What do Native Pittsburghers Consider Themselves? (Philadelphia, Erie: neighborhoods, construction, to live in)

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

But what happens if you weight by, say, total population size?



But that is in part because there are two more Midwestern cities in the top 10. As an alternative way to sum up, suppose we assign 10 points to the #1 slot, 9 to the #2 slot, and so on down to 1 point for the #10 spot. The East Coast gets 21 points. The Midwest also gets 21 points.



Sure, but the opposite point is true too. Personally, I would suggest this symmetry between Northeast and Midwest provides further evidence that the most sensible thing to do may be to define a separate region for Pittsburgh.



Really? #4 on NYC's list is Chicago--does that imply Chicago is also in the same region as NYC? For that matter, Tokyo is #2, Hong Kong #5, Guangzhou #6, London #7, Singapore #8, Ho Chi Minh City #9, and Beijing #10. Meanwhile, right after Pittsburgh at #11 comes San Diego at #12, and Cleveland at #13. Minneapolis is the next US city, then LA, Denver, Dallas, SF ... and then finally Philly! Personally, I don't see anything meaningful we can get from this list about which cities are in the same US region as New York.

All good points...however, the issue was whether Pittsburgh was connected to the East Coast enough to be considered Northeastern came up in General U.S. forum. My intention then was to show that Pittsburgh is connected to the Northeast and therefore cannot be excluded from the Northeast on that basis. I carried the argument to this forum with anticipation of the same argument. If I stepped beyond those bounds then I was clearly mistaken.

However, my opinion has not been changed on anything. Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania, PA is recognized by the U.S. census bureau as a Northeastern city. Hell, wikipedia goes so far as to include the whole state in the East Coast! Therefore, I believe the burden of proof that Pittsburgh is anything but Northeastern is on those claiming it is Midwestern or Appalachian only. I, nor most of us have been convinced Pittsburgh is not a Northeastern city. The physical structure of Pittsburgh seems Northeastern to me: Density, many narrow, one-way streets, cobblestone roads, heavy core of row houses, chaotic street pattern, heavy brick work; Pittsburghers are among the most highly educated in the country; heavy concentration of Universities; most Pittsburghers don't consider themselves anything but Northeastern, especially not Midwestern. Anyone can tell me that density or brick work or whatever is not exclusive to the Northeast, but so what! You won't find a single attribute exclusive to the Northeast--there is nothing that unifies the Northeast and only the Northeast.

[Katiana]

I am going to start a thread over on the Chicago forum, asking if they think Pittsburgh is part of the midwest.

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I am going to start a thread over on the Chicago forum, asking if they think Pittsburgh is part of the midwest.

Sweet...I shall be over soon.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

However, my opinion has not been changed on anything. Pittsburgh is in Pennsylvania, PA is recognized by the U.S. census bureau as a Northeastern city. Hell, wikipedia goes so far as to include the whole state in the East Coast!

Various other federal agencies, along with many other organizations, have recognized a region centered on Pittsburgh. And there happens to be a wikipedia article on this subject. See here:

Pittsburgh Tri-State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other federal bodies and wikipedia also recognize Pittsburgh's location within Appalachia:

Appalachia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the "Pittsburgh Tri-State" is more or less coextensive with the northeastern part of Appalachia.

Therefore, I believe the burden of proof that Pittsburgh is anything but Northeastern is on those claiming it is Midwestern or Appalachian only.

I'm not sure this is an issue that lends itself to burdens of proof. People seem capable of agreeing on the basic facts but then end up interpreting them differently.

I, nor most of us have been convinced Pittsburgh is not a Northeastern city.

There seem to be plenty of people on all sides of this debate, and no one appears to be convincing anyone else.

The physical structure of Pittsburgh seems Northeastern to me: Density, many narrow, one-way streets, cobblestone roads, heavy core of row houses, chaotic street pattern, heavy brick work . . . .

