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.
New Yorkers are very different than people from LA. Mexicans dominate the LA population, while Puerto Ricans and Dominicans dominate NYC. People from LA drive to work, whereas 75% of people in NYC take the subway. People from LA are more concerned about their appearance, New Yorkers are generally very scruffy.
I think this is pretty much all wrong.
Puerto Ricans make up only 20-25% of the Latino population in NYC, which is a minority within the city and region. They don't even dominate Hispanics, so how could they dominate the overall population? And the Dominican population is considerably smaller.
I don't see why the fact that New Yorkers take the subway and Angelinos drive automatically makes the people different. That doesn't make any sense to me. If the New Yorkers took a bus instead, they would change their ethnicity/health/career/religion/outlook?
And New Yorkers are probably the least scruffy dressers in the U.S. It's definitely the most fashion forward city, and somewhat formal for U.S. standards.
And New Yorkers are VERY health-oriented. Outside of LA, I have never seen such an exercise-crazy, health-oriented culture in the U.S. NYC has some of the longest lifespans in the U.S., BTW, and among the lowest incidences of obesity (similar to LA).
You see very few fatties in Manhattan, which, again, is similar to LA (esp. West LA). You see few sloppy dressers, and slobs.
PCH_CDM - not sure where you're getting your information, but you're incorrect. Puerto Ricans make up 40% of the Hispanic population in NYC (Mexicans account for only 2%). Mexicans comprise 65% of the Hispanic population in LA. Perhaps you only have images of lower Manhattan, but in fact NYC is much larger and encompasses Queens, Brooklyn the Bronx and Staten Island. You should visit those areas as well. I've lived in NYC for 10+ years.
PCH_CDM - not sure where you're getting your information, but you're incorrect. Puerto Ricans make up 40% of the Hispanic population in NYC (Mexicans account for only 2%).
No. This is wrong. Per the Census, Puerto Ricans make up 20%-25% of the Latino population in NYC, and Mexicans make up about 10% of the Latino population. There is no dominant Latino ethnicity in NYC.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tor_Nado
Mexicans comprise 65% of the Hispanic population in LA. Perhaps you only have images of lower Manhattan, but in fact NYC is much larger and encompasses Queens, Brooklyn the Bronx and Staten Island. You should visit those areas as well. I've lived in NYC for 10+ years.
I have no idea what you're talking about, and doubt you have ever lived in NYC. Lower Manhattan doesn't have a Hispanic population. It's not relevant to anything w're discussing.
Here are some of the top Latino ethnicites in NYC from the 2010 Census. You will notice that, unlike in most U.S. cities, no single ethnicity dominates. The numbers are probably even more mixed in 2013, because the PR and DR populations are declining, while the Mexican, Ecuadorian and Colombian populations are very fast growing.
Regardless something that is different from either (Midwest or West) is the PR (Especially in NYC and Philly) and Dominican (More NYC) or even Brazilian (Most pronounced in Boston I believe) influence (probably Jamaican (NYC and Philly) too).
Mexican population (though very much existing in the NE) are much more pronounced in the West and MW (Especially Chicago) than in the NE.
just my 2 cents
On Asians, would suspect there is a larger influence in the NE than MW, though West would be greater than the NE (sans NYC, especially the Chinese and Indians) but will be honest as I am not totally sure on the Asain populations in most of the MW (seems to growing everywhere as si the Mexican population). Vietamese and Koreans seem to have decent growth and precense in Both NYC and Philly not sure on Boston or Baltimore on the whole. DC seems to have a bit of everything best I can tell...
Also more Russians and Jews are in the NE (Really from Boston to DC) in general than the MW, LA and to a little lessor extent the Bay are also strong in the West, dont think the PAC West though TBH
Some of what you say is true but it is more complicated, much of what you say is driven more by the northeastern stereotypes of the Midwest. People in the northeast tend to look at Ohio and Michigan and extrapolate out the rest of the Midwest to be like that, which isn't the case. For example Kansas and Indiana are way more conservative than anything on the east coast or most of the rest of the Midwest, on the other hand places like Madison and Minneapolis are more liberal in many ways. The Midwest has more different versions of what constitute "Midwest" than what you find in the Northeast.
