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.
How about Lake Erie? That is an outstanding feature of northern Ohio that Iowa has no answer but New York does! Also similar with Ohio and New York is the Appalachian Mountain chain lol. And so is the almost 1/3 of Ohio that is forested (compared to less then 10% for Iowa).
If you count Appalachian Ohio ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appalachian_Ohio ) and then add the counties along or near Lake Erie, I would say close to 60% of Ohio is more similar to New York then Iowa. Then add the multiple cities/suburban areas of Ohio, and I would say the answer is clearly New York.
The one outstanding thing geographically that is similar between Ohio and Iowa is the large amount of mostly flat farmland. In western Ohio, there are entire counties that look like they could be in Iowa at first glance from a satellite view. But even that is different because western Ohio seems to have more wood lots scattered among the farms while Iowa looks drier and wooded areas seem to be mostly along rivers or streams. And interestingly enough, even New York has some flattish farm land near Lake Erie and Lake Ontario so even that New York and Ohio have in common.
IIRC, the farmland in western Ohio was mostly forested at the time of European settlement, and a lot of the land was cleared for farming.
Iowa, historically, was over 80% prairie with the forests mostly concentrated along rivers and in parts of far northeast Iowa and southern Iowa. In some parts of Iowa there are actually more trees today than at the time of settlement due to the windbreaks that were planted around building sites.
If you have ever driven on I-70 through Ohio, there is a point east of Columbus just before Zanesville where the terrain quickly transitions from very flat to mountainous. I think that area is the divide where Ohio feels more like New York than Iowa.
If you have ever driven on I-70 through Ohio, there is a point east of Columbus just before Zanesville where the terrain quickly transitions from very flat to mountainous. I think that area is the divide where Ohio feels more like New York than Iowa.
You nailed it! I've driven that road many times and I know exactly where you mean.
IIRC, the farmland in western Ohio was mostly forested at the time of European settlement, and a lot of the land was cleared for farming.
Iowa, historically, was over 80% prairie with the forests mostly concentrated along rivers and in parts of far northeast Iowa and southern Iowa. In some parts of Iowa there are actually more trees today than at the time of settlement due to the windbreaks that were planted around building sites.
It's pretty similar, but right off the bat you can see more trees in the fencelines in Ohio, whereas in Iowa the trees are just around building sites.
Now that is interesting.
My understanding of the Midwest is that it gets drier as you go west. For instance, Ohio and Michigan were mostly forested but had some open areas mixed with trees. Indiana originally had more open areas then Ohio but still had quite a bit of woodland as well.
But as you went into Illinois then you would find large amounts of full blown prairie. Iowa was a bit drier then Illinois and then Nebraska and Kansas were drier then Iowa. Even within Kansas and Nebraska there is a difference, the western parts of those states are much drier then the eastern parts.
You have nailed it. This site doesn't really know anything about either Ohio or Iowa. It's all "midwest", no further analysis necessary. The undeniably east coast New York state, 1 hour from the eastern border of Ohio, is clearly nothing at all like the very midwestern Ohio. Of course. Iowa, 6 hours away at closest, is basically the same thing.
I can't tell you the number of times people mixed up Iowa and the Ohio while I lived in Massachusetts. Always shocked to learn that my flight to Boston was only about an hour and change.
Your population breakdown of Ohio is spot on.
At the University of Iowa bookstore they used to sell t-shirts that said "University of Iowa, Idaho City, Ohio"
My understanding of the Midwest is that it gets drier as you go west. For instance, Ohio and Michigan were mostly forested but had some open areas mixed with trees. Indiana originally had more open areas then Ohio but still had quite a bit of woodland as well.
But as you went into Illinois then you would find large amounts of full blown prairie. Iowa was a bit drier then Illinois and then Nebraska and Kansas were drier then Iowa. Even within Kansas and Nebraska there is a difference, the western parts of those states are much drier then the eastern parts.
More or less.
But the rain lines don't run perfectly on an east/west basis, and a lot of the places that were prairie get enough rain to sustain tree life (there are forests in western Nebraska, actually), but it was dry enough to spark regular grass fires, and buffalo/deer/elk kept the saplings at bay while grazing.
There sharpest rain line is in the center of of Nebraska/Kansas. The eastern half of those states look almost identical to Iowa, western MO, and western MN, and then you transition quickly into browner, deader, even more treeless country quickly.
Ohio and Iowa both get overlooked as bland and boring middle American states, but Ohio is a very diverse state. Ohio has a mix of Great Lakes, Appalachian, Southern, and Midwestern culture.
My opinion is that every state is not like every other state.
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.