How "southern" is Kansas City? (Union, Memphis: neighborhoods, prices)

[mo guy]

just who are many geographers?

[MarketStEl]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

The solid line between the East and the West is generally agreed upon by many geographers as State highway 183 or 281 that traverse north-south across the region. The wheat growing areas are much more aligned to the interior West in terms of very low population densities (defined by the Census Bureau as frontier counties), and climate (more of a semi-arid steppe variety) that have little in common with areas to the east- which is the vast majority of the Midwest. I also don't consider the western Dakotas or western Nebraska to be grouped with the Midwest either, they have far more in common with the western US in many categories.

I'm witn mo guy. Yes, it's drier west of the 100th meridian, which is the line I'm familiar with, but in terms of what the economy is based on, the western prairie has more in common with the Corn Belt than with the Intermountain West.

Denver may call itself "the Queen City of the Plains," but it sits at the west edge of the plains, and most of the foodstuffs grown on those plains head not to Denver but to Kansas City (or Minneapolis if it's grown further north) for processing and storage.

The economy of the Intermountain West relies more on extractive industries and ranching than on farming. You have some extractive industry in the western part of the Plains, especially in the Dakotas, but in most of this region, grain production remains paramount - and they don't grow grain in the Intermountain West.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by MarketStEl

I'm witn mo guy. Yes, it's drier west of the 100th meridian, which is the line I'm familiar with, but in terms of what the economy is based on, the western prairie has more in common with the Corn Belt than with the Intermountain West.

Denver may call itself "the Queen City of the Plains," but it sits at the west edge of the plains, and most of the foodstuffs grown on those plains head not to Denver but to Kansas City (or Minneapolis if it's grown further north) for processing and storage.

The economy of the Intermountain West relies more on extractive industries and ranching than on farming. You have some extractive industry in the western part of the Plains, especially in the Dakotas, but in most of this region, grain production remains paramount - and they don't grow grain in the Intermountain West.

Most of the region you mentioned is not really all entirely agricultural in a majority of acreage, but actually range land used for ranching as the climate, soils, and terrain do not support a large percentage of the land to be in crops like the majority of Iowa- where almost no irrigation is needed to produce higher yields. If you state that reality, than you would have to include most of Montana as the Midwest as well, as the majority of the eastern half of the state is a combination of ranching, energy extraction industries, and wheat farming.

[TheseGoTo11]

When I was in Kansas City, it felt no more Southern to me than Omaha. Plains/Midwest all the way.

[Charlestondata]

Exploring downtown KC on Google Maps indicates to me it's not very southern. Have the city plant some grand trees and get back to me in about 30 years when I'm 91. And get some columns.

[James Bond 007]

The "Southern-ness" is more about people than scenery or cityscape.

A fair amount of people in KC have some sort of Southern accent. And the largest Protestant denomination in Missouri are the Southern Baptists. Won't find much of either of those in the Midwest outside of Missouri.

[WyoNewk]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

State lines are arbitrary lines drawn in the sand. Southwest Kansas has nothing in common with the Midwest, but far more in common with the rest of the interior western US and adjacent southwest. Areas of Southeast Kansas are peripheral, certainly far from solidly Midwest by any stretch. The agricultural core of the Midwest is primarily delineated by areas that grow corn and soybeans. Only far NE Kansas is solidly in the Corn Belt. Wichita is hard to categorize, as many from the South always tend to put in the "solidly Midwest" category in the current day, whereas, many from the North state that it doesn't really have as much in common with the majority of the actual Midwest.

When I was a kid we farmed just 6 miles from the Nebraska border. It was definitely NE Kansas. We grew a lot of corn, but it was mostly because we couldn't, by law, plant more wheat. It was some year around mid-50s that the government checked the amount of wheat we (and others) had planted and limited us thereafter to that amount, or a slightly lower percentage of it. Unfortunately that was a year we'd planted light on the wheat and heavy on corn. (Part of our crop rotation -- a year or two of wheat, a year of corn, a year or two of wheat, a year of corn.) I've got no idea if it's still that way or not, but that was one of the things that drove us out of farming in the late 50s.

We moved to west central Iowa where Dad took a job with an oil company. I was still a "kid" at age 12, but Dad was amazed at the difference in the soil. Not only was the top soil more fertile, instead of being measured in inches deep it was measured in feet, and not just a couple feet but several. It wasn't anything like NE Kansas. Sure you can find some bottom lands in NE Kansas that do well with corn, but for the most part it's just not the kind of land that does well growing corn, not when you've got IA, IL, IN and the like for corn. My sister and here husband farm in western Iowa. I believe they're getting in excess of 200 bu. per acre. We used to get 15-20 in Kansas in was a good year! LOL

Enough of that.

I've always considered Kansas City as central. It gets damned cold there in the winter, ungodly hot in the summer. One might consider southern Missouri to be in the south, but certainly not KC.

[wolfpaw64]

St.Louis is closer to Memphis, Nashville, Louisville, even Atlanta which are all considered southern say kind of quasi Louisville though St.Louis doesn't carry much of the southern attributes and influences of the south. I can say likely in its early stages it was heavily influenced by east and south during those migrational times. Now its mostly midwest and east.. Anyways Kansas City is the furthest from feeling southern it feels more midwestern and western while St.Louis is more Midwestern and Eastern.
Just my take on it however everyone is entitled to their own opinion..

[Jay F]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

You would notice the southern aspects much more if you lived in the Midwest north of I-80.

Yes. I was born in Milwaukee. When I visited KC I thought I was in the South!

[sub]

Originally Posted by Jay F

Yes. I was born in Milwaukee. When I visited KC I thought I was in the South!

Then you've never been to the actual south.
I love Milwaukee, but people there are a funny bunch. Anything south of downtown Chicago probably seems southern to them.