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.
While there is one region called the Midwest, I think there really are two types of cities within this region.
One is the post industrial city that has gone through its fair share of ups and downs, usually including industrial decline, a steep decrease of population within city limits, urban decay, and mass suburbanization. Examples of this include Detroit, Buffalo, Cleveland, St. Louis, and Pittsburgh.
The second type of midwestern city is the white collar post war boom town. These cities were never major centers of industry, so they didn’t experience significant decline, and experienced a lot of growth during the post war era. Examples of this are Indianapolis, Columbus, the Twin Cities, Kansas City.
I would put Chicago in its own category since it features aspects from each of these.
Do you think this distinction is accurate or meaningful in any way?
If so, what are the biggest cultural and day to day differences between each of these two types of cities?
One difference I can think of is the difference between so called “Ohio Tough” and “Minnesota Nice”, which are two terms I’ve heard said before, but what other differences are there aside from this?
What category is Cincy, Milwaukee, Quad Cities, Omaha, Toledo, Louisville, Lexington fall into?
Cincinnati, Omaha, Louisville, and Lexington all fall into the midwest category. Toledo is definitely rust belt. Milwaukee I would lean towards midwest over rust belt but it has had a lot of industry historically, and a good deal of flight from the the city, but since it still has the majority of it's peak population I'd call it midwestern, but I'm not sure. I don't know enough about the quad cities area to answer that one.
IMO it might be like three tiers. Mentally I don't really bucket Indy, KC, and Columbus in the same category as the Twin Cities, Madison WI, Sioux Falls, Fargo, and Urbana-Champaign. That former group has some vitality and decent growth, but the cores of those cities are pretty rough in a lot of areas.
I think really it’s just a case of the difference between Upper and Lower Midwest. The only exception being St. Louis being the only rust belt city in the Lower region.
It almost sounds as though you are trying to make only 2 distinctions when more exist.
I don't disagree with you that there are more modern standout cities (Twin Cities, Madison, Sioux Falls, Omaha, Columbus) and rust belt ones (Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Duluth, etc)
You have plains cities (KCMO, Omaha, Sioux Falls, Fargo), Upper Midwest that identify with winter (TC's, Grand Rapids, Madison, etc). You have the snowbelt (Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester, Syracuse, Duluth) Amish Country (OH, PA, IN, KY), etc.
All have their differences, and general similarities of being less expensive, less flashy, more salt of the earth.
I think really it’s just a case of the difference between Upper and Lower Midwest. The only exception being St. Louis being the only rust belt city in the Lower region.
Kansas City hid a bunch of core city decline with massive annexation. It's current land area is nearly 400% larger than it was in 1950, It's population has only increased 11% in that time frame. It's definitely had some rustbelt problems.
Kansas City hid a bunch of core city decline with massive annexation. It's current land area is nearly 400% larger than it was in 1950, It's population has only increased 11% in that time frame. It's definitely had some rustbelt problems.
So they did what Memphis did, huh. I’ve never been to Kansas City so I wonder if it feels “midwestern” or if it has that sort of gritty spirit that places like Detroit have because of their struggles. Does anybody kinda get what I mean by that?
It almost sounds as though you are trying to make only 2 distinctions when more exist.
I don't disagree with you that there are more modern standout cities (Twin Cities, Madison, Sioux Falls, Omaha, Columbus) and rust belt ones (Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Duluth, etc)
You have plains cities (KCMO, Omaha, Sioux Falls, Fargo), Upper Midwest that identify with winter (TC's, Grand Rapids, Madison, etc). You have the snowbelt (Buffalo, Cleveland, Rochester, Syracuse, Duluth) Amish Country (OH, PA, IN, KY), etc.
All have their differences, and general similarities of being less expensive, less flashy, more salt of the earth.
Oh no, the more distinctions the better. What would you say these distinctions mean?
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.
What would you say these distinctions mean?
