Where is the Midwest? (metro, counties, places)

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

The great plains are a definite region as are the great lakes.

The great plains tend to be drier, robust economies and tend to be less populated but have higher growth rates. The cities have higher growth rates for the most part and the rural areas decline more, but the overall population of these states have a bit higher rate of growth. The great plains have a very diverse terrain but tend to be more savannah or semi-arid. The drier climate becomes more noticeable as you go west of Illinois and even more prominent as you drive through these states (Nebraska, Dakotas, Kansas, Oklahoma maybe Texas). There are periods where they can be humid, but the dry, southwestern arid air reaches these regions much more often which results in more sun and drier air overall (States were rated with number of sunny days and Lincoln - in the easternmost portion of the state - was used which placed Nebraska as #15 sunniest state. Versus Ohio which was in the top 5 most cloudy). Hence the lack of trees.

These states have some cities that are growing nicely like OKC, Tulsa, KC, Omaha-Lincoln, Sioux Falls, and Fargo (Dallas, Denver and Austin if you believe in including all of the GP lands). I group nearby cities like Des Moines IA, Ames IA, Columnbia MO, Joplin Mo, Fayetteville in these group of states as they have much more in common with the GP areas than the GL areas.

I group oklahoma and texas apart from the central and northern plains. they arent midwestern. I also think that missouri iowa and minnesota have more in common with the eastern midwest.

[Omahahonors]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

I group oklahoma and texas apart from the central and northern plains. they arent midwestern. I also think that missouri iowa and minnesota have more in common with the easter n

I am creating seperation between the GP and GL states without any regard to the midwestern label. I agree with Texas though as it should be its own unique region. Although Oklahoma has quite a bit in common with the central plains of Kansas and Nebraska. It does have a southern touch but it certainly is a great plains state that is extrememly similar to the next two states to the north.

You have to admit though. You'd see many similarities to the midwestern cities if you were to visit Oklahoma and north Texas. they just happen to be south of Kansas.

Western Iowa, including Des Moines and Ames is very Great Plainsish. The rapid rural decline to accompany rapid city growth. the type of growth is very similar to the great plains states and the climate isn't too far off either. Kansas City is definitely a great plains city as is Columbia MO.

Minneapolis may be straight north of Des Moines, but it has more attributes to the GL than GP.

[stlouisan]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

I am creating seperation between the GP and GL states without any regard to the midwestern label. I agree with Texas though as it should be its own unique region. Although Oklahoma has quite a bit in common with the central plains of Kansas and Nebraska. It does have a southern touch but it certainly is a great plains state that is extrememly similar to the next two states to the north.

Western Iowa, including Des Moines and Ames is very Great Plainsish. The rapid rural decline to accompany rapid city growth. the type of growth is very similar to the great plains states and the climate isn't too far off either. Kansas City is definitely a great plains city as is Columbia MO.

Minneapolis may be straight north of Des Moines, but it has more attributes to the GL than GP.

see my many previous posts explaining why this isnt true.

[Omahahonors]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

see my many previous posts explaining why this isnt true.

I've been to Oklahoma and Texas. And they (North Texas and Oklahoma) are, in fact, very similar to many Great Plains cities. Driving through OKC reminded me a lot of driving through KC, Wichita, Tulsa, Omaha etc.. Dallas is just a mammoth version of a GP city. These states are similar in politics, culture, expression, city-styles, education attainment (although education attainment is higher in Kansas and places north). Now Austin, San Antonio, El Paso and Houston have less in common and they are excluded. I only consider the northern part of Texas which includes Dallas.

All I am doing is defining a region of cities that lie on a similar topography that have much in common. I'm not going to allow a sliver of southern atmosphere completely seperate OK and Dallas from the rest of the pack.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

I've been to Oklahoma and Texas. And they (North Texas and Oklahoma) are, in fact, very similar to many Great Plains cities. Driving through OKC reminded me a lot of driving through KC, Wichita, Tulsa, Omaha etc.. Dallas is just a mammoth version of a GP city. These states are similar in politics, culture, expression, city-styles, education attainment (although education attainment is higher in Kansas and places north). Now Austin, San Antonio, El Paso and Houston have less in common and they are excluded. I only consider the northern part of Texas which includes Dallas.

All I am doing is defining a region of cities that lie on a similar topography that have much in common. I'm not going to allow a sliver of southern atmosphere completely seperate OK and Dallas from the rest of the pack.

Omaha,

I see what you're getting at. I see your point and I think there is some obvious commonality that Oklahoma/Texas share with their Midwestern neighbors to the north given the overall topography and weather (although Oklahoma/Texas have A LOT of diverse topography/terrain/eco-regions throughout both states when compared with indisputable Midwestern states).

However, the title of the thread is "Where is the Midwest?" IMO, you cannot filter out the culture/history of OK/TX in the regional designation formula as culture/history of a state have just about as much influence over regional affiliation/inclusion as do topographical and geographical indicators. When you add the culture/history of OK/TX back into the formula you get an overwhelming indication that Oklahoma and Texas rightly belong with the Census' delineation as part of the Greater South.