I grew up in upstate New York and spent a lot of time in NYC, Boston and DC; since 1987 I've lived in Minneapolis and St Paul, but I have also spent a lot of time in Ohio, Indiana, Chicago and Wisconsin. If you use Ohio as your reference point a lot of what you say is true, but I am going to use Minneapolis because it is where I live. It is a bit of an outlier but it is also the third largest metro in the Midwest so it has some relevance.
People in the cities of the east coast are much more snobby about education and social class than in Minneapolis. At the same time people in Minneapolis tend to be better educated than those on the coast (besides Boston and parts of New York). This is particularly true about the working class. It is a product of the fact that even the humble towns on the plains have very good public schools, and those people tend to move here once they graduate from high school. The east coast is liberal but its' version of liberalism is very establishment oriented, it is a place full of conventional people. Minneapolis is much more heavily influenced by the counterculture and bohemian notions about how to live, it is much more like Portland or Seattle than anything out east, even a lot of conservatives tend to be a bit idiosyncratic. After living here for 25 years places like Boston seem very stodgy. Out east the arts/bohemian/hipster community (for lack of a better term) exists in significant numbers but is pushed off to the side and generally lives in parallel to the bulk of the rest of society, in Minneapolis the two are more mixed. East coast hipsters often come from rich families and are going through a phase that they eventually grow out of, in the upper Midwest they tend to come from lower middle class families and are often bohemian for life. The northeast is more urban with large areas of common wall buildings where as in the Twin Cities the urban parts of the city are dense streetcar suburbia with lots of old brick walkup apartment buildings that are 15 feet apart from each other in neighborhoods with full tree canopy.
Madison is also a lot like Minneapolis but smaller. Together they form one species of Midwestern city. If you took Chicago and Milwaukee and compared them to east coast cities it would be a different comparison and they form a second type of Midwestern city. St Louis and Cincinnati represent a third species of Midwestern city that would be yet another comparison. Columbus and Indianapolis form a fourth group. Kansas City, Omaha and Des Moines form a fifth group (although I suppose they have a lot in common with Columbus and Indy). Detroit, Cleveland and Toledo can also be grouped together, they tend to have a lot in common with the rust belt parts of the interior northeast (Buffalo, Rochester, Albany, Springfield, Altoona, Scranton, etc.). Usually when people on the coast are trying to be insulting to the cities of the interior northeast by calling them Midwestern that is the comparison they are making because that last category is their idea of the Midwest (and also tends to show off their ignorance of the complexities of both regions).
So, to answer your question, it depends on what part of the Midwest you are using for comparison.
You have a lot of points but it your grouping isn't completely true. Columbus is a border city (between the interior NE and the Midwest and the great lakes) Most transplants are interior NE, NE, or great lakes.
While both Indy and Columbs are similar in being "new economic powers" Columbus is different in that it is further east and is affected by this. It is more of a cross roads between these regions and isn't that similar to a place as Kansas City (hours away) than a place like Pittsburgh just 2.5 hours away.
1) I think nearly everyone would do a north/south split. Have you been to the West Coast? The people in LA couldn't be more different than New Yorkers, from the setting to the lifestyle to diet/culture and nearly everything else.
2) I don't think you're as experienced a traveler as you're letting on. All I'm hearing are stereotypes that are pretty far off-base to anyone who has actual experience with the different regions of the country. Go to Madison or Minneapolis and report back. Lots of us have been there as well as Williamsburg and Berkeley.
Yes, I've been out to California several times. Been to Minneapolis several times, Madison once. I've lived in extremely red states and extremely blue states, as well as one semi-purple state (Pennsylvania). I just don't see how you can say that Minneapolis is in the same region of the country as NYC, which is basically the point of this thread.