That is really a function of age, not culture: pretty much any urban area developed prior to the automobile era will share those characteristics. Indeed, you could be describing many urban areas in, say, Europe. The one major exception is master-planned cities such as Washington, DC--ironically #1 on your connectivity list, and yet not a city that has those physical attributes, thanks to its master-planned approach.

Pittsburghers are among the most highly educated in the country; heavy concentration of Universities

I actually think all that is most consistent with the theory that Pittsburgh is the de facto capital city of its own region, because that explains the high concentration of universities, hospitals, companies providing business services, museums and other cultural institutions, and so on. If it was just another city in a region with many more cities, I'm not sure why it would have that same concentration.

most Pittsburghers don't consider themselves anything but Northeastern, especially not Midwestern.

If you restrict the choices to only Northeastern or Midwestern, maybe this is true. That doesn't show it makes sense to restrict the possible answers to only those two choices in the first place.

Anyone can tell me that density or brick work or whatever is not exclusive to the Northeast, but so what! You won't find a single attribute exclusive to the Northeast--there is nothing that unifies the Northeast and only the Northeast.

Again, those particular attributes are a function of age. Generally, this pretty much sounds like an indictment of the concept of a "Northeast" region, and again I would personally favor dumping it.

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Various other federal agencies, along with many other organizations, have recognized a region centered on Pittsburgh. And there happens to be a wikipedia article on this subject. See here:

Pittsburgh Tri-State - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Other federal bodies and wikipedia also recognize Pittsburgh's location within Appalachia:

Appalachia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Note the "Pittsburgh Tri-State" is more or less coextensive with the northeastern part of Appalachia.

And we can find many businesses that consider Pittsburgh Northeaster, East Coast even a few that consider us Midwest. But I said U.S. Census Bureau, who better to define a region of population? Based on this fact, and the idea that there is little to truly unite the Northeast, I do believe the burden of proof is on you to prove this wrong. The Northeast is an arbitrary term, so fight to redefine it by fighting the ones who created it! If you really wanted to be specific about what areas are truly united, there would be no Northeast!

Originally Posted by BrianTH

That is really a function of age, not culture: pretty much any urban area developed prior to the automobile era will share those characteristics. Indeed, you could be describing many urban areas in, say, Europe. The one major exception is master-planned cities such as Washington, DC--ironically #1 on your connectivity list, and yet not a city that has those physical attributes, thanks to its master-planned approach.

So what? I never said Pittsburgh's structure was a function of its culture. In fact, I never said it was culture that defined whether a city was Northeastern, Midwestern or West Coast. Try telling someone from San Francisco he is not from the West Coast because his culture isn't like LA's. Cleveland was founded only decades after Pittsburgh, but I don't think the architecture is much alike. Plus, most of Pittsburgh's rows were built in the early part of the century--weren't most U.S. cities around during that time? Yet, the Mid-Atlantic has the vast majority of them in the U.S.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

I actually think all that is most consistent with the theory that Pittsburgh is the de facto capital city of its own region, because that explains the high concentration of universities, hospitals, companies providing business services, museums and other cultural institutions, and so on. If it was just another city in a region with many more cities, I'm not sure why it would have that same concentration.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

If you restrict the choices to only Northeastern or Midwestern, maybe this is true. That doesn't show it makes sense to restrict the possible answers to only those two choices in the first place.

Maybe you missed it, but there was a poll on this thread...it included the options: Northeast, Midwest, Appalachia, Northeast and Appalachia, North, East Coast. Most people say Northeast or some form of Northeast. Someone clearly could have written in Tri-State area, but so far only you have.

Originally Posted by BrianTH

Again, those particular attributes are a function of age. Generally, this pretty much sounds like an indictment of the concept of a "Northeast" region, and again I would personally favor dumping it.

I don't know what you're trying to do...you can continue to debunk the similarities I've offered between Pittsburgh and the East Coast, but I haven't actually seen much positive support for Pittsburgh as a Midwest city. The most anyone has come up with is: Pittsburgh is economically liberal and socially conservative--therefore it must be Midwestern!

