Why do so many people hate the Midwest? (ski resort, houses)

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by ajf131

LMAO Chicago the only major city in the Midwest? Aren't you forgetting Detroit, Indy, St. Louis, Kansas City, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and the Twin Cities? How are these cities not major cities?

Detroit, Indy, St. Louis, KC, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and the Twin Cities don't seem major to me.

Detroit has lost 700,000 peope in a little more than 50 years. Milwakee has lost 140,000 people in less than 50 years. Cleveland has lost 430,000 people in a litte more than 50 years. St. Louis has lost 450,000 people in 50 years. Cincinnati has lost 170,000 people in less than 50 years. Minneapolis has lost 150,000 people in less than 50 years.

Columbus is the ONLY city on your list that has been able to maintain a positive growth rate throughout the 20th century. The cities have undoubtedly decreased in national prominence as their populations have precipitously fallen. For that, I don't consider them major cities. The cities you listed are certainly regional centers, but I don't consider them major cities.

Basically none of the cities would be placed in the first tier of US cities.

Think about how prominent Detroit, St. Louis, or Cleveland would be if they had maintained a positive growth rate?

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by miamiman

Detroit, Indy, St. Louis, KC, Milwaukee, Cleveland, Columbus, Cincinnati, and the Twin Cities don't seem major to me.

Detroit has lost 700,000 peope in a little more than 50 years. Milwakee has lost 140,000 people in less than 50 years. Cleveland has lost 430,000 people in a litte more than 50 years. St. Louis has lost 450,000 people in 50 years. Cincinnati has lost 170,000 people in less than 50 years. Minneapolis has lost 150,000 people in less than 50 years.

Columbus is the ONLY city on your list that has been able to maintain a positive growth rate throughout the 20th century. The cities have undoubtedly decreased in national prominence as their populations have precipitously fallen. For that, I don't consider them major cities. The cities you listed are certainly regional centers, but I don't consider them major cities.


Think about how prominent Detroit, St. Louis, or Cleveland would be if they had maintained a positive growth rate?

That's no reason not to list as a city as major. And their metropolitan areas are thriving. So they still are very much major cities. You don't have to be near the top of the list to be considered a major city. And these cities would certainly be listed in at least the top 20.

[Colts]

Outside of Chicago, the Midwest has nine (9) metropolitan areas that virtually everyone would consider to be "major cities". I don't think this is disputable because these cities draw people from all over the U.S.

Population wise, Detroit has 5.4 million people, and the Twin Cities has 3.4 million. St. Louis has 2.9 million people and Cleveland has 2.3 million. Kansas City, Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and Columbus all have roughly 2 million people each, and Milwaukee has 1.7 million. Throw Chicago into the mix and you have a combined population of 33 million people. This isn't even counting the truly regional metros like Dayton, Fort Wayne, and Des Moines, and also the smaller industrial cities like Muncie.

[ogre]

Originally Posted by Colts

Click on the libra scales icon in the top right corner of a post to give positive or negative rep points. It's located adjacent to the post's reply number.

I usually give a negative rep for trolls, and posts that are blatantly false or misleading. Pretty much the opposite for what you'd give to a positive post.

Thanks for the info. Speaking of rep, I'll have to hold off on repping you for this. I've given out my 24-hour limit. I'll have to think about when, or even whether, I'll want to give out negative rep. Frankly, I'd have a problem with the idea because of the principle. I tend to think it's not a good idea for users to be permitted to give negative rep. It's all too easy for me to see how it could be used against someone just because the user giving the negative rep didn't like the opinion being expressed. Anyway, thanks again for the info. Take care.

[ogre]

Some gorgeous scenery in those pictures. I'd really appreciate it if you could tell us the locations where those photos were shot.

[M TYPE X]

My parents took me to the Atlantic Ocean (Ocean City, Maryland, in particular) many times when I was young. Today, I find it creepy (at least on the beach), and the salt water irritates my skin. Lake Michigan is so much more pleasant. I was underwhelmed by the trip this past past summer to Kill Devil Hills/Kitty Hawk. Wow, sand dunes. We have those in Michigan. Big ones.

