Better name for the Midwest? (2015, stats, safe)

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Katiana

I meant what did you mean about the demographics? I am from Pittsburgh. I know it's in the Appalachians. An aging population is not confined to Appalachia. It's similar in a lot of rural areas in the midwest.

I realize that. However, it seems like western PA has seen a very large out-migration of younger residents leading to population declines in many counties. This combined with little non-farm employment growth as well as manufacturing declines has led to an aging population.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by GraniteStater

I realize that. However, it seems like western PA has seen a very large out-migration of younger residents leading to population declines in many counties. This combined with little non-farm employment growth as well as manufacturing declines has led to an aging population.

20-30 years ago, yes. Not so much, now, though the population is still shrinking.

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Ahh, I see, you think that because I live in St. Louis, I'm uneducated about other regions of the country. Quite to the contrary. I've been to over forty states multiple times, probably more than you've ever done. I happen to have relatives in Cleveland and I have been to the area quite often. Not to mention, my best friend currently resides in Ithaca, NY, and I have been to the area many times.

Good for you.

Originally Posted by ajf131

Upstate NY and Pennsylvania lie within "Northern Appalachia", and have a much more eastern type feel to them than Michigan and Ohio do. Michigan is not a Northeastern state, neither is Ohio. And Ohio and Michigan have a lot more in common with Indiana and Illinois than they do with Pennsylvania and Upstate NY.

Could you please describe "eastern type feel"?

I never said Michigan and Ohio were Northeastern states. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I said they, along with the rest of the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes states, had more in common with the Northeastern states than with the Great Plains/Lower Midwest states. I don't know how you could think otherwise. What the hell does Kansas have in common with Wisconsin? And don't say farming, because there are farms all cross this country in every single state. Manufacturing is the number one industry in my state not agriculture. Rural Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have more a boating/fishing/hunting/outdoorsman way of life than a farming/ranching way of life.

Michigan and Ohio do have a lot in common with Northern Indiana and Northeastern Illinois (the parts near Lake Michigan or the Mississippi River), but not so much with the rural, plains-y Southern portions of those states.

Originally Posted by ajf131

If you think Upstate New York and Pennsylvania are Midwestern, you haven't been there. Upstate New York and Pennsylvania may have Midwestern influence, but there is clearly more of a Northeastern feel to them. I felt more of an association towards New York City, Boston, and Philadelphia in these places, not with Chicago, Detroit, and Cleveland.

I never said Upstate New York or Pennsylvania were located in the Midwest. I said that all of the cities in the Rust Belt were similar to one another. Of course Pittsburgh would much rather be associated with Philadelphia than Cleveland. Just as Rochester and Buffalo are going to want to be associated with NYC over Detroit or Chicago. Wouldn't you? However, in reality Cleveland is geographically, culturally, and topographically much more similar to Pittsburgh than Philadelphia is.

Originally Posted by ajf131

For your information, St. Louis has many characteristics of a Rust Belt city, and is even mentioned in the very article you presented to me...the exact sentence describing it..."St. Louis may be considered a manufacturing center, even if the surrounding areas of Missouri and Illinois aren't part of the region." That's actually not even true...East St. Louis produced lots of steel back in the day. Go up to Alton and you'll see areas where steel is still produced to this day as well as old manufacturing factories. You're trying to pick a fight and whine.

You're right, St. Louis does have many characteristics of a Rust Belt city, it just isn't a Rust Belt city. The cities along the Mississippi River are very old and are often times a lot different than the states they happen to presently reside in. For example, the Twin Cities, the Quad Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans areas all share some common traits despite being located in several different regions. Heavy industry just happens to be one of those common traits.

