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.
That's not fair at all. I don't see how Boston CSA, which is 6,400 Square Miles (roughly) doesn't get to count but Atlanta CSA which is 8,800 Square Miles (roughly) gets to count?
This whole point with the, "land area" and "being compact" and whatever on City-Data needs to stop. Those people from Providence, Concord, and where ever else make it THEIR daily job to commute to the city of Boston for employment, they're as much apart of that region as the people from Gainesville, Alabama that do the same to Atlanta every morning for work.
New England Patriots is THEIR team, not just Boston's team.
Don't get me wrong, I think Atlanta IS a powerful city, no one can deny it being a Top 10 most powerful city in America but the bond Atlanta has with the Southeast is more blocked out with competition than the one Boston has with New England, where Boston makes up half of New England's influence.
See we can all have "our definitions" of what things are all day but that wouldn't make this website City-Data.com it would make it Subjective-Data.com, the US Census Bureau defined the Southeast as such, and people still take an issue with it when it comes to disprove their points, and that is totally unfair.
I am more than positive we're being unfair here to the original poster. It's his thread and he should call the shots of what defines the region he's referring too, I think its only fair to leave it to him since its his thread. I'll ask him.
PDX_LAX, what states did you mean to include in "The Southeast"? The ones that the US Census Bureau includes or a mixed group of choices in mind?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DANNYY
Simple. Yes, I did use the population they used, there is no freakin way on Earth I am sitting there with a calculator in my hand adding up the populations of like multiple different states when essentially I can just copy + paste and get it over with.
And I knew for a fact that I wouldn't have to unless someone would take issue with the results of the poll and start mixing and taking states altogether out of the definition of the designated area. Look its not my thread, I'm not going to be rude to the original poster like everyone else here and get on his case saying "but you should have done Northeast versus Southeast versus Midwest" and stuff like that. I can cosign with him when I create threads I find it extremely rude when people take things out of context and derail my thread.
Which is why we should probably wait until he logs in to let us know what states he means by "Southeast" or not.
To your point of using Wikipedia, I use Wikipedia as only a secondary source, as in if it matches with what I can find from more than one other source that seems to have a designated idea I do use it but only if it can be checked for truth. So checking the population of the states it included in the Southeast, I just actually took the time out to check to see if the population I quoted would be a roundabout near figure to the number I copied and pasted earlier and I get the result number of: 78,385,623
So tell me, was Wikipedia wrong with its population numbers? Was it worth it to sit there and calculate it instead of just "copying & pasting" what Wikipedia used in that instance? Wikipedia gets its numbers from ACS- American Community Survery on a annual basis, Wikipedia GETS their information from the US Government, the US Census Bureau Department.
ACS is a website free to the public to use, it displays the "actual" information that the United States Government releases about population and whatnot to the general public. However it has also been known to skew some numbers up sometimes.
In general, why is there so much defense about what the Southeast is or not? The answer is going to be the same regardless of what constitutes as the official region or not either way. Like why do I get the feeling that some people just get pushy and extremely defensive anytime a poll or thread doesn't go their way? I've been seeing that so much on here lately.
Okay, then by "your definition" what constitutes as the Southeast and why?
Honestly, as I said in the OP, I wanted to leave the regional definitions as open-ended as possible because I'm in no better position to define the regions than anyone else. After all, if this is to be a worth-while discussion, shouldn't the majority determine the definition rather than myself?
To be perfectly 100% honest the only reason I specified "Southeast" instead of just "The South", is beacause:
1) I don't feel that Atlanta is the uncontested de facto capital of the entire South
and
2) Because I really didn't want Texas or Washington D.C. to be in this discussion, for the sake of having a good debate.
However, that is not to say that the "Southeast" = the whole South minus Texas + D.C.
I am not Southern, nor have I ever lived in the South so I feel like my definition of "Southeast" (which doesn't include Texas, D.C., or Miami) is just an outsider's perspective and not some totem on which to base one's argument for this entire thread...I know its frustratingly vague, but there is a method to my madness
That other poster was correct, I would like for the responders themselves to determine exactly which states (or cities within those states like Miami and Cincinnati) should count for each region.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Oh in that case where would everyone like to agree on being the "Southeast"? The Southeast corner of the country work for everyone? Like every state that touches the Atlantic Coastline that is NOT apart of the Northeast? That would be Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, & Florida. (Also Alabama since Atlanta's CSA goes to a county there so and such)
Is that cool with everyone?
