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 one of those weird ones. I think being from the west coast, I don’t understand this mid-Atlantic thing. There’s the northeast and the southeast, and I don’t get what makes the mid Atlantic the mid Atlantic. I also have a similar trouble with New England and what makes it a specific thing apart from or within the northeast.
For the Northeast I nominate DC, the Midwest I think is a tough one but it might be Minneapolis, but a reasonable case could be made for Columbus. Sadly I think St. Louis isn’t in the running, and I’m not entirely sure Detroit can be either. The South is the trickiest of them all, because I’m not sure what the number one city is. I won’t say Atlanta isn’t it, but there’s a lot of powerhouses in the south, so sorting out number two is a toughie. New Orleans maybe? It used to be THE city in the south and it still has outsize cultural meaning and isn’t a small piece of the American petrochemical pie either. The west has been well-covered.
Having attended college in New England, I can attest that New England is culturally distinct from the rest of the Northeast. It's also quite distinct in built form (the only state outside New England where I have encountered town centers with "town commons," usually triangular in shape, is New York) and in politics.
As for the Midwest, I think it's useful here to split it in two, as the OMB does, with the Mississippi River the dividing line. Chicago is the undisputed top dog of both halves of the Midwest, but the "industrial" (east of the Mississippi) and the "agricultural" (west of it) Midwest have slightly different cultures and attitudes, and thus their own centers.
Detroit might have been the second city of the industrial Midwest, but it and Cleveland have both been taken down several notches by deindustrialization. As a result, I think there's a strong case for Columbus as the new #2.
The two big grain processing centers of the agricultural Midwest, the Twin Cities (in particular Minneapolis) and Kansas City, IMO vie for #2 status there. The Twins are notably bigger than Greater KC and have a much bigger economy, plus Minneapolis is still a headquarters city while KC is largely a branch plant. But KC's location IMO (along with the fact that the cities close to it are all larger than those close to the Twins, with Des Moines shared between them) gives it significant cultural pull over much of its half of the Midwest — enough to make it a co-occupant with Minneapolis of the #2 slot there.
I realize that by doing this I have slighted St. Louis, which has one foot in each half. But despite that, its economy and history are more closely aligned with that of the industrial Midwest than the Midwest on its side of the Mississippi. So it goes in the same box as Detroit and Cleveland.
The thing about DC is, it's not a regional city in the way the other heavyweights are.
The other regional cities with national significance (New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Boston, Houston — yes, Houston, Miami, Atlanta...) are culturally rooted in their regions.
The rise of the Federal government since World War II has in a very important sense unmoored Washington from its region — and there's some disagreement on what region to put it in, depending on how one slices and dices the Northeastern and Southeastern United States.
The Federal City, diverse though its politics and economy may be, is defined by its biggest employer much as Detroit is defined by its biggest employer. And the Federal Government's influence in a sense transcends regions or regionalism.
That said, you still have to put it in one —*and even though the OMB puts it and neighbor Baltimore in the Southeast, I'd put both in the Northeast now even though Virginia is a Southern state and Maryland has historical ties to the South (and vestiges of cultural ones still). And if that's the case, well, DC is the second city of the Northeast after New York, the above notwithstanding. However, I'd say that in terms of cultural influence, both Boston and Philly outrank it.
Why is the South the only region that’s not allowed to change? It’s as if people believe the south is forever frozen in Gone With the Wind Like DC isn’t the city it was in 1950 but that doesn’t make it less Southern. No city is remotely similar to itself in 1950. DC actually has a postwar story that falls much more like Atlanta than Philly or Boston
Having attended college in New England, I can attest that New England is culturally distinct from the rest of the Northeast. It's also quite distinct in built form (the only state outside New England where I have encountered town centers with "town commons," usually triangular in shape, is New York) and in politics.
As for the Midwest, I think it's useful here to split it in two, as the OMB does, with the Mississippi River the dividing line. Chicago is the undisputed top dog of both halves of the Midwest, but the "industrial" (east of the Mississippi) and the "agricultural" (west of it) Midwest have slightly different cultures and attitudes, and thus their own centers.
Detroit might have been the second city of the industrial Midwest, but it and Cleveland have both been taken down several notches by deindustrialization. As a result, I think there's a strong case for Columbus as the new #2.
The two big grain processing centers of the agricultural Midwest, the Twin Cities (in particular Minneapolis) and Kansas City, IMO vie for #2 status there. The Twins are notably bigger than Greater KC and have a much bigger economy, plus Minneapolis is still a headquarters city while KC is largely a branch plant. But KC's location IMO (along with the fact that the cities close to it are all larger than those close to the Twins, with Des Moines shared between them) gives it significant cultural pull over much of its half of the Midwest — enough to make it a co-occupant with Minneapolis of the #2 slot there.
I realize that by doing this I have slighted St. Louis, which has one foot in each half. But despite that, its economy and history are more closely aligned with that of the industrial Midwest than the Midwest on its side of the Mississippi. So it goes in the same box as Detroit and Cleveland.
Hmm, I still don’t see the sub-regions up here in the Northeast…I think I’m still sort of blinded by the superficial stuff up here (siding on houses, stairs and basements, industrial sites, foliage, canals, snow/winter, etc), so the nuances haven’t really come into focus for me.
I think that’s a great point about eastern and western Midwest; I think it’s as reasonable as carving out the Great Lakes/rust belt. Some pets like Cleveland and NE Ohio are almost kinda Northeastern to me more than Midwestern. There definitely is a difference between the industrial and agricultural Midwest, so that does make the Midwest a bit tricky, but essentially I also agree with you on the cities I don’t think are the second cities for the midwest.
Why is the South the only region that’s not allowed to change? It’s as if people believe the south is forever frozen in Gone With the Wind Like DC isn’t the city it was in 1950 but that doesn’t make it less Southern. No city is remotely similar to itself in 1950. DC actually has a postwar story that falls much more like Atlanta than Philly or Boston
I've been arguing this for probably more than 5 years.
Northeast: Philly (Strong case can be made for Boston)
South: I'm not even sure what the first city of the South would be. Atlanta is the first city of the deep south but I'm not sure if I'd put it before Dallas, Houston, and Miami. Then there's the argument of if DC is southern or not.
West: San Francisco
Midwest: Detroit is the second METRO of the midwest but Minneapolis is the second CITY of the midwest.
1. DC
2. Miami
2. Dallas
2. Houston
5. Atlanta
6. Austin
6. Nashville
6. Charlotte
6. Orlando
6. Tampa
The entire idea of all of these cities being in the "same region" is pretty antiquated. There are several very different parts of the country covered here. There is no "#1 city" across this arbitrary area.
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.