[Katiana]

So what? I never said Pittsburgh's structure was a function of its culture. In fact, I never said it was culture that defined whether a city was Northeastern, Midwestern or West Coast. Try telling someone from San Francisco he is not from the West Coast because his culture isn't like LA's. Cleveland was founded only decades after Pittsburgh, but I don't think the architecture is much alike. Plus, most of Pittsburgh's rows were built in the early part of the century--weren't most U.S. cities around during that time? Yet, the Mid-Atlantic has the vast majority of them in the U.S.

I'm with ya on this one. Try telling a Seattleite that he (for the sake of argument) and a Los Angeleno are culturally related. Yet they both live on the West Coast! Colorado is the western US, and yet we have very little in common with either place. There is a little blurb on the Mountain States in Wikipedia, too (Mountain States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but that doesn't make it an official separate region of the country.

PS: The poll is up on the Chicago forum.

[supersoulty]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I looked up all those cities except Cincy (since we have fleetiebelle's expertise on that city) on Wikipedia and here is what I found:
Cleveland: perhaps the only other 'real' steel center on your list
Toledo: Glass, autos and auto parts
Detroit: Well, obvi (as the college kids say), Automobiles
Chicago: Meat packing (historical), finance, printing, publishing. It doesn't even mention steel, nor does it mention agri-business, though that is what my former father-in-law did there.
Milwaukee: Brewing, manufacturing (unspecified). I spent a lot of time in Milwaukee in the 50s and 60s, as I had relatives there. No evidence of steel mills. My uncle was a salesman for the Lehigh Valley RR when he lived there.
Minneapolis: Lumber, grain manufacturing (historical). Currently high tech, IT, etc.
Duluth: Steel, yes, but also shipping, cement, etc.
I think the type of manufacturing does matter. Minneapolis, especially was a farming/natural resources type of manufacturing city. Chicago's economy has always been very diverse. Yes, the area arouond L. Michigan had a lot of manufacturing, especially in the auto/steel sectors. But those places area NOT the same. Across the Ohio and Indiana turnpikes, the cornfields are just a few miles away from the mills. Ditto, the Gary area. There's far more of an agricultural presence. Even moreso around Duluth and Minneapolis. And flat! NW Ohio, Indiana, Chicago and Milwaukee are all flat, especially compared to Pgh. Ditto Mpls. The cities are easier to get around in, IMO.

Go just north of Pittsburgh and you'll find places that are both flat, and where the factories and the farms are right beside one another. Not hat I see hoe the particular topography of an area matters at all. Pittsburgh is way hillier than all the cities in the "Northeast" as well, unless we are talking about, say Concord, New Hampshire, which any comparison of the two is one Hell of a stretch... again lending credence to my point.

I don't know why you listed the historic manufacturing concerns of each city. I know what they are. I never claimed they all produced steel. You corrected me on a point I never made.

BTW... one of Pittsburgh's primary driving industries today is also IT High Tech. And historically, Pittsburgh was, at one point or another, a major center for lumber (you used to be able to walk across the Allegheny on the logs floating down stream) and glass... in fact, glass was Pittsburgh's first major industry and was a leading industry in Western, PA until fairly recent years (the almost complete shutdown of Brockway Glass in the mid-90's was pretty much the final nail). In Meadville, the main industry is tools and dials. In Erie, historically it was locomotive manufacturing (still important there) and paper production (gone now). Today, one of the big industries in the manufacturing of delicate, highly specialized equipment. Oh, I almost forgot Zurn.

So, your economic diversity idea falls well short of hitting the mark. Pittsburgh and Western, PA, like Midwestern cities, has historically been dependent on manufacturing. Most Northeast cities were far more reliant on pure commerce.

