great Lakes city. It can be as simple as that. I understand some of the points people are trying to make, but that doesn't bring a lake any closer.
I think we are finally beginning to narrow it down a bit. If we can reasonable agree that the Twin Cities are not Great Lake Cities, and as Mini-Chi-Bus says, Indianapolis and Columbus are not much different, then we can reasonably agree that cities even further away like St Louis and Cincinnati are not either. Cities and metro areas that are on or close to the Lakes like Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Cleveland are the real Great Lake cities.

Having said that, I think Enean you are a little too strict with the bolded. Detroit for instance does not actually touch one of the Great Lakes, neither does Niagara Falls. But I think they are close enough to be considered part of the Great Lakes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 12:10 PM
 
2,006 posts, read 1,019,562 times
Reputation: 2672
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I think we are finally beginning to narrow it down a bit. If we can reasonable agree that the Twin Cities are not Great Lake Cities, and as Mini-Chi-Bus says, Indianapolis and Columbus are not much different, then we can reasonably agree that cities even further away like St Louis and Cincinnati are not either. Cities and metro areas that are on or close to the Lakes like Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Cleveland are the real Great Lake cities.

Having said that, I think Enean you are a little too strict with the bolded. Detroit for instance does not actually touch one of the Great Lakes, neither does Niagara Falls. But I think they are close enough to be considered part of the Great Lakes.

I'll concede that, definitely. Michigan is the one state that is surrounded by Great Lakes. Even though Detroit doesn't "touch" a Great Lake, it has close proximity. I'm not sure how a city 150-200 miles away can be considered a Great Lakes city. It doesn't matter if a Great Lakes city is also a part of a river valley...it can be both.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 12:54 PM
 
4,802 posts, read 3,845,880 times
Reputation: 2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I think we are finally beginning to narrow it down a bit. If we can reasonable agree that the Twin Cities are not Great Lake Cities, and as Mini-Chi-Bus says, Indianapolis and Columbus are not much different, then we can reasonably agree that cities even further away like St Louis and Cincinnati are not either. Cities and metro areas that are on or close to the Lakes like Chicago, Milwaukee, Duluth and Cleveland are the real Great Lake cities.

Having said that, I think Enean you are a little too strict with the bolded. Detroit for instance does not actually touch one of the Great Lakes, neither does Niagara Falls. But I think they are close enough to be considered part of the Great Lakes.
Detroit however is in a Great Lakes state and I think that any part of Michigan can be considered the Great Lakes considering most of the entire state's boundaries are defined by Great Lakes. Detroit's proximity also to Lake Erie and Huron give it a very unique placement that MSP, STL, and the other cities listed in the Great Lakes Megalopolis do not have. Finally, if St. Louis isn't a Great Lakes cities and via waterway actually is connected to Lake Michigan, Louisville is about as far from the Great Lakes one can get even if bordering a Great Lakes state. Is there even a water route to or from a Great Lake to Louisville???

Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 03-15-2017 at 01:55 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 01:25 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,136 posts, read 9,907,336 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by EddieOlSkool View Post
Detroit however is in a Great Lakes state and I think that any part of Michigan can be considered the Great Lakes considering most of the entire state's boundaries are defined by Great Lakes. Detroit's proximity also to Lake Erie and Heron give it a very unique placement that MSP, STL, and the other cities listed in the Great Lakes Megalopolis do not have. Finally, if St. Louis isn't a Great Lakes cities and via waterway actually is connected to Lake Michigan, Louisville is about as far from the Great Lakes one can get even if bordering a Great Lakes state. Is there even a water route to or from a Great Lake to Louisville???
I agree with you about Michigan and to me Michigan and a large part of Ontario for that matter, is a special case because they are literally surrounded by Great Lakes.

To put it bluntly, but this "its a far away city like St Louis or Louisville but it is connected by canal so it is a Great Lakes City" is quite frankly ridiculous. Is Memphis a Gulf Coast City because it is on the Mississippi River and thus connected to the Gulf? Are Buffalo and Toronto Atlantic coast cities because they are connected by canal to New York City? I think you can see what I mean.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:00 PM
 
4,802 posts, read 3,845,880 times
Reputation: 2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
I agree with you about Michigan and to me Michigan and a large part of Ontario for that matter, is a special case because they are literally surrounded by Great Lakes.