While there are many differences between LA and NY, those two cities have much more in common with each other than either city would have in common with say, Little Rock. Or Des Moines for that matter. People jetset between the two coasts all of the time, and it's not just the rich and/or famous.
Lots of people who grow up in California go to college and/or spend their 20s and 30s in NYC, Philly, etc., and vice versa. The East Coast and West Coasts have this weird love/hate thing going. They bash each other, but there are so many people on either coast who migrate to the opposite coast during their young adult years, just to say they lived there.
Some come back, some don't.
Regarding my use of the term snob, well first of all let me just say that it's not necessarily a derogatory term, at least in my book. I think of a snob as being someone who is simply very discerning and discriminating in their tastes regarding certain things, if not most or all things. "Things" can be anything from wine or the fine arts, to beer and cheeseburgers. Basically anyone who's only satisfied with that which is, or is perceived to be, high quality and high class.
For example, someone who would never, ever under any circumstances drink Bud or Miller, always a craft brew (I'm almost like that). Someone who would never be caught dead in a Camry because it's not a status symbol like a Mercedes or a BMW, nor does it make a political statement the way a Prius would. Again, snobs and non-snobs can be found everywhere, but some places certainly are snobbier than others.
For example, in Nashville I remember it would not be uncommon for the food in a business meeting or a conference (one where every single person in the room has on a suit and tie) to be like, BBQ or potato salad or something. In NYC, if you were in a business meeting and the food being served was something like that, people would laugh hysterically at you. Alabama was even more like that.
The wealthy, old money communities in the Deep South to me are nowhere near as snobby as Fairfield County, CT, or Westchester Co., NY, or Bergen County over in NJ.
Same thing with fashion. Now switching gears back to the Midwest, though I'm sure you're bound to find hipsters and people who dress like hipsters, at the same time I'm sure New Yorkers are more fashion conscious than Chicagoans. Probably because of the climate. Though NYC can get quite cold in the winter, it's not Chicago cold.
At the end of the day, I just don't see how Ohio, Michigan, etc. can be considered to be in the same region as NY, NJ, Mass, CT, etc. Buffalo and Pittsburgh are admittedly transition zones between the Midwest and the Northeast. But I still don't agree with a lot of people's tendency to use terms like "up north" to describe anything between Boston and Kansas City. And the assertion that Cincinnati = NYC, the assertion that sort of inspired me to start this thread? Absolutely ridiculous.
I think you're confusing all kinds of stuff. I drink "craft beers" because they taste appreciably better, not because I'm a "snob." I'm pretty sure it's the same way with everyone. The weather in NYC vs. Chicago is quite similar and doesn't affect fashion one bit. I know all you want out of this is ammunition for some argument with a person who doesn't even post here, but maybe the truth (as is often the case) is closer to the middle than what you would have preferred, no?
The weather in NYC vs. Chicago is quite similar and doesn't affect fashion one bit.
The weather in NYC and Chicago is quite different. Chicago has far more cold winter days, and significantly lower average temps.
Plus, everything is further apart, and the trains are mostly elevated, so you need to dress much different. In NYC, the subways are mostly underground, most of the transit terminals connect to buildings, and outdoor walks are more limited.
I think you're confusing all kinds of stuff. I drink "craft beers" because they taste appreciably better, not because I'm a "snob." I'm pretty sure it's the same way with everyone. The weather in NYC vs. Chicago is quite similar and doesn't affect fashion one bit. I know all you want out of this is ammunition for some argument with a person who doesn't even post here, but maybe the truth (as is often the case) is closer to the middle than what you would have preferred, no?
Yes but the type of people he is referring to will definitely think you are a snob. Many snobs don't know other people think they are snobs.
I disagree on the weather, depends what you consider similar, and what season you mean similar in. Looking at averages I hope is not the cut off point, b/c comparing averages when looking at different regions don't really work. Esp in midwest/Rockies. Better for maybe west coast cities only.
Even going West into PA or NY are pretty noticeable differences in winter, say somewhere like Scranton, much less 800 miles inland.
Last edited by grapico; 08-21-2013 at 03:02 PM..
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.
