Cities that don't "fit into" their larger regions (2014, high school)

[Obrienlester]

Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker

damn right. And the two most Texan cities are Houston and Dallas. Easily. Austin doesn't belong in Texas. Dallas or Houston should be the capital. Texan through and theought

I would have to disagree with you on that. The most Texan city I believe is Fort Worth. Known for cattle industry, Cowboy hats, and Rodeo.

[annie_himself]

I found Austin to be incredibly Texan.

[NoClueWho]

Originally Posted by Obrienlester

I would have to disagree with you on that. The most Texan city I believe is Fort Worth. Known for cattle industry, Cowboy hats, and Rodeo.

If we're talking about outsiders' usual perspective of what Texas is, then yeah, Fort Worth is going to be the "most Texan" big Texas city, with San Antonio not far behind.

[mrfoe]

Originally Posted by Gaylord_Focker

damn right. And the two most Texan cities are Houston and Dallas. Easily. Austin doesn't belong in Texas. Dallas or Houston should be the capital. Texan through and theought

[_OT]

Austin IS Texas.

[PerseusVeil]

Originally Posted by mr roboto

Chicago. It's so much larger than any other midwestern city and feels more Northeast that any other midwestern city.

I would say it's the rest of the Midwest that changed rather than Chicago itself which really made the city standout in the region. In 1950 when many of the Midwestern cities peaked in terms of population, this is how they stacked up against each other:

Chicago - 3.621 million
Detroit - 1.85 million
Cleveland - 915,000
St. Louis - 857,000
Milwaukee - 637,000
Minneapolis - 522,000
Cincinnati - 5034,000
Kansas City - 457,000
Indianapolis - 427,000
Columbus - 376,000
St. Paul - 311,000

Obviously Chicago was still undeniably larger than every other city in the Midwest, but Midwestern cities used to be substantially larger and more urban. That being said, I think you'll still find a lot more in common with Chicago and the other Midwestern cities than you think. What makes some people think that Chicago seems Northeastern is its size and the pace of its lifestyle. From a built environment though, Chicago on the residential level doesn't look Northeastern. Even its skyscrapers are far more spread apart than what you'll see in NYC. For example, here's the base of the John Hancock in Chicago vs the Empire State Building in NYC:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8992...8i6656!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Em...857577!6m1!1e1

[mr roboto]

Originally Posted by PerseusVeil

I would say it's the rest of the Midwest that changed rather than Chicago itself which really made the city standout in the region. In 1950 when many of the Midwestern cities peaked in terms of population, this is how they stacked up against each other:

Chicago - 3.621 million
Detroit - 1.85 million
Cleveland - 915,000
St. Louis - 857,000
Milwaukee - 637,000
Minneapolis - 522,000
Cincinnati - 5034,000
Kansas City - 457,000
Indianapolis - 427,000
Columbus - 376,000
St. Paul - 311,000

Obviously Chicago was still undeniably larger than every other city in the Midwest, but Midwestern cities used to be substantially larger and more urban. That being said, I think you'll still find a lot more in common with Chicago and the other Midwestern cities than you think. What makes some people think that Chicago seems Northeastern is its size and the pace of its lifestyle. From a built environment though, Chicago on the residential level doesn't look Northeastern. Even its skyscrapers are far more spread apart than what you'll see in NYC. For example, here's the base of the John Hancock in Chicago vs the Empire State Building in NYC:
https://www.google.com/maps/@41.8992...8i6656!6m1!1e1
https://www.google.com/maps/place/Em...857577!6m1!1e1

I know it's not NYC. I lived in Chicago for a decade. I live in Minneapolis now. I travel frequently for work to other cities in the Midwest.

It's not just population and built environment. It's pace of life, expectations, cost of living, size of metro, national media exposure etc.

[Tom Lennox 70]

Originally Posted by KathrynAragon

I agree. I think that New Orleans is deliciously southern to it's very core.

I visited West Virginia a couple of years ago and went to the Greenbrier Resort. Everywhere I looked, there was "southern paraphernalia" but I hate to break it to them - the Greenbrier is not a southern resort and it's not in a southern state. Wannabees! LOL

I think that Springfield, MO feels southern though it's technically not. Same with Oklahoma City.

I think that there's a distinctly southern vibe to some of the cities in Ohio, which definitely surprised me.

I think if you found a Southern vibe in southern Ohio, then that applies to West Virginia as well, particularly the southern half of West Virginia.

[Tom Lennox 70]

The Northern and Eastern Panhandles of West Virginia feel VERY different than the rest of the state. The area around Wheeling and Weirton feels decidedly Rust Belt and Northern while the Eastern Panhandle is an extension of the Washington DC suburbs with loads of new developments.

I've been told that Cleveland feels more Northeastern than Midwest, and that Pittsburgh feels more Midwest than Northeast.

Bakersfield feels very different from "typical California".

Miami obviously is a very different place than anywhere else in America.

[hipcat]

Austin's just like the rest of Texas but more "progressive" because it's a university town. But a few cities in mind which sticks out in its regions are Buffalo(Which is more like a Midwestern city like Cleveland, Chicago, and Detriot), Pittsburgh(Heavily Appalachian), San Diego(Which is a lot more conservative than other coastal Californian cities because of the military), Miami(So obvious), Orlando, and Minneapolis(Which is more ideology wise to West Coast cities than Midwestern cities)