Chicago more like 3 biggest East Coast cities OR 3 biggest Midwest cities (Kansas: to live, residential)

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

East Coast and Northeast are NOT one in the same geographical region... The "East Coast" in its slang term (which many use it to mean) is a subset region of the Northeast. Being Rust Belt is NOT! a geographical area of land, its not the same as being in the "Midwest" ... The Northeast has Rust Belt cities, just like Midwest. The "East Coast" even has "Rust Belt" cities.

Pittsburgh and Buffalo are the Northeast, not Midwest. Never have and never will be, no matter how many people try to place them there because of their Blue Collar history. Boston, Philadelphia and Baltimore too have a strong Blue Collar history and feel to them, therefore I guess they're Midwestern. Columbus, Indianapolis, Minneapolis never had much of a Blue Collar, manufacturing history so guess they're "East Coast".

You can say Pittsburgh and Buffalo are not the East Coast, because they absolutely are NOT. They don't share that common culture of the Bos-Wash corridor cities. That doesn't make them Midwest. Its still the Northeast, just not East Coast. Cleveland actually has more in common with Philly than it does Pittsburgh, if you want to be honest, in their present day forms.

People need to take a class on differences between actual GEOGRAPHICAL REGIONS and ECONOMIC CULTURES. Not one and the same. No part of Pennsylvania or New York are Midwestern. ZERO!

I totally agree. Some Eastern Major cities.... like to throw Pittsburgh into the Midwest. Its purpose is more to lessen then about influence. They even like to throw Central Pa into the South sighting the term "Pennsyltucky" and the more Alabama in-between Pitts and Philly. The term meant Conservative Politically. But took on more a Rednecks and Hillbilly's persona to lessen too. From East Coast folk.

But on topic..... Chicago has its own traits and choice of neighborhood architecture and street-grid. But in a choice of the OP's list .... it clearly could be placed on the East Coast all the same more. IMO

I get a kick out of on I-80 you notice a dramatic change in landscape entering Ohio. Gone are the mountains there. (yes I know southern Ohio has more) just noting I-80 crossing you clearly see over the border in that region.

[EddieOlSkool]

A drive from Philly to Cleveland might make one think that Ohio is drastically different from Pennsylvania. A drive from Pittsburgh to Cincinnati on the other hand would tell a different story. Southern Ohio is more like PA than Northern Ohio that is for sure.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by DavePa

I totally agree. Some Eastern Major cities.... like to throw Pittsburgh into the Midwest.

So crazy to think that anyone would do that with a city that's 300 miles from the east coast and 30 miles from Ohio.

[edsg25]

Originally Posted by BuhbyeRham

Agreed. If anything I wasn't trying to make the argument that Cleveland is culturally northeastern so much as I was trying to make the argument that Pittsburgh is more culturally Upper Midwestern. Pittsburgh and Buffalo certainly have more in common with Cleveland as Great Lakes-area cities than they do with Philly or NYC within their own states. I tend to think of the Great Lakes as more of a cohesive region than the Midwest (which includes places like Des Moines, Fargo, Omaha, Springfield, MO, Wichita, etc.) or the broader Northeast.

Agreed....back at ya!

The northeast of which we speak is generally the areas settled in the colonial era, those areas that were part of the nation at its birth. But while some of our states.....Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were solidly and in totality part of colonial America, both New York and Pennsylvania had vast areas (arguably well over 50% of their current landmass) that were not part of the colonies.

Colonial America developed the way that it did and due to its topography in a way no other part of the Americas could develop because the distance from the coast to the Appalachians in incredibly narrow. Thus the Appalachians served as a "wall" that allowed colonial society to develop and thrive. It was these colonies, not those of France, Spain, or other European powers that was largely about settlement....the French and the Spanish simply did not colonize the same way.

Thus the bulk of Pennsylvania is in the Appalachians with only the southeastern corner of the state, metro Philly and somewhat beyond, solidly in the colonial fold. New York had a huge chunk of the Appalachians, mixed in with with planes closer to the Great Lakes. Neither of these areas were "colonial" or true "northeast".

So Buffalo and Pittsburgh are, in many ways, more like the midwest than the northeast (particularly relatively flat Buffalo because clearly Pgh & environ's hilly-to-mountainous terrain do not really fit in with the middle west.

So I guess I'm suggesting that Buf & Pgh are more of a fit with the midwest than Cle is with the northeast.

[andrew61]

Originally Posted by edsg25

So I guess I'm suggesting that Buf & Pgh are more of a fit with the midwest than Cle is with the northeast.

Buffalo is definitely more similar to Cleveland than to, say, NYC.

I like to say that Cleveland is solidly Midwestern, but with a noticeable northeastern influence (especially in the eastern suburbs).

[Blackbeauty212]

The Northeast is NOT just the Bos-Wash (East Coast) of cities... Why are people so blind to this? Are we really that geographically dumb in this country.

