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.
I don't think San Francisco and North Central California belong in the Southwest. Southern California up to Death Valley probably does though. I'd also just merge Texahoma with the Southwest - especially San Antonio and near the border. Everything east of Dallas is Southeastern or Mid South. The Mid Atlantic area seems pretty small compared to the other regions. I would put Southwestern Connecticut in the same region as NYC. Also, having Buffalo in a separate region from Cleveland, Detroit and Chicago is a little unsettling. I would reassign parts of the Great Lakes region. I also don't see how Wichita, KS and Cleveland, OH belong in the same region. It seems that the Midwest would be better split East and West than North and South.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14670
I always get skeptical with these sort of things, but I'll give credit where credit is due. Your map is pretty thoughtful in terms of settlement along with cultural & topographical camaraderie. No map will ever be perfect, but I like this one. The regional identities are on the right track.
The biggest challenge here is having Syracuse, NY and Little Rock in the same region while incorporating the Ozarks, and even the lowlands around the Mississippi River around the boot heel of Missouri and branding it all as Appalachia. I'd probably shrink Appalachia down, take all of Arkansas and a good chunk of Missouri and western Tennessee and make it all Dixie.
How you define California in regional terms between West Coast, Southwest, it's own entity as a region, or several regions divided within the state will always be the topic of endless debate and will never have one definitive answer.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 02-22-2015 at 09:55 AM..
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14670
With the exception of Colorado in terms of settlement, "The Range" is very LDS heavy. I'm just thinking it would be interesting if that region were ever sovereign, how modern day Colorado and Utah would settle their differences. In terms of topography the boundaries are very much on point.
These maps will never fly in these forums, you might get one or two people who agree with your borders, but for every one of them you are going to get ten people saying "You can't have city a and city b in the same region!" or "____ doesn't belong in the ______ region!"
Heck, I see some issues I can mention (lack of Great Plains region, southern Florida is its own region, etc...), but if I posted a map like yours, people would complain tirelessly about the location of the region borders, just like they would with any map.
I would be surprised, if even through a team effort, somebody could make a map that over half of the posters in a thread wouldn't have problems with.
*Edit to add, number of regions is an issue. I just made my own map for fun, and the lowest amount of regions I could do in good conscience was 16.*
Last edited by Xander_Crews; 02-22-2015 at 10:44 AM..
With the exception of Colorado in terms of settlement, "The Range" is very LDS heavy. I'm just thinking it would be interesting if that region were ever sovereign, how modern day Colorado and Utah would settle their differences. In terms of topography the boundaries are very much on point.
It would be more so if it had included Mesa, AZ.
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.