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.
The Midwest and northeast are distinctly different. But there’s a few common threads which I think should be borne in mind.
There’s a transition area - NW Ohio seems kinda Northeastern, and WNY seems kinda Midwestern. And the rust belt/Great Lakes share a real heritage with the northeast as neither would have developed without the other; and none of those would have exploded were it not for the Midwestern bread basket. They’re kind of intimately related but not the same. I’d say there’s a better opening for the “new England” thing to go away because that’s all the northeast, or for the Midwest and Great Plains to basically combine.
Is the interior northeast and the midwest THAT different?
As others have mentioned, the Great Lakes portion of the Midwest connects with Western PA and Upstate NY as as the epicenter of the connecting point of the Midwest and NE. But the point about the region being too large, I mean, can’t find many similarities between Missouri, Kansas, and Nebraska and New England.
The Midwest and northeast are distinctly different. But there’s a few common threads which I think should be borne in mind.
There’s a transition area - NW Ohio seems kinda Northeastern, and WNY seems kinda Midwestern. And the rust belt/Great Lakes share a real heritage with the northeast as neither would have developed without the other; and none of those would have exploded were it not for the Midwestern bread basket. They’re kind of intimately related but not the same. I’d say there’s a better opening for the “new England” thing to go away because that’s all the northeast, or for the Midwest and Great Plains to basically combine.
As I recently discussed on another thread, the look and feel of New England is fairly standard or uniform throughout the region. Architectural styles, town, layouts, place names, etc. are quite consistent across all New England states. In other words, when you’re in New England, you know you’re in New England. On the other hand, towns and villages in New York tend to range in both look and feel. Some places in New York could pass for New England; many others could pass for New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Ohio. A few places on the Lake Ontario shoreline could even pass for Michigan! The variation found within New York is the result of a wider array of outside influences during initial settlement and, in my opinion, contributes to the uniqueness of New York.
As I recently discussed on another thread, the look and feel of New England is fairly standard or uniform throughout the region. Architectural styles, town, layouts, place names, etc. are quite consistent across all New England states. In other words, when you’re in New England, you know you’re in New England. On the other hand, towns and villages in New York tend to range in both look and feel. Some places in New York could pass for New England; many others could pass for New Jersey, Pennsylvania or Ohio. A few places on the Lake Ontario shoreline could even pass for Michigan! The variation found within New York is the result of a wider array of outside influences during initial settlement and, in my opinion, contributes to the uniqueness of New York.
Having been to Northern Maine, I would argue that this portion of the state doesn't feel like anything near the Atlantic Ocean or the New Hampshire border. It almost feels like an extension of New Brunswick. Maine is larger than the other 5 New England States combined, so I would disagree to some extent about New England being uniform. The populated towns near the ocean, sure. But Aroostook County is another ball of wax.
Having been to Northern Maine, I would argue that this portion of the state doesn't feel like anything near the Atlantic Ocean or the New Hampshire border. It almost feels like an extension of New Brunswick. Maine is larger than the other 5 New England States combined, so I would disagree to some extent about New England being uniform. The populated towns near the ocean, sure. But Aroostook County is another ball of wax.
Agreed. I've been through towns like Berlin, CT that do nothing to scream New England uniformity. It could be anywhere, kinda drab, strip mall Americana. And this is far from an anomaly. Not sure what that poster was trying to get at but it's not accurate. No entire region, especially in the older Northeast, is completely uniform.
the midwest and northeast are distinctly different. But there’s a few common threads which i think should be borne in mind.
There’s a transition area - NE ohio seems kinda northeastern, and wny seems kinda midwestern. And the rust belt/great lakes share a real heritage with the northeast as neither would have developed without the other; and none of those would have exploded were it not for the midwestern bread basket. They’re kind of intimately related but not the same. I’d say there’s a better opening for the “new england” thing to go away because that’s all the northeast, or for the midwest and great plains to basically combine.
The Midwest and northeast are distinctly different. But there’s a few common threads which I think should be borne in mind.
There’s a transition area - NW Ohio seems kinda Northeastern, and WNY seems kinda Midwestern. And the rust belt/Great Lakes share a real heritage with the northeast as neither would have developed without the other; and none of those would have exploded were it not for the Midwestern bread basket. They’re kind of intimately related but not the same. I’d say there’s a better opening for the “new England” thing to go away because that’s all the northeast, or for the Midwest and Great Plains to basically combine.