It's not a "perfect" inclusion by any means as Oklahoma/Texas [and western Arkansas] have their own thing going on culturally = kinda the Old Southwest, but these states belong grouped in with the South more than any other major region (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, West).

[Omahahonors]

Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008

Omaha,

I see what you're getting at. I see your point and I think there is some obvious commonality that Oklahoma/Texas share with their Midwestern neighbors to the north given the overall topography and weather (although Oklahoma/Texas have A LOT of diverse topography/terrain/eco-regions throughout both states when compared with indisputable Midwestern states).

However, the title of the thread is "Where is the Midwest?" IMO, you cannot filter out the culture/history of OK/TX in the regional designation formula as culture/history of a state have just about as much influence over regional affiliation/inclusion as do topographical and geographical indicators. When you add the culture/history of OK/TX back into the formula you get an overwhelming indication that Oklahoma and Texas rightly belong with the Census' delineation as part of the Greater South.

It's not a "perfect" inclusion by any means as Oklahoma/Texas [and western Arkansas] have their own thing going on culturally = kinda the Old Southwest, but these states belong grouped in with the South more than any other major region (Northeast, Midwest, Southwest, West).

I too would leave Texas and Oklahoma out of the Midwestern definition due to its uncommonality with many great lake cities. You honestly could say that for the rest of the gp states. We all have crazy landscape diversity (despite the common misperceptions) and the cultures are contrasting in some regards. It is true that the gp states share some commonalities of the gl states (or south for ok and north tex) but if you were to remove the Midwestern label to further subdivide these regions this would be very true. You actually can now as people on cd constantly do anyway!

Ok and north Texas have more in common with Nebraska and Kansas than the south. Nebraska and Kansas have more in common with ok and north Texas than the great lakes. That is my point.

[Bass&Catfish2008]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

I too would leave Texas and Oklahoma out of the Midwestern definition due to its uncommonality with many great lake cities. You honestly could say that for the rest of the gp states. We all have crazy landscape diversity (despite the common misperceptions) and the cultures are contrasting in some regards. It is true that the gp states share some commonalities of the gl states (or south for ok and north tex) but if you were to remove the Midwestern label to further subdivide these regions this would be very true. You actually can now as people on cd constantly do anyway!

Ok and north Texas have more in common with Nebraska and Kansas than the south. Nebraska and Kansas have more in common with ok and north Texas than the great lakes. That is my point.

>>>>>
You honestly could say that for the rest of the gp states.
<<<<<

^^^
Totally agree with this. We really just need more regions, or make the subregions more commonplace. Again, based on topography and the great distance geographically between the Great Lakes and the North/Central Plains I think your point is right on the money.

But, from my experience, I see Kansas/Nebraska sharing much more cultural and historical affinity with traditional/undisputed Midwestern states.

[Omahahonors]

Originally Posted by Bass&Catfish2008

>>>>>
You honestly could say that for the rest of the gp states.
<<<<<

^^^
Totally agree with this. We really just need more regions. Again, based on topography and the great distance geographically between the Great Lakes and the North/Central Plains I think your point is right on the money.

But, from my experience, I see Kansas/Nebraska sharing much more cultural and historical affinity with traditional/undisputed Midwestern states.

Right. Nebraska and Kansas do share more with the traditional Midwestern states than the southern plains have with the traditional Midwest. I just feel that Omaha, kc and wichita are closer to being an Oklahoma city or (on a small scale) Dallas type of culture than an Indianapolis or Cleveland. There's always been a strong connection between the gp states and cities.

I actually feel this is an elongated region of its own (of course with small variances like other areas)

[eddie gein]

Originally Posted by Omahahonors

I too would leave Texas and Oklahoma out of the Midwestern definition due to its uncommonality with many great lake cities. You honestly could say that for the rest of the gp states. We all have crazy landscape diversity (despite the common misperceptions) and the cultures are contrasting in some regards. It is true that the gp states share some commonalities of the gl states (or south for ok and north tex) but if you were to remove the Midwestern label to further subdivide these regions this would be very true. You actually can now as people on cd constantly do anyway!

Ok and north Texas have more in common with Nebraska and Kansas than the south. Nebraska and Kansas have more in common with ok and north Texas than the great lakes. That is my point.

Again, southeastern Oklahoma is NOTHING like Kansas or Nebraska. Northwestern Oklahoma is very similar to Kansas and Nebraska.

Dallas is more "southern" than OKC which is more "southern" than Wichita......... which isn't southern.

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by stlouisan

henry county from my experience is not dominated by southern accents..and linguistic studies agree. you may be individually biased.the southern accent it's not the dominant accent in most of missouri.

That is my point. The southern dialect is strong in Henry and St. Clair counties as well as much of the surrounding regional area. This is only 50-100 miles south of Kansas City. This is why Kansas City has significant southern influences very closeby.