Or the Arkansas, Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida, North Carolina, South Carolina, Virginia, West Virginia, & Georgia one?
Or South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, & Alabama?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PDX_LAX
I am not Southern, nor have I ever lived in the South so I feel like my definition of "Southeast" (which doesn't include Texas, D.C., or Miami) is just an outsider's perspective and not some totem on which to base one's argument for this entire thread..
I didn't know Texas (where I live much of the year) was apart of "The South" until I joined this website.
We always felt like our own region to me (and everyone around me that I personally know/knew), and I have never before in my entire life seen anyone here say they are a "Southerner" and when we used to talk in class about the South it would always be about Alabama, Mississippi, Georgia, Virginia, Kentucky, & Florida. I guess I just don't know what constitutes as what much since there's so much vagueness involved with this region of the country.
Simple. Yes, I did use the population they used, there is no freakin way on Earth I am sitting there with a calculator in my hand adding up the populations of like multiple different states when essentially I can just copy + paste and get it over with.
And I knew for a fact that I wouldn't have to unless someone would take issue with the results of the poll and start mixing and taking states altogether out of the definition of the designated area. Look its not my thread, I'm not going to be rude to the original poster like everyone else here and get on his case saying "but you should have done Northeast versus Southeast versus Midwest" and stuff like that. I can cosign with him when I create threads I find it extremely rude when people take things out of context and derail my thread.
Which is why we should probably wait until he logs in to let us know what states he means by "Southeast" or not.
To your point of using Wikipedia, I use Wikipedia as only a secondary source, as in if it matches with what I can find from more than one other source that seems to have a designated idea I do use it but only if it can be checked for truth. So checking the population of the states it included in the Southeast, I just actually took the time out to check to see if the population I quoted would be a roundabout near figure to the number I copied and pasted earlier and I get the result number of: 78,385,623
So tell me, was Wikipedia wrong with its population numbers? Was it worth it to sit there and calculate it instead of just "copying & pasting" what Wikipedia used in that instance? Wikipedia gets its numbers from ACS- American Community Survery on a annual basis, Wikipedia GETS their information from the US Government, the US Census Bureau Department.
ACS is a website free to the public to use, it displays the "actual" information that the United States Government releases about population and whatnot to the general public. However it has also been known to skew some numbers up sometimes.
Okay, then by "your definition" what constitutes as the Southeast and why? Basically what I am asking since you live in Atlanta and its your region being discussed, what would YOU consider the Southeast? We can just set this thread around those definitions and carry on from there.
Come on man, read more carefully. I'm just taking issue with the idea that there's an official census-designated thing called the southeast (which you still seem to carry in the post above, by using the word 'designated'). I just pointed out that according to the very source you were citing, there is none. You then went on and wound yourself up in a bundle of contradictions, starting with a long response to my one line post, when an "Oh, I guess there isn't a standard census definition of the southeast, so we should think about that" would have sufficed. You seem to think I'm making some argument about Atlanta when in fact I'm not.
As for the topic at hand, my original post in this thread still stands. I described the area where I think Atlanta has a lot of influence, a medium level of influence, and not much influence. And I asked people from Chicago to weigh in on what their feelings on the area of influence are.
I obviously voted for Boston. No other vote makes any sense.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50
Come on man, read more carefully. I'm just taking issue with the idea that there's an official census-designated thing called the southeast (which you still seem to carry in the post above, by using the word 'designated'). I just pointed out that according to the very source you were citing, there is none. You then went on and wound yourself up in a bundle of contradictions, starting with a long response to my one line post, when an "Oh, I guess there isn't a standard census definition of the southeast, so we should think about that" would have sufficed. You seem to think I'm making some argument about Atlanta when in fact I'm not.
But this still doesn't answer the question though. What do you consider the Southeast? What states?
