Which of these cities can most authoritatively describe itself as "coastal"?

[nadnerb]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

From a geographic stand point, they all qualify.

From the figurative standpoint, when people are talking about 'flyover country', again all 3 qualify imo. Providence is in New England and Oakland is in the Bay Area, while Tampa is in Florida, which is more or less excluded from the snobby connotation historically associated with coastal vs flyover.

And to be honest, 'flyover' is no longer a thing, hasn't been for 50 years at least.

I don’t even think the concept of flyover country existed 50 years ago.

Back in 1970, Chicago was the 2nd most important city in the country. The Midwest carried quite a bit of cultural heft. The west coast wasn’t really a “thing”. Greater LA had half the population that it has today and Seattle was about as relevant as Columbus, Ohio.

I would say the meteoric growth of the tech industry is what made the west coast develop into what it is today, as well as the dramatic political shift in the 90s. Then, the whole coasts vs flyover country “rivalry” developed as a byproduct of that.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by nadnerb

I don’t even think the concept of flyover country existed 50 years ago.

the exact term perhaps not, but the anti-midwest mentality by many did exist:

"When the twentieth century dawned, the American Midwest stood tall as the republic's ascendant and triumphant region_economically prosperous, politically formidable, culturally proud, and consciously regional," Lauck writes in "From Warm Center to Ragged Edge: the Erosion of Midwestern Literary and Historical Regionalism, 1920-1965."

Yet just a few decades later, in an era of growing globalism, "vocal intellectuals recast the Midwest as a repressive and sterile backwater filled with small-town snoops, redneck farmers, and zealous theocrats," wrote Lauck, a history and political science professor at the University of South Dakota.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/ne...ountry-origin/

It's not fair and it's a very disrespectful, sweeping generalization and it's wrong-but it was/is a perception that a some circles on the coasts.

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by nadnerb

I don’t even think the concept of flyover country existed 50 years ago.

Back in 1970, Chicago was the 2nd most important city in the country. The Midwest carried quite a bit of cultural heft. The west coast wasn’t really a “thing”. Greater LA had half the population that it has today and Seattle was about as relevant as Columbus, Ohio.

I would say the meteoric growth of the tech industry is what made the west coast develop into what it is today, as well as the dramatic political shift in the 90s. Then, the whole coasts vs flyover country “rivalry” developed as a byproduct of that.

Los Angeles (metro) had overtaken Chicago’s by 1960

[nadnerb]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

the exact term perhaps not, but the anti-midwest mentality by many did exist:

"When the twentieth century dawned, the American Midwest stood tall as the republic's ascendant and triumphant region_economically prosperous, politically formidable, culturally proud, and consciously regional," Lauck writes in "From Warm Center to Ragged Edge: the Erosion of Midwestern Literary and Historical Regionalism, 1920-1965."

Yet just a few decades later, in an era of growing globalism, "vocal intellectuals recast the Midwest as a repressive and sterile backwater filled with small-town snoops, redneck farmers, and zealous theocrats," wrote Lauck, a history and political science professor at the University of South Dakota.

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/ne...ountry-origin/

It's not fair and it's a very disrespectful, sweeping generalization and it's wrong-but it was/is a perception that a some circles on the coasts.

Interesting, thanks for the link.

I’m surprised this dynamic existed so far back.

[Losfrisco]

Originally Posted by 2Easy

Needs more context.

The literal definition of coastal is "on or near the coast". What "near" means has to be inferred from the context in which it's being used as near is relative and can mean different things. In the context of a country that is over 4,000km in diameter, "near" could be tens of miles of more. IMO anywhere within 100 km of the shore is near.

But then you also have to consider the context of coastal. If we're discussing beach erosion, then coastal is probably meters of maybe a kilometer. But if that is also aligned with the size of the US then I'd say that it matches near and is maybe 100 km or so.

And then there's colloquial usage in which "coastal" describes people. Usually people from cities within 100km of the ocean from DC to Boston and LA to Seattle.

Context was intentionally left vague.

"Coastal" has literal and abstract interpretations. If the criteria had been set as "which city is closest to the coast", there would be no need for a thread.

I voted for Tampa, but Oakland's commercial port is likely as productive (someone can fact check, don't care enough to look it up) as all 15 Florida ports combined. So there is room for interpretation.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Context was intentionally left vague.

"Coastal" has literal and abstract interpretations. If the criteria had been set as "which city is closest to the coast", there would be no need for a thread.

I voted for Tampa, but Oakland's commercial port is likely as productive (someone can fact check, don't care enough to look it up) as all 15 Florida ports combined. So there is room for interpretation.

Providence was a wildcard city to throw in the mix? I mean the Rhode Island license plate does say Ocean State with a blue wave graphic image on it. But when I think of coastal RI, I think of Newport, Block Island, or Westerly beaches. Providence, even though it's an estuary port city, just feels like it's well inland. Narragansett Bay is fairly large with a good amount of shoreline, but it's not as noteworthy as SF Bay, Tampa Bay, or the Chesapeake.