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 just don't see St. Pete and Austin having similar skylines unless you are thinking Austin of 20 years ago.
St. Pete’s skyline doesn’t photograph well. You need to get out into Tampa Bay to really capture it. Still, I agree Austin has it beat. St. Pete has a lot in development so maybe that will change.
but LI and Staten Island give off major TX vibes with attitude and politics. NYC area isnt as liberal as you think it is. Lot of people are vocal about conservative views.
I would agree NYC isn't Cali liberal. I used to live on the east coast and more recently worked for a NYC based company and visited several times annually and have family in Brooklyn. At the city level, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio are more like NYC. Austin may be more liberal than NYC. But at the state level, its NY is definitely more liberal than Texas.
Minnesotans, just like Texans, have a ton of state pride and massive egos which leads them to be very insular and unknowledgable about the rest of the country (polite way of saying they have their heads up their own arses). Both states are hog wild over a particular sport (football in Texas, hockey in Minnesota). Both states have very diverse biomes and contain parts of the Great Plains as well as dense forests and divergent forms of extreme climates. Both states view themselves as somewhat separate from their regions - IE Texans resent being considered part of the South and Minnesotans resent being included with the rest of the Midwest. Both states economies are largely driven by twin cities or conjoined metro areas (obviously Minnesota is more dominated by Minneapolis/St Paul than Texas is by Dallas/Ft Worth)
I would agree NYC isn't Cali liberal. I used to live on the east coast and more recently worked for a NYC based company and visited several times annually and have family in Brooklyn. At the city level, Houston, Dallas, San Antonio are more like NYC. Austin may be more liberal than NYC. But at the state level, its NY is definitely more liberal than Texas.
you are 100% right. I think im taking it as a 'person by person' level rather state level.
Minnesotans, just like Texans, have a ton of state pride and massive egos which leads them to be very insular and unknowledgable about the rest of the country (polite way of saying they have their heads up their own arses). Both states are hog wild over a particular sport (football in Texas, hockey in Minnesota). Both states have very diverse biomes and contain parts of the Great Plains as well as dense forests and divergent forms of extreme climates. Both states view themselves as somewhat separate from their regions - IE Texans resent being considered part of the South and Minnesotans resent being included with the rest of the Midwest. Both states economies are largely driven by twin cities or conjoined metro areas (obviously Minnesota is more dominated by Minneapolis/St Paul than Texas is by Dallas/Ft Worth)
One thing I'll say is that TX actually has the true great plains running through it while MN does not.
So does Illinois. The "great plains" in Minnesota are a lot more green, humid, and has more tree cover. Looks typically Midwestern compared to the great plains in TX. The dakotas are more like Texas.
There's a difference between this: https://earth.app.goo.gl/agHS6J
The SW 1/3rd (basically) of Minnesota is wide open prairie that's indistiguishable from the east half of the Dakotas, Nebraska, and the bulk of Iowa.
A large part of Texas bears a strong resemblance to this terrain. The whole Blackland prairie strip between the Piney Woods and the Hill Country/High Plains really feels like the Midwest with it's flat land, cornfields, grain elevators, etc.
The SW 1/3rd (basically) of Minnesota is wide open prairie that's indistiguishable from the east half of the Dakotas, Nebraska, and the bulk of Iowa.
A large part of Texas bears a strong resemblance to this terrain. The whole Blackland prairie strip between the Piney Woods and the Hill Country/High Plains really feels like the Midwest with it's flat land, cornfields, grain elevators, etc.
I don't consider the eastern Dakotas to be the great plains either. TX generally has a more varied landscape compared to MN. Another similarity is that they are both the biggest states in their regions. MN is the Northstar state and TX is the Lonestar state.
I don't consider the eastern Dakotas to be the great plains either. TX generally has a more varied landscape compared to MN. Another similarity is that they are both the biggest states in their regions. MN is the Northstar state and TX is the Lonestar state.
I think Minnesota has a more varied landscape than any state it touches.
North Dakota is basically just the higher, drier western Great Plains, and the eastern flatter lusher plains.
South Dakota is North Dakota, but throw in the Black Hills.
Iowa is mostly the same as eastern South Dakota, but with some rolling forested hills in the southern part of the state, and the Driftless Area in the northeast corner.
Wisconsin is predominantly the North woods, with the Driftless Area in the SW and a little flat farmland in the SE corner.
Minnesota has the wide open prairies in the south west, dense boreal forest in the north, deciduous forest in the center, all the glacial lakes, the Driftless in the southeast, and the rugged north shore of Lake Superior/Iron Range in the north east. It's not Texas level diversity, but it's analogous.
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.