As for myself, I've always known Wikipedia to take what they can get from the US Census, and just display it basically, since its more accessible its gets the point across to people from a larger pool. Not many people take curiosity to the US Census fact site, most people "Google" and "Search" and wind up with Wikipedia. The difference is, you don't know me, you don't know what I was thinking. You don't know my train of thought. Why in Sam Hell would I go out of my way to add a few extra states to "The Southeast" to out show Atlanta here? I wouldn't.
I looked up a map first on the image search, saw the Southeast on what it's defined, then I looked up the definition on Urbandictionary, dictionary.com, Wikipedia, and even went to look at factfinder (but they don't have subregions). I looked up both New England & Southeast to make sure I knew the region I was personally referring too. So I took what I could from about one or two sources, both of which normally go off the real designated information released FROM the US Census, and posted them.
Pretty much if anyone read my first post, I used different sources for population. I mean you don't know me, so I don't see how you "knew" what my thought process was or what I was trying to do and say. My post originally pretty much had the information down to where it wouldn't matter what states constituted the Southeast, you could take away; VA, WV, AR, MS, AL and it would still show the same things with minor alterations.
Is that a crime? No, its not. But I didn't really anticipate that people would get so emotional about it either. I mean, I don't live in the Southeast, frankly, I don't even consider Texas apart of the South, and we can argue what a place feels like all day. But is there any other definition of what the Southeast is that wont be so pushy to people on this forum?
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50
And I asked people from Chicago to weigh in on what their feelings on the area of influence are.
I'm from Chicago and gave my input here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by testa50
I obviously voted for Boston. No other vote makes any sense.
Disagreed.
Anyways, I'm just going to sit this one out, I really don't have anything else to add to this because I cant see how either Atlanta or Chicago would budge Boston from winning this poll or topic.
But I do give props for those trying to cut Boston down to size from CSA to MSA, LOL. Good luck with that.
I think Chicago controls the Midwest more than Atlanta controls the Southeast. Atlanta does not have direct economic, financial, or cultural influence on almost any other city in the Southeast like Chicago does for the Midwest. Atlanta is literally only the "hub" for the spokes or the "glue" that holds the Southeast together. What happens in Atlanta has little bearing on what happens in Charlotte, Raleigh, Nashville, Birmingham (well B'ham does have somewhat of a dependence), New Orleans, Jax, Orlando, Tampa, Memphis, etc.
Chicago is the NYC of the Midwest financially. Everything stems in Chicago. Trade and commodities and logistics for the Midwest and really for our country stems in Chicago. Culturally, Chicago is one of the It places for the Midwest. Chicago pretty much defines the Midwest just like Boston defines New England. The Midwest is a much larger area than New England, though, so Boston basically "is" New England. The Southeast is larger than both of those areas put together, so Atlanta can't even attempt to control what happens there.
When someone says New England city, what is the first and perhaps only city to come to mind? Boston
When someone says Midwestern city, Chicago is easily the first to come to mind, but other cities like Detroit, Minneapolis, or St. Louis may come to mind as well, after Chicago.
When someone says Southern city, of course many people will think Atlanta, but *lots* of cities can come to mind just as often as Atlanta. I don't need to list them out.
Share of population - Boston, the metro area has 4.5 million people which is a large chunk of New England's 14.5, the CSA is even bigger with half of that population in it's area of influence. Economic influence - Boston, it completely dominates New England in comparison to Chicago for the Midwest or Atlanta for the SE. Cultural influence -Three way tie in my opinion. Atlanta is known (at least to me) as the "capital of the South" and it is the capital of the SE at least. It's also the capital of the "New South" and all that represents, economic growth, growth, industry, urbanization and densification and stuff like that.
Chicago has less of a case because the Midwest is so huge but it is known as being like the greatest city of the Midwest, it's definitely the most powerful and the most famous, arguably the most important. Chicago is the face of the Midwest to some people.