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by ainulinale

And we can find many businesses that consider Pittsburgh Northeaster, East Coast even a few that consider us Midwest. But I said U.S. Census Bureau, who better to define a region of population? Based on this fact, and the idea that there is little to truly unite the Northeast, I do believe the burden of proof is on you to prove this wrong. The Northeast is an arbitrary term, so fight to redefine it by fighting the ones who created it! If you really wanted to be specific about what areas are truly united, there would be no Northeast!

Again, this sounds to me like an indictment of the term Northeast.

So what? I never said Pittsburgh's structure was a function of its culture. In fact, I never said it was culture that defined whether a city was Northeastern, Midwestern or West Coast. Try telling someone from San Francisco he is not from the West Coast because his culture isn't like LA's.

But then why would structure matter at all to this issue? If it was a function of culture, then I could see someone arguing it was relevant to figuring out the region in which a city was located. But if it is not connected to culture, then what relevance does it have?

Cleveland was founded only decades after Pittsburgh, but I don't think the architecture is much alike.

I think if you went to Cleveland in the early 20th century, the similarities would be more apparent.

Plus, most of Pittsburgh's rows were built in the early part of the century

I'm not sure about that. The older maps I have show that the rowhouse areas in places like Lawrenceville and the South Side had already been built up by then.

--weren't most U.S. cities around during that time? Yet, the Mid-Atlantic has the vast majority of them in the U.S.

Similarly, the rowhouses in places like Philly and Baltimore date as far back as colonial times.

Maybe you missed it, but there was a poll on this thread...it included the options: Northeast, Midwest, Appalachia, Northeast and Appalachia, North, East Coast. Most people say Northeast or some form of Northeast.

I just checked. Northeast and East Coast together have 25 votes. Appalachian and Northeast and Appalachian have 17 votes. That doesn't strike me as definitive proof that Pittsburgh isn't Appalachian--incidentally, as I noted way above, I think in this list the best answer is Northeast and Appalachia. But see below (I understand why there is some reluctance to identify Pittsburgh as Appalachian).

I don't know what you're trying to do...you can continue to debunk the similarities I've offered between Pittsburgh and the East Coast, but I haven't actually seen much positive support for Pittsburgh as a Midwest city.

The most anyone has come up with is: Pittsburgh is economically liberal and socially conservative--therefore it must be Midwestern![/

Personally, I don't think Pittsburgh is either East Coast or Midwest. Again, I think it is in its own region between the East Coast and the Great Lakes.

By the way, I am gathering a lot of people don't like "Appalachian", and to be fair I would agree that the southwest half or so of Appalachia is a different region then the northeast half of Appalachia, where Pittsburgh is located. So another possibility would be to define the region as "the Allegheny Region", since the Allegheny Plateau and the Allegheny Mountains are more or less coextensive with the Pittsburgh Tri-State, the Pittsburgh dialect region, and so on.

[ainulinale]

Originally Posted by supersoulty

Most Northeast cities were far more reliant on pure commerce.

I added the emphasis to your quotation. What about Yonkers, Utica, Buffalo, Syracuse, Newark, Trenton, Patterson, Baltimore, Lowell, Lawrence, Worcester, Springfield, Hartford, Bridgeport, Scranton, Harrisburg, Providence, Allentown, Bethlehem...haven't all of these cities been heavily reliant on industry, suffer from industrial loss, and are considered part of the rust-belt?

[BrianTH]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I'm with ya on this one. Try telling a Seattleite that he (for the sake of argument) and a Los Angeleno are culturally related. Yet they both live on the West Coast! Colorado is the western US, and yet we have very little in common with either place. There is a little blurb on the Mountain States in Wikipedia, too (Mountain States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), but that doesn't make it an official separate region of the country.

I'd say the Pacific Northwest is definitely in a different region than Southern California. San Francisco is an interesting case: in an earlier time it was undoubtedly in the same region with LA, but I think you could now make a good argument for including it with the Pacific Northwest instead, and lumping Southern California together with Arizona.