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 04-02-2018, 09:52 PM
 
Location: Alexandria, Commonwealth of Virginia
1,609 posts, read 1,108,082 times
Reputation: 1903

Advertisements

Overall not bad. But Tulsa as "Appalachia" is a huge stretch, as are those counties north of Texas. Gulf Coast is also really broad. Corpus Christi and Mobile are nothing alike.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 04-03-2018, 08:29 AM
 
Location: Brew City
4,231 posts, read 2,510,875 times
Reputation: 5703
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveStavroz View Post
Overall it's pretty good but I don't understand what you did in Michigan.
Why are those counties in central Michigan islands of "Heartland" and not "Great Lakes" like the rest of Michigan?.
It triggers my OCD...
Oh and another thing that triggers my OCD big time is that the "Northeast" is colored white.
It looks empty, just color it with something, it doesn't look good white.
This. You could make an argument for rural MI being distinctly different than more urban areas but to have islands of "Heartland" in the middle and out on the thumb is weird. I'm not sure you can lump Chicagoland, Cleveland, etc. with the U.P. though. But I guess if water is the only thing linking them they are clearly part of the Great Lakes. I've lived in three separate parts of the "Great Lakes" region and two of them (Toledo and Milwaukee) are similar but the U.P. is as opposite as can be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 09:16 AM
 
Location: Zurich, Switzerland/ Piedmont, CA
32,372 posts, read 55,164,890 times
Reputation: 15443
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajams22 View Post
Knowing how [some] Oregonians vehemently hate anything California, not sure they'd be keen on being associated with the Bay Area
As if, they arent on our level to begin with. That said, we are definitely NOT part of the Pacific NW. How are Fresno and Sacramento more 'West Coast' than the Bay Area? I dont get it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 11:24 AM
 
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,099 posts, read 4,735,887 times
Reputation: 5374
As it applies to NY state, this is some of the most actual thought put into it I've seen in a long while. These kind of maps usually just lump it into the New England region and call it a day, giving it no ties to PA/northern Appalachia or the great lakes at all.

I appreciate that you put some time into this.

That said, I do feel that coastal New England, particularly the lower three states (sans western Mass), are fairly distinct from the interior.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 11:38 AM
 
Location: Texoma / Atlanta
19 posts, read 9,826 times
Reputation: 71
Let me explain more about the exclaves (pockets) in Michigan, noted in these comments:

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveStavroz View Post
Overall it's pretty good but I don't understand what you did in Michigan.
Why are those counties in central Michigan islands of "Heartland" and not "Great Lakes" like the rest of Michigan?.
It triggers my OCD...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sharks With Lasers View Post
I live in central Michigan (in that blue shaded island) and it's part of the Great Lakes area and should be shaded gray like the rest of the state. Basically you're arguing that Lansing (and the Thumb area) are culturally different from the rest of the state, which isn't true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Vegabern View Post
This. You could make an argument for rural MI being distinctly different than more urban areas but to have islands of "Heartland" in the middle and out on the thumb is weird. I'm not sure you can lump Chicagoland, Cleveland, etc. with the U.P. though. But I guess if water is the only thing linking them they are clearly part of the Great Lakes. I've lived in three separate parts of the "Great Lakes" region and two of them (Toledo and Milwaukee) are similar but the U.P. is as opposite as can be.
First, remember that this is not a map of "cultural" regions, but a map based on ecoregions (a system for classifying natural landscapes) and dominant industries.

For the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, the most significant divide industry-wise is between agriculture and manufacturing — between, roughly speaking, the "Farm Belt" Midwest and the "Rust Belt" Midwest. Now, northwest Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the UP and northern LP in Michigan (all of which, for simplicity's sake, I'll here refer to as "the North Woods") don't quite fit in with either, and I'll discuss them in a moment. And I've put southern Illinois, southern Indiana, and southern Ohio in my Appalachia-Ohio River Valley-Ozarks region (Appohzarka), which is a separate discussion.

For the counties that remain — i.e., above the Ohio River Valley and below the North Woods — I consistently used the same approach in all 6 states: using maps from the USDA's most recent Census of Agriculture as well as data on employment from the US Census' American Community Survey, I identified clusters of counties within each state that had significant employment and land-use in agriculture relative to manufacturing: these were assigned to Heartland. For Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Minnesota, this was pretty easy. But Michigan was more challenging because there are many areas where there is a medium or even medium-high amount of involvement in agriculture (comparable to parts of, for example, Wisconsin or Indiana) but also have huge manufacturing involvement. The Tri-Cities and Grand Rapids metro areas are the best examples of these. Those counties where the ratio of agriculture to manufacturing was closer to 1:4, I placed in Heartland. Those counties where it's more like 1:8 or 1:10, I placed in Great Lakes. (I used this same approach in Wisconsin, Indiana, and Illinois — the only difference is, for the most part, those counties clustered in those states, whereas in Michigan they made exclaves (pockets).) You can review the agriculture maps for yourself at the links below.