Boston is known as the cultural capital of New England, and I won't dispute that, it's been the center of most of the power in the region for like ever. Even so though, I think it's influence and reach over the region is overstated, large as it is. Boston doesn't hold much sway over any large or really populous part of Connecticut which really has it's population split between the influence of Hartford and New York (that doesn't make it less of a New England state) though that's not to say Boston has no cultural influence in CT, there's the split between supporting NY (NY area, duh) and Boston teams (more in the Hartford area) after all. It also doesn't hold much influence over Vermont or honestly even Western MA (which is actually more closely associated with CT in many ways) for that matter. Lastly, Boston's influence isn't as powerful in Northern New Hampshire or in Maine. Political power over the rest of the region - Boston, Atlanta and especially Chicago's regions are way too big for them to beat Boston here, which again holds influence over half it's region's population. Still though, I think people may overestimate Boston's power over New England in this area too. Connecticut definitely doesn't fall under Boston's political influence, Vermont and Maine are also pretty removed, then there's the closer areas, Western MA, RI, and lower NH who are more in Boston's "range". Also, New England has strong local government systems (New England Town) and each state, like even RI and NH obviously have alotta influence on their own within their own states.
Logistical importance to the region - Three way tie. Chicago is the powerhouse of the Midwest and the transportation hub of not just the region but the country. Atlanta and it's airport (busiest in the world?) are indispensable to the Southeast, and Boston with it's huge economic pull in the region and even stuff like it's power in education is also indispensable to New England.
Historical significance - Two way tie between Boston and Chicago. I don't think I even need to argue Boston's historical significance to the whole country, let alone New England. Chicago also has tons of historical significance for the Midwest and the country as the powerhouse of the region and one of the country's for so much of it's history after it quickly established itself.
Atlanta is different because it wasn't always as important as it is now. At first most of it's power came from being a state capital though it did become an important economic center for the region. But it wasn't like the capital of the CSA or anything though it was an important target, Atlanta's importance really took off after the War. It built up as an important center again in the "New South" with Reconstruction and then it really really took off in the last decades of the 20th century. But anyway, the point is its larger power in its region is much more recent, especially compared to Boston and Chicago.
Whatever else you can think of - Sports? Even though Boston doesn't hold much influence over Connecticut otherwise, it definitely does in sports pretty much splitting the state with New York, besides that, Boston's teams are New England's teams.
Midwesterners have much more to pick from when it comes to sports, and I don't know much about Southern sports teams but they have more to pick from then just Atlanta.
Also rank the three cities in terms of their regional positions
1. Boston, New England 7
2. Atlanta, Southeast 2
3. Chicago, Midwest 3
I gave Chicago more points in these criteria but that's only because Atlanta had less historical influence. Either way though, I think the Midwest is too big for just Chicago, Atlanta just has a slightly better claim.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
well then if we are not talking about the entire NE then I could see Boston. New England is tiny though compared to the midwest and the SE. New England is the size of the states of Illinois or Georgia. Might as well have asked which is more important in Illinois or Georgia.
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove
I know American history probably better than you. i didn't say regions was based on land size. Where on earth did you read that.
I said why did he choose regions that are as large as the midwest and the SE and then from the NE only pick a fragment of it. a fragment the size of Illinois or Georgia. I would suggest you learn to read before you start calling people ignorant.
If we were using the whole Northeast, the answer would still just be an easy one , New York, in my opinion. Anyway, I think you're really underselling New England. It may be a sub-region of the Northeast but it's more than just a "fragment", it's also pretty much the most easily and well defined region in the entire country, and one of the most distinct. And it still has significant power and pull, with 14 and half million people, and a combined GDP higher than Florida's, in other words the 4th largest in the country. Besides that, as a region it pretty much owns the country in education with 4 of the 8 Ivy League Schools, MIT, the Little Three, 4 of the original Seven Sisters, the bulk of institutions identified as the Little Ivies, the Five Colleges consortium in western MA, and so many other schools. New England isn't the dominating region it once was but it's still so much more than just a fragment of the Northeast.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,049,308 times
Reputation: 4047
Quote:
Originally Posted by missRoxyhart
Logistical importance to the region - Three way tie.
LOL
No. It's not even close. Chicago is the best logistical point in this country and Atlanta is amongst one of the best also. Boston doesn't come a mile close to that.
No. It's not even close. Chicago is the best logistical point in this country and Atlanta is amongst one of the best also. Boston doesn't come a mile close to that.
Everything else is good.
Use your critical reading skills lol, I said that about Chicago and Atlanta, but I said Boston fits the role for its region which was the question. Honest mistake though I'm sure, lol.
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.