Originally Posted by ajf131

Just because cities are all part of the Rust Belt has nothing to do with culture or anything else like that. It simply states that they were all big manufacturing centers of similar materials. And that is a single article you have presented, from wikipedia, which can be edited...it's open to opinion what the region known as the Rust Belt is. If you think St. Louis doesn't have any Rust Belt characteristics, visit it sometime. Especially North St. Louis...it looks exactly like Detroit does. Cars and airplanes used to be manufactured here. The only thing St. Louis lacks in terms of being a Rust Belt city is its location along the Great Lakes. I have seen definitions of the Rust Belt from the Great Lakes to the entire Chi-Pitts area to the entire Midwest. Use your brain and stop thinking that you can win just by one article, which is editable, can say. This city was also big on railroads at one time, perhaps the biggest in the country which it is no longer really today.

Certain industries were more attractive to certain immigrant groups than to others and therefore left the demographics of the Rust Belt pretty consistent all the way across the region. Even smaller cities like Racine, Wisconsin; Rockford, Illinois; Flint, Michigan; Youngstown, Ohio; and Erie, Pennsylvania have large minority populations and ethnic European populations.

I'm going to ignore the second half of this quote because it doesn't seem to have a point.

Originally Posted by ajf131

That's just it though...SOME similarities, SOME...culturally and architecturally these cities have more in common with the Northeast than with the Midwest. I never said once that there was zero in common between these cities and the Great Lakes region. However, there are more differences than their our similarities. jjacob wants to say that Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and New York all belong in the same region, and that is far more laughable than considering St. Louis part of the Rust Belt, which actually has a large amount of truth to it. Cincinnati, Indianapolis, and St. Louis, while not always included in the Rust Belt, are very often referred to when describing it..they are not the stereotypical Rust Belt cities, but I have heard them included more often than excluded. If you want to tell me I'm wrong, you might as well tell the St. Louis Post Dispatch, which does far more digging than anybody on this forum, that they are wrong.

You have yet to give one actual example, not a generality, of how the architecture, culture, demographics, or landscape is different in the Upper Midwest portion of the Rust Belt versus the Northeast portion of the Rust Belt. The only one I can think of is the presence of the Appalachian Mountains in PA and NY. With the exception of Missouri, the Lower Midwest has a much drier climate and a much flatter landscape, it lacks the dense forests and numerous lakes found throughout much of the Upper Midwest (except in Iowa) and Northeast.

Originally Posted by ajf131

I agree that some of NE Ohio lies in the Appalachian foothills. Cleveland is roughly just to the west/northwest of where I would say this region starts. much of N/E Ohio lies within the Lake Erie watershed and plain though, especially along Interstate 90. Some of Ohio lies within the Appalachian foothills. However, the true Appalachian Mountains become defined once you get into Pennsylvania and New York. They are merely foothills in most of Ohio. I agree that the Great Lakes Region can be defined broadly in terms of the manufacturing and industrial heritage...however, these are separated by clear cultural differences. In one respect, the cities of the Great Lakes are a single region, but in many other respects, they are not.

Can you please, pretty please, just give one example of these "clear cultural differences"?

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Good for you.



Could you please describe "eastern type feel"?

I never said Michigan and Ohio were Northeastern states. I don't know how you came to that conclusion. I said they, along with the rest of the Upper Midwest/Great Lakes states, had more in common with the Northeastern states than with the Great Plains/Lower Midwest states. I don't know how you could think otherwise. What the hell does Kansas have in common with Wisconsin? And don't say farming, because there are farms all cross this country in every single state. Manufacturing is the number one industry in my state not agriculture. Rural Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have more a boating/fishing/hunting/outdoorsman way of life than a farming/ranching way of life.

Michigan and Ohio do have a lot in common with Northern Indiana and Northeastern Illinois (the parts near Lake Michigan or the Mississippi River), but not so much with the rural, plains-y Southern portions of those states.



I never said Upstate New York or Pennsylvania were located in the Midwest. I said that all of the cities in the Rust Belt were similar to one another. Of course Pittsburgh would much rather be associated with Philadelphia than Cleveland. Just as Rochester and Buffalo are going to want to be associated with NYC over Detroit or Chicago. Wouldn't you? However, in reality Cleveland is geographically, culturally, and topographically much more similar to Pittsburgh than Philadelphia is.