Pittsburgh for anyone who ACTUALLY been there and to the Midwest, know Pittsburgh is NOT Midwestern at all.. It feels completely different from that of Cleveland, outside of being a blue collar Rust Belt.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland don't even have the same manufacturing past. Pittsburgh was steel, Cleveland was Automobiles. Pittsburgh is hilly, Cleveland is flat. Cleveland has a noticeable "Great Lakes" culture, that yes is also found in Buffalo.. Pittsburgh does not have this culture.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

[b][u]
Pittsburgh for anyone who ACTUALLY been there and to the Midwest, know Pittsburgh is NOT Midwestern at all.. It feels completely different from that of Cleveland,

Uh, I have been there, and it most certainly is far more likely Cleveland than it is like Philly. The people I know from Pittsburgh and elsewhere in Western PA agree with me.

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

[b][u]outside of being a blue collar Rust Belt.

Outside of their most historically notable characteristics, in other words? Why would you remove the most obvious similarity when comparing them?

[DavePa]

Originally Posted by edsg25

Agreed....back at ya!

The northeast of which we speak is generally the areas settled in the colonial era, those areas that were part of the nation at its birth. But while some of our states.....Delaware, New Jersey, Connecticut, Rhode Island and Massachusetts were solidly and in totality part of colonial America, both New York and Pennsylvania had vast areas (arguably well over 50% of their current landmass) that were not part of the colonies.

Colonial America developed the way that it did and due to its topography in a way no other part of the Americas could develop because the distance from the coast to the Appalachians in incredibly narrow. Thus the Appalachians served as a "wall" that allowed colonial society to develop and thrive. It was these colonies, not those of France, Spain, or other European powers that was largely about settlement....the French and the Spanish simply did not colonize the same way.

Thus the bulk of Pennsylvania is in the Appalachians with only the southeastern corner of the state, metro Philly and somewhat beyond, solidly in the colonial fold. New York had a huge chunk of the Appalachians, mixed in with with planes closer to the Great Lakes. Neither of these areas were "colonial" or true "northeast". Has NOTHING to do with Pittsburgh seen as Midwestern influenced.

So Buffalo and Pittsburgh are, in many ways, more like the midwest than the northeast (particularly relatively flat Buffalo because clearly Pgh & environ's hilly-to-mountainous terrain do not really fit in with the middle west.

So I guess I'm suggesting that Buf & Pgh are more of a fit with the midwest than Cle is with the northeast.

I generally agree with you. But not this time.

Colonial America stretched well into the Appalachian's in PA. Pittsburgh region was already inhabited. I'm in the mountains. My County seat city .... was founded already before we became a Nation. I'm near the Susquehanna river and valley region. Even my hometown is on the edge of the Coal region. River regions were settled earliest of course to.

This tidbit discuss in 1771 Pittsburgh and a border conflict with Virginia and a New County formed.

Virginia and Pennsylvania wrestle over western borders - Appalachian History

From link:

“On January 1, 1774, Connolly, as Captain Commandant of militia, issued a call for the militia of Augusta County [VA] to meet him at Pittsburg, on January 25th, for the purpose of organizing a new county to include Pittsburg.

Map when we were still a British Colony of PA. Pink under British control in 1750 ..... extended well into Appalachia.

There was no mountains as a barrier. The rivers converging in Pittsburgh ..... made it perfect for Fort Pitt. It remained settled even after the fort was dismantled.

You can speak of influence TODAY of Pittsburgh having some Midwestern traits. But to say NO PART OF THE NORTHEAST because it was not part of the Colonies .... is untrue.

I totally agreed with "blackbeauty" in Pittsburgh is NOT a --East Coast city. Boston, NYC, Philly, Baltimore and DC are. But Pittsburgh and ALL of PA is SOLIDLY a NORTHEASTERN STATE. And in the Mid-Atlantic region too.

Every region has bordering areas of mixed regional influences. They still are in the Region there state is in and sub-region .... if it has a boundary. Southern Ohio, Indiana and Illinois ..... still has Southern influence. But in them states. It remains in the Midwest.

Pittsburgh has some Midwestern influence .... but in still a major row-home city. It is in look. Still more Eastern too.

Originally Posted by Blackbeauty212

The Northeast is NOT just the Bos-Wash (East Coast) of cities... Why are people so blind to this? Are we really that geographically dumb in this country.

Pittsburgh for anyone who ACTUALLY been there and to the Midwest, know Pittsburgh is NOT Midwestern at all.. It feels completely different from that of Cleveland, outside of being a blue collar Rust Belt.

Pittsburgh and Cleveland don't even have the same manufacturing past. Pittsburgh was steel, Cleveland was Automobiles. Pittsburgh is hilly, Cleveland is flat. Cleveland has a noticeable "Great Lakes" culture, that yes is also found in Buffalo.. Pittsburgh does not have this culture.

Again, I tend to agree here.

[TheTimidBlueBars]

In terms of demographics and politics, the Northeastern cities.

In terms of layout and built environment, the other Midwestern cities.

[BuhbyeRham]

Originally Posted by DavePa

I totally agree. Some Eastern Major cities.... like to throw Pittsburgh into the Midwest. Its purpose is more to lessen then about influence. They even like to throw Central Pa into the South sighting the term "Pennsyltucky"

None of Pennsylvania is in The South by any definition, but part of it is certainly in Appalachia. I think's why some would call it Pennsyltucky.