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.
Now before someone goes crazy, I'm not talking about a secession here. I'm referring to how the U.S. is generally categorized by the Midwest, New England, Mid-Atlantic, Southeast, and then the HUGE Western half which includes Alaska and Hawaii. Sometimes the Plains states are thrown in with the West, and sometimes they are with the Midwest.
As a Westerner I have a hard time the West as a whole, given its vast size, climate, demographic and even historical differences is still similar enough in this way. Are Arizona and Washington really similar enough? Are California and Wyoming similar enough? New Mexico and Hawaii? Utah and Alaska?
If I were to guess, Alaska and Hawaii would each be their own given obvious reasons, then the Pacific Northwest (western WA and OR), California (like Alaska and Hawaii it has its own thing going on), the Southwest (Nevada, New Mexico, Arizona), and the Mountain West (eastern WA/OR, Idaho, Utah, Colorado, Wyoming, Montana).
These areas weren't set up to represent cohesive zones. The point was to divide everything into a handful of areas that each had similar scales of population. I think it was done mostly for statistical tracking.
Now that the South and West have grown dramatically, it might be time to divide them further. Then again, any particular analysis can be done with finer-grained stats already.
I suppose it comes down to what these zones are for in addition to stats...anything? And it's not like they're monolithic. Federal agencies don't follow the same groupings for their regional offices or analyses.
I think the conventional approach to dividing the West (and the one used by the Census Bureau) is to group the five Pacific Coast states together, and the eight inland/Mountain states together. While Alaska and Hawaii are unique, they have very small populations so divisions comprised entirely of those two outlying states would be less comparable to the mainland divisions.
Of course there are shortcomings with any method of division - for example, greater Las Vegas and greater Reno/Carson City are in many respects more closely linked with the respective nearby large metropolitan areas across the border in California than they are with each other.
The Pacific Northwest is very different from Hawaii, as is Alaska. I'm not sure if you can categorize San Fran down to San Diego as the same area tho? The inland west is different from every where along with the inland west by the border.
These areas weren't set up to represent cohesive zones. The point was to divide everything into a handful of areas that each had similar scales of population. I think it was done mostly for statistical tracking.
Now that the South and West have grown dramatically, it might be time to divide them further. Then again, any particular analysis can be done with finer-grained stats already.
I suppose it comes down to what these zones are for in addition to stats...anything? And it's not like they're monolithic. Federal agencies don't follow the same groupings for their regional offices or analyses.
Well if it was done to try to divide the population up more evenly that makes more sense but it's not true still. The Bos-Wash corridor has almost all of the most populated cities and the majority of them lie in the Mid-Atlantic or New England region. Or the Northeast at least which would make it significantly higher than the West number-wise. It would need to be updated if that's the purpose.
I see people saying the West as a whole though when looking at relocations or general discussion about these parts of the country not referring to equal divisions of population... I rarely hear "the East". I think if I started saying that people would say something like, "What do you mean specifically? I mean it's so diverse.... There's the Midwest, the South, the Northeast, all very different! You can't group them all together!" As if all the Western states can either, they're all different.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75
I think the conventional approach to dividing the West (and the one used by the Census Bureau) is to group the five Pacific Coast states together, and the eight inland/Mountain states together. While Alaska and Hawaii are unique, they have very small populations so divisions comprised entirely of those two outlying states would be less comparable to the mainland divisions.
Of course there are shortcomings with any method of division - for example, greater Las Vegas and greater Reno/Carson City are in many respects more closely linked with the respective nearby large metropolitan areas across the border in California than they are with each other.
And that division is questionable. If Reno and Vegas aren't like each other, yet are like their linear major Californian cities (Bay/Sacramento and LA respectively) then how can even the Pacific Coast states be cohesive enough to be a region of SoCal and NorCal aren't even alike? Let alone the two different Californias with Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Alaska? I'm telling you Alaska is nothing like California, if anything Alaska is more like Canada or Idaho maybe, Alaska doesn't seem all that similar to even Washington or Oregon.