As for Lansing, my rule of "rural gravity" applied: I assigned counties outside of metro areas first, and then assigned metro areas based the non-metro counties they're a hub for. In other words: a metro goes in the same region as the non-metro counties for which it's the economic hub. Many of the Mid Michigan counties for which Lansing is a metro hub fell in the cluster of Heartland counties (indeed, one of the counties in the Lansing metro is one of those Heartland cluster counties).

Now, about northeast Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the UP and northern LP in Michigan (the North Woods): This is clearly not a major farming region, as one can readily see in the USDA maps. Moreover, they belong to an entirely different ecoregion than the rest of their respective states. If my map were purely about ecoregions, I'd put these with the boreal forest areas of northern New England (i.e., in VT/NH/ME) and the Adirondacks in a "North Country" region. But there's no strong economic connections between these two areas. So the question is, do these Midwestern North Woods have closer economic links to the Farm Belt or the Rust Belt? And the answer is the Rust Belt, on account of
(a) mining/extraction in Minnesota and Wisconsin,
(b) logging throughout the North Woods, which has fed the paper manufacturing in the Rust Belt, and
(c) trade/shipping links between the port cities in the North Woods and the rest of the Great Lakes.

Note: I've published the criteria I used for this map so that my procedure is fairly transparent (unlike Colin Woodard's): http://www.tinyurl.com/JPMapRules

USDA Census of Agriculture — the maps below are particularly relevant:
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Public.../Ag_Atlas_Maps

Percent of area out of each county's total land area (pdf):
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Public...-largetext.pdf

Value of each county's crops sold (pdf):
https://www.agcensus.usda.gov/Public...-largetext.pdf

Ecoregions classification and maps:
https://www.epa.gov/eco-research/eco...-north-america
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 11:41 AM
_OT
 
Location: Miami
2,144 posts, read 1,521,186 times
Reputation: 1848
About time you corrected them. I figured the thread wasn’t exactly cultural identity.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 11:45 AM
 
Location: Texoma / Atlanta
19 posts, read 9,826 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
I appreciate that you put some time into this.

That said, I do feel that coastal New England, particularly the lower three states (sans western Mass), are fairly distinct from the interior.
Thanks so much! And I totally hear you re: the boreal forests in northern New England vs. the coastal plains in southern New England. The challenge I faced is where to put those northern forest areas. Obviously they're too small to be their own region. If the map were purely about ecoregions, the least-bad solution would be put them with the Midwestern "North Woods" (northeastern Minnesota, northern Wisconsin, and the UP and northern LP in Michigan) in a combined "North County" region. The problem is, the other major factor in my map was economic links, as these two halves of a proposed "North Country" are much more closely economically linked to other regions than to each other. (The other problem is that no one from either of these halves would think of themselves as being from the region that the other half is part of.)

So it's not a perfect solution, but it's the least problematic one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Texoma / Atlanta
19 posts, read 9,826 times
Reputation: 71
Quote:
Originally Posted by GunnerTHB View Post
I believe this map is pretty close with respect to the areas that I have experience with.

A few notes:

Madison County, TN anchors much of rural West Tennessee. However, my knee-jerk reaction would have been to label it Deep South. East of there becomes a toss up between your Ozark-Appalachian region and deep south. I would put Henderson County, TN as upland, not deep south. There is a notable east-west split in that county. [...]

Interesting project for sure.
GunnerTHB, hearing this from you means a lot, given how much your comments in other threads have shaped my thinking in several regions!

Quick clarification: You said Henderson County, TN, doesn't belong in Deep South, but if you look at full-zoom image, you'll I didn't put it in Deep South. Did you mean a different county?

Here's the same map from the original post, for convenience:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 12:53 PM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
7,136 posts, read 9,907,336 times
Reputation: 6424
Quote:
Originally Posted by CookieSkoon View Post
As it applies to NY state, this is some of the most actual thought put into it I've seen in a long while. These kind of maps usually just lump it into the New England region and call it a day, giving it no ties to PA/northern Appalachia or the great lakes at all.

I appreciate that you put some time into this.

That said, I do feel that coastal New England, particularly the lower three states (sans western Mass), are fairly distinct from the interior.
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. For instance, I like the border area between the Appalachians (Alleghenies) and the New York City/Philadelphia area. It basically shows where the Catskills begin.

However, I also agree with you about New England, especially when you add the Adirondacks. What does Boston, Providence or Hartford have to do with the wilds of the Adirondacks or Maine? If you are going to separate the metro areas of the "Mid-Atlantic" and "Tidewater" from the rural interior, you should do the same for Boston as well.

So I would divide New England into a northern New England (parts of NY, VT, NH and ME) and a southern New England (parts of MA, CT and RIPP). I would also separate the Ozarks from Appalachia. Both of theses upland regions are highly forested hilly/mountain areas but there is far too much low lying open farmland between them to connect them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 04-03-2018, 01:52 PM
 
Location: Brew City
4,231 posts, read 2,510,875 times
Reputation: 5703
Quote:
Originally Posted by _OT View Post
About time you corrected them. I figured the thread wasn’t exactly cultural identity.
I never implied it was. The U.P. is logging, mining, and tourism. How does that match with the rust belt? His latest explanation is more thorough but I still don't see lumping the areas together for nothing other than paper mills and lake frontage.
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