"not all of the Midwest looks like Indiana and Illinois!"
Yeah, but I'm stuck smack dab in eastern Illinois indefinitely (as long as I continue to make academic progress, so to speak). Good thing that Chicago and Peoria are accessible by expressway on the weekends! Peoria's hills are just good enough.

The Porcupine Mountains of the Upper Peninsula are quite nice, and very remote.
I'm kinda more of a city-and-campus type guy, but that's fine, as there are more than enough large-midsize-ish cities and universities in the region.

While I like to travel, I have no interest in leaving. As long as I don't have to offer Ohio (which I dislike culturally) or the Dakotas, it's all good. Eat more corn.

Where should my next road trip be? Minneapolis? Kansas City? Cincinnati?

Miamiman conveniently omits the fact that Midwestern cities have lost more people than other regions of the country had, at least until recent growth. The South has cities, but not in the same numbers and densities.

I'm thinking of visiting Louisville, Lexington, and Nashville for some reason ... I haven't been through Kentucky or Tennessee in a long time.

[ogre]

Grew up near Boston, went to college in OH and continued living there several years after graduating, then moved back east, for reasons having to do with personal circumstances, not a desire to leave the Midwest. In fact, I liked the Midwest. A lot.

I have to agree with what a few people have said here when they've offered the opinion that the South seems to be the region that gets most of the serious hatred from some of those in other regions. Though I'm sure there are individuals with an extreme attitude toward the Midwest, when it comes to the prevailing opinions, "hate" seems to be a strong term to describe the view that many people from other regions hold toward the Midwest. A sort of snooty contempt might get closer to it.

I said in an earlier post that I'd used my 24-hour limit for rep. Most of that was on this thread. Until hitting the limit, I've given rep to everyone on here who has defended the Midwest in a sensible fashion against those who have criticized the region based on what seems mostly to be stereotyping, rather than long and intimate first-hand observation. As I look over the posts here, it seems that few or any of the people offering criticism of the Midwest are basing their opinions on a great deal of personal experience in the region. Pretty sad that people would knock an entire region of the country on the basis of a few brief visitis, or no personal experience in the region at all, but that seems to be happening here.

What did I like about the Midwest? Too much to include it all in a post on an online forum, but a lot of it had to do with the people. You'll find all kinds of individuals anywhere you go, but I have found that somehow the prevalent attitudes, the way the people in general are, does vary from place to place. In the Midwest, I found a very pleasing balance in the attitudes. The people were friendly without being shallow. Having come from one of the large urban areas in the Northeast, where pressure to succeed in a big way, according to narrow, materialistic standards of success, is a way of life, something I noticed especially was that Midwesterners in general seemed very accepting of any worthwhile path someone might choose to follow in life. If you want to go for the gold, more power to you. If you succeed, good for you, and if you fail, there will be friends here to help you back to your feet. But if you want to be a regular-folks kind of person, that's fine too. If you're a decent person who does any good honest work, you're okay, and you don't have to be an empire-builder to be well regarded. That was the kind of outlook I found in the Midwest, and it was good to be surrounded by this in daily life.

Contrary to what some on this thread have stated, I also found Midwesterners to be quite accepting of new ideas. In fact, the Midwest seems so quintessentially American that any and all views and ways of life can be found. It might be hard to understand if you're not familiar with the region, but it's the collective presence of all the views and ways of life found across the country that gives the Midwest its middle-American character, not the narrow espousal of one and only one outlook.

The key, though, was that I found people to be more low-key in espousing their views than often is the case in the Northeast. I also found that Midwesterners were not ready to jump onto every bandwagon that rolled by. A new idea had to prove its worth before being accepted. I find it sad that many people who consider themselves liberals seem absolutely certain that such "liberals" as themselves have a monopoly on compassion, goodness, knowing what's right and wrong, and on being thinking, broad-minded people. I've lived most of my life in one of the most "progressive" states in the U.S., and believe me, most of these "progressive" people are every bit as narrow, and unwilling to accept any view other than their own, and ready to try to force their views onto others, as the most hidebound backwoods redneck who ever lived. And, unlike that redneck, these people with the "progressive" attitudes compound their narrowness with the hypocrisy of viewing themselves as paragons of broad-mindedness. Unlike this kind of "progressiveness," which, unfortunately, has even appeared on this thread, in the form of assertions from people obviously unfamiliar with the region, that the Midwest is narrow, backward, unaccepting of any religious view but one, I found the attitudes of many Midwesterners to show a genuine acceptance for people's right to their ideas, so long as they received acceptance in return.

