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.
For whatever reason I don't think Providence has the progressive reputation that other Northeast cities do. I don't know why not, it's a solidly blue state and Brown (the most hippie, least old-money Ivy) is there. I guess that old-school New England liberalism has traditionally been more inward-looking (town hall meetings etc.) so it isn't as loud and visible on a national scale.
So because it doesn't really fit that part of the "coastal" stereotype, I'm going with Oakland.
For whatever reason I don't think Providence has the progressive reputation that other Northeast cities do. I don't know why not, it's a solidly blue state and Brown (the most hippie, least old-money Ivy) is there. I guess that old-school New England liberalism has traditionally been more inward-looking (town hall meetings etc.) so it isn't as loud and visible on a national scale.
So because it doesn't really fit that part of the "coastal" stereotype, I'm going with Oakland.
I voted for Tampa, going with a more literal criteria.
Oakland appears to be nearly separated from the coast by another entire major city, despite its world class port. Tampa has the appearance of a city on the coast more so than the other two.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,801,634 times
Reputation: 14655
Providence doesn't have much of a coastal atmosphere in the literal sense. It's at the head of navigation at the top of Narragansett Bay. The parts of the city that are on the bay shore which is more of a tidal estuary are industrial and not very accessible. It feels more akin to the milltown cities located in the river valleys of New England.
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheTimidBlueBars
For whatever reason I don't think Providence has the progressive reputation that other Northeast cities do. I don't know why not, it's a solidly blue state and Brown (the most hippie, least old-money Ivy) is there. I guess that old-school New England liberalism has traditionally been more inward-looking (town hall meetings etc.) so it isn't as loud and visible on a national scale.
Providence is also known as the go to spot in New England for debauchery and raunchy nightlife.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 04-30-2023 at 07:59 PM..
If we are just going by city limits then it should be Tampa. Tampa has the most shoreline as it is on a peninsula. Oakland’s shore line is mostly the tidal canal. And Providence sits on the providence river, which although is an estuary it is still less shoreline than Tampa’s.
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.
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.
Agree with most but I think it's SD to Seattle out west.
Using whichever criteria you feel is suitable, which of these cities is most deserving of the "coastal" designation?
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.
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.