To put it bluntly, but this "its a far away city like St Louis or Louisville but it is connected by canal so it is a Great Lakes City" is quite frankly ridiculous. Is Memphis a Gulf Coast City because it is on the Mississippi River and thus connected to the Gulf? Are Buffalo and Toronto Atlantic coast cities because they are connected by canal to New York City? I think you can see what I mean.
Yeah I mean to me, Great Lakes cities and towns always had significant proximity to the Lakes. They didn't have to be Coastal (I consider Valpo a Great Lakes city) but I would say once you go three counties away from the coast it becomes silly to consider something a Great Lakes city or town. Heck some would even argue that a county that doesn't even touch a Great Lake is no longer considered part of the area but I don't see it being that strict. To me the Great Lakes isn't very easy to define but at the same time it isn't as broad want to make it.

Heck why don't we just go by climate. If Lake Effect snow has never hit the area, then it no longer qualifies as within the Great Lakes sphere howboudat
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:11 PM
 
4,802 posts, read 3,845,880 times
Reputation: 2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
Pretty much.

Some people here already identify as midwestern.

In truth, the Midwest and the northeast are just "the north". I know people hate that but it's fact. Minnesota is no less northern than Rhode Island.
Wow. If people in the actual Northeast identify as Midwestern then it shows how bogus of a cultural title it is. I have had Western New Workers tell me to my face they are Midwestern. I said "uh yeah what you said".

How big is the Midwest? It seems that anything that isn't the South, Bos-Wash, New England, or the Frontier/ Left Coast is "the Midwest". Western NY is the Midwest and so is Denver I have heard. Talk about being in the cool kids club. Or the rejects no one wants. I suppose if you're West of the Appalachian and East of the Rockies then you're in the Midwest. Oh and if you're in a city in the South where a few of the residents dislike the South then you're apparently also in the Midwest as well. It seems that the default "regional identity" when you don't like your own is always Midwestern. Rochester, Louisville, and Denver are ALL Midwestern apparently.

Now that I live in the South I use Northern and Midwestern interchangeably. It does trigger some people here when I tell them that they're from the South (I mean I am in a Southern state and I don't mean the Maryland or Missouri kind)

This just shows how bogus "Midwest" actually is. Is there honestly a huge difference between the Northeast and the region west of Pennsylvania but East of the Plains? I honestly don't think so. THIS AREA WAS SETTLED BY PEOPLE FROM THE NORTHEAST. It's like Ohio was settled by Pennsylvanians and Michigan by New Yorkers but somehow the culture magically changes once you cross an imaginary line? At least the Ohio River is an actual physical boundary unlike the PA/Ohio border. It also is very interesting that apparently the PAOH border significantly defines culture but the Mason-Dixon/ PAMD border doesn't.

Last edited by EddieOlSkool; 03-15-2017 at 02:22 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:27 PM
 
Location: Minneapolis
2,331 posts, read 3,055,097 times
Reputation: 3925
Quote:
Originally Posted by GraniteStater View Post
I would say Minnesota as a whole is more of a Great Lakes state than Great Plains state. The overarching qualification of one or the other is complicated. The Twin Cities itself are not specifically a Great Lakes city.
You are creating a false dichotomy. Not being one doesn't automatically make it the other. Minnesota is Minnesota. If it isn't primarily a Great Lakes state or a Great Plains state then it is something else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 03-15-2017, 02:31 PM
 
4,802 posts, read 3,845,880 times
Reputation: 2585
Quote:
Originally Posted by Drewcifer View Post
You are creating a false dichotomy. Not being one doesn't automatically make it the other. Minnesota is Minnesota. If it isn't primarily a Great Lakes state or a Great Plains state then it is something else.
MSP is just MSP. It doesn't have to fit into two regions that it never was and currently isn't a part of. It's just the largest metro in Minnesota. Minnesota in and of itself is very unique. I would call it along with Eastern North Dakota, Western Wisconsin, and the UP of Michigan the "North Central" region. Also the "true" Upper Midwest. Heck if you ask them, "The North" is also a local name they like to use.
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