For those who really don't know the Midwest, especially those accustomed to the strident espousal of one's views that is more the custom on the east and west coasts, it might be difficult to understand the low-key approach to political and social issues found in the central states, but you've got it wrong if you automatically categorize the Midwest as "backward," "hickish," or "narrow." In my time in the Midwest, I found people to be warm, truly caring, and genuinely accepting of others in a way that's just not found in the more "progressive" areas. Loved it, and miss it.

By the way, where I lived, in central OH, was one of those areas with a relatively flat landscape, a little short on the kind of gorgeous scenery in Steve-o's photos, but I found that it was a very pleasant scenery, with a subtle beauty that grew on me the longer I lived in the area. But this post is getting long, and the night is getting late, so maybe that's a subject for another time.

[NCN]

Do people hate the Midwest? I can't imagine why they would. I personally would not want to live there because of the extremes in weather. I am sure there are lots of people who love the Midwest. It is a nice place to visit.

[Nafster]

Originally Posted by miamiman

I am. I'm saying that I could never live in an environment where I am judged for not going to church. People judge others all the time. That's no lie.

Some Midwestern states are generally the most conservative in the country. I am a liberal. That in itself tells me that the values and ideals cherished by the majority of the voting population is something I do not agree with. I would never want to live in an area an "impose my value system" on anyone.

Lastly, you can be friendly without saying hello and making eye contact with everyone you pass on the street. I spent the majority of my life in Miami and New York. Those are environments where you don't look everyone in the eye as you pass them, or say hello. Does that indicate that we're mean? No. It's just what we're used to.

You're a liberal, don't like ultra conservative areas, I'm guessing don't like heavily religious areas, and chose to live in Phoenix??? I think currently you're living one giant paradox my friend.

I live in the country of southern Indiana studying for my undergraduates degree. It's an extremely religious area, but I've yet to mee a person who judges me based on my political views and/or how much I go to church. People here are very nice. Just because you meet one mean person doesn't mean everyone's here.

Guess what? I'm a liberal to, but, gosh darn, for a liberal, you don't really sound that accepting of people who are different. Hmmmm.

Let me tell you something. I'm not one of those people on here that goes crazy when people insult my state and/or region where I reside. They are entitled to their opinion, and so are you.

But generalizing about people in the region and clumping them into groups, when life isn't like that, annoys me, so I take my freedom of thought to strike back at them.

I love the west, northeast, midwest, and south. I don't judge places based on different lifestyles or perceptions I here from other people. i go there and judge myself.

[miamiman]

Originally Posted by ajf131

That's no reason not to list as a city as major. And their metropolitan areas are thriving. So they still are very much major cities. You don't have to be near the top of the list to be considered a major city. And these cities would certainly be listed in at least the top 20.

I don't care if their suburban areas are thriving. I'm concerned with employment in the city, national prominence, and urban/suburban population.

There are many suburban areas in the South and West with populations that are growing faster and have grown faster than many suburbs of Midwestern cities.

Atlanta and Miami are two cities with low city populations in comparison to metro populations, but both are major cities because they are either the headquarters of many major companies or they serve as regional hubs.

The cities that you listed really do not serve as major hubs. If Cleveland disappeared off the face of the Earth, no one but Northeast Ohioans would really be affected. If Atlanta were to disappear, it would have a national effect because so many national companies are headquartered in Atlanta. Miami would also be afffected because it pretty much serves as the capital of Latin America, with many banking interests located in the downtown area.

St. Louis, Detroit, Cincinnati, and other cities throughout the Midwest do not carry the same prominence. Sure, there may be significant branch offices of major corportations in these cities, but I'm sure they could move to other cities (Chicago, for instance) without much problem.