While I agree that the Northeast and Midwest are distinct, I don't think that necessarily makes the argument. The West has northern Cascadia to NorCal (loosely: Washington, Oregon, north California, throw in Alaska), the inland Rockies (again, loosely: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado) and the Southwest desert and tropic states (Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico). I'd say they're pretty distinct as well.
The South has that development corridor centered around the Piedmont and horseshoeing around the Appalachians (Virginias, Carolinas, Georgia, East & Central Tennessee, northern half of Alabama, throw in parts of Kentucky); peninsular Florida; Texas and the lower Mississippi River/Central Gulf coast (West Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, southern Alabama, Florida Panhandle)
Like mentioned, the Midwest category already has the Great Plains and Great Lakes areas which are also pretty distinct.
It'd be categorizing West (Cascadia, Southwest, Rockies); South (Piedmont, Lower Mississippi, Texas, Florida) and North (Northeast, Great Lakes, Great Plains). If you're putting Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Seattle into the their own category together, and New Orleans, San Antonio and Charlotte into a separate basket, I'd be hard pressed to say New York and Boston deserve to be in a separate basket from Chicago and Minneapolis.
I'm not really for against a "merger," but I will note that a reshuffling of Census Bureau definitions probably need to occur. Midwest + Northeast (126.6k) would handedly out populate the West (78.6k), but it would only beat the South (126.3k) by 300-400k. (A better answer might be to split the South.)
While I agree that the Northeast and Midwest are distinct, I don't think that necessarily makes the argument. The West has northern Cascadia to NorCal (loosely: Washington, Oregon, north California, throw in Alaska), the inland Rockies (again, loosely: Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Utah, Colorado) and the Southwest desert and tropic states (Southern California, Hawaii, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico). I'd say they're pretty distinct as well.
The South has that development corridor centered around the Piedmont and horseshoeing around the Appalachians (Virginias, Carolinas, Georgia, East & Central Tennessee, northern half of Alabama, throw in parts of Kentucky); peninsular Florida; Texas and the lower Mississippi River/Central Gulf coast (West Tennessee, Arkansas, Mississippi, Louisiana, southern Alabama, Florida Panhandle)
Like mentioned, the Midwest category already has the Great Plains and Great Lakes areas which are also pretty distinct.
It'd be categorizing West (Cascadia, Southwest, Rockies); South (Piedmont, Lower Mississippi, Texas, Florida) and North (Northeast, Great Lakes, Great Plains). If you're putting Salt Lake City, Los Angeles, and Seattle into the their own category together, and New Orleans, San Antonio and Charlotte into a separate basket, I'd be hard pressed to say New York and Boston deserve to be in a separate basket from Chicago and Minneapolis.
I'm not really for against a "merger," but I will note that a reshuffling of Census Bureau definitions probably need to occur. Midwest + Northeast (126.6k) would handedly out populate the West (78.6k), but it would only beat the South (126.3k) by 300-400k. (A better answer might be to split the South.)
But what would be the realistic point of having a region that large just for namesake? I mean, you could certainly define a “Northern” region, but in this day and age when we are more connected than ever, even on a global scale, I don’t really see what the point of having a designated super-region would be or what value it would bring. How would it change how someone from Iowa views or interacts with someone in Vermont??? It’s fun to fantasize about on C-D, but that’s about it.
Why are all the parts of the completely arbitrary region called the "Midwest" combined as one?? Even the term "Midwest" is ridiculous...the middle of the West??
That should be the question. What has been termed and thrown into what is called the "Midwest" should really be three....or maybe four different regions.
Yup, I really feel like it’s such a broad category without much meaning. As someone from southeast Michigan I have a hard time wrapping my head around being in the “same region” as the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas etc. I think those states should be grouped together as the Plains, then MN/WI/upper MI can be in their own region and then southeast Michigan, northern Ohio, rust-belt states in general can be our own region.
But as another user mentioned, we’re in a time now where all Americans are more connected than ever so regional labels aren’t as necessary. For example, I’ve noticed that a lot of young people (myself included) sound the same no matter where in the country we’re from. I’ve seen videos about the “Northern Cities Vowel Shift” which covers the area I’m from but I sound nothing like that and none of my peers do either, but a lot of older people still sound like it.
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.