What I'm trying to point out is that regions like the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast, are all cohesive regions with similar histories, demographics, etc. that share issues and common ground and the three combined don't even come close to the land-size of the Western region (thanks Alaska) who I'd argue isn't as cohesive as a region. As an Arizonan what happens in Oregon is absolutely irrelevant to me 98% of the time. However what happens in New Mexico and Nevada is usually relevant to me as we are close by and our economies are somewhat linked. Just like Minnesota isn't really as connected with Maine as say, Illinois, and it makes sense because Maine and Minnesota aren't considered to be part of one large, cohesive region. Two very different ones actually.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seattle4321
The Pacific Northwest is very different from Hawaii, as is Alaska. I'm not sure if you can categorize San Fran down to San Diego as the same area tho? The inland west is different from every where along with the inland west by the border.
I figured that they were in the same state with the same politics, and roughly 12% of the US population California is enough to be classified its own thing. As pointed out previously Nevada might be able to join California in a region but that's debatable.
Texas is another state I would be willing to classify as its own thing too.
I don't think population being even is important enough to make these divisions. I'm talking about the cultural differences within the Western states not the fact that it's less populated so they "have" to be classified together. I'm mentioning how the Midwest culturally seems to be homogenous, with some variations within states in the Midwest but not a whole lot... Same for the South, etc. but it can't be said for all of the Western states. That's why their region boundaries make sense, are well-understood, and accepted... I'm saying the West as a whole to be one region is questionable and should probably be divided due to varying cultures and isn't cohesive or similar enough to be one region the way it is, and the divisions should be modified.
Well if it was done to try to divide the population up more evenly that makes more sense but it's not true still. The Bos-Wash corridor has almost all of the most populated cities and the majority of them lie in the Mid-Atlantic or New England region. Or the Northeast at least which would make it significantly higher than the West number-wise. It would need to be updated if that's the purpose.
I see people saying the West as a whole though when looking at relocations or general discussion about these parts of the country not referring to equal divisions of population... I rarely hear "the East". I think if I started saying that people would say something like, "What do you mean specifically? I mean it's so diverse.... There's the Midwest, the South, the Northeast, all very different! You can't group them all together!" As if all the Western states can either, they're all different.
And that division is questionable. If Reno and Vegas aren't like each other, yet are like their linear major Californian cities (Bay/Sacramento and LA respectively) then how can even the Pacific Coast states be cohesive enough to be a region of SoCal and NorCal aren't even alike? Let alone the two different Californias with Hawaii, Washington, Oregon, Alaska? I'm telling you Alaska is nothing like California, if anything Alaska is more like Canada or Idaho maybe, Alaska doesn't seem all that similar to even Washington or Oregon.
What I'm trying to point out is that regions like the Midwest, the South, and the Northeast, are all cohesive regions with similar histories, demographics, etc. that share issues and common ground and the three combined don't even come close to the land-size of the Western region (thanks Alaska) who I'd argue isn't as cohesive as a region. As an Arizonan what happens in Oregon is absolutely irrelevant to me 98% of the time. However what happens in New Mexico and Nevada is usually relevant to me as we are close by and our economies are somewhat linked. Just like Minnesota isn't really as connected with Maine as say, Illinois, and it makes sense because Maine and Minnesota aren't considered to be part of one large, cohesive region. Two very different ones actually.
I figured that they were in the same state with the same politics, and roughly 12% of the US population California is enough to be classified its own thing. As pointed out previously Nevada might be able to join California in a region but that's debatable.
Texas is another state I would be willing to classify as its own thing too.
I don't think population being even is important enough to make these divisions. I'm talking about the cultural differences within the Western states not the fact that it's less populated so they "have" to be classified together. I'm mentioning how the Midwest culturally seems to be homogenous, with some variations within states in the Midwest but not a whole lot... Same for the South, etc. but it can't be said for all of the Western states. That's why their region boundaries make sense, are well-understood, and accepted... I'm saying the West as a whole to be one region is questionable and should probably be divided due to varying cultures and isn't cohesive or similar enough to be one region the way it is, and the divisions should be modified.
The Midwest is very culturally diverse. Southern Missouri is nothing like Minnesota. Also, Texas is both its own thing and still a Southern state. The vast majority of Texas blends in with the South quite well.
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.