You're right, St. Louis does have many characteristics of a Rust Belt city, it just isn't a Rust Belt city. The cities along the Mississippi River are very old and are often times a lot different than the states they happen to presently reside in. For example, the Twin Cities, the Quad Cities, St. Louis, Memphis, Baton Rouge, and New Orleans areas all share some common traits despite being located in several different regions. Heavy industry just happens to be one of those common traits.



Certain industries were more attractive to certain immigrant groups than to others and therefore left the demographics of the Rust Belt pretty consistent all the way across the region. Even smaller cities like Racine, Wisconsin; Rockford, Illinois; Flint, Michigan; Youngstown, Ohio; and Erie, Pennsylvania have large minority populations and ethnic European populations.

I'm going to ignore the second half of this quote because it doesn't seem to have a point.



You have yet to give one actual example, not a generality, of how the architecture, culture, demographics, or landscape is different in the Upper Midwest portion of the Rust Belt versus the Northeast portion of the Rust Belt. The only one I can think of is the presence of the Appalachian Mountains in PA and NY. With the exception of Missouri, the Lower Midwest has a much drier climate and a much flatter landscape, it lacks the dense forests and numerous lakes found throughout much of the Upper Midwest (except in Iowa) and Northeast.



Can you please, pretty please, just give one example of these "clear cultural differences"?

Ok, here's an architectural example...places like Pittsburgh have rowhouses, which are very characteristic of Northeastern cities. You don't find architecture like that in states of the Upper Midwest. Not to mention, Upstate New York leans more conservative historically than most of the Upper Midwest. Finally, Upstate New York has a lot of English ancestry. Pennsylvania and Upstate New York differ from the Upper Midwest in that they have more culture and architecture resembling that of Northeastern cities. They feel Northeastern, at least to me. They do not feel the same as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. As far as those 4 states being more like the latter two, the Upper Midwest states do not have any type of architecture or culture that resembles that of New England or the Northeast. The Upper Midwest is not as conservative and has many more Catholics and Lutherans. There is also not a presence of Northeastern Elitism...this has long been mistrusted. You can think what you want to about Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, but they are not Midwestern. They could be called transition zones between the Midwest and Northeast, but in no way could they be described as Midwestern. As far as places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Northern Indiana, and Michigan being forested, that depends on which parts of the states you are in. And Missouri is not the only place in the Lower Midwest that is not hilly and forested. Southern Illinois can be quite hilly and forested, as well as in Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana. The Northern half of Missouri isn't flat as a board but in many instances comes pretty close to that when you aren't near the rivers. I can certainly tell you that residents from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania would not consider themselves to be oriented with Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota. Also, Upstate New York has very noticeable French Canadian influence. This isn't something you tend to find in most of the Midwest. As far as St. Louis not being rust belt, it not being that is your opinion strictly. in no point does that article say St. Louis isn't rust belt. And as far as Memphis and Baton Rouge, their economies were far different from that of St. Louis, the Quad Cities, and Minnesota. The latter three were more manufacturing oriented and gained in population during the Great Migration. You seem to argue for Great Lakes and river culture as binding regions together. While I somewhat agree on this, it isn't a very strong binder of a region. Someone living in Upstate New York or Pennsylvania might better be able to answer the cultural question than me...all I know is that I've been to Wisconsin, Michigan, Northern Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Upstate New York, and Pennsylvania, and people in these regions that I've had a chance to ask consider themselves linked only by the Great Lakes, not by anything else. Someone from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania could answer that better than me. You're out to pick fights, and I'm really not in the mood to engage. If you want them to be a region, fine, that's your opinion. I don't agree with it, neither does my family that lives in the region or most of the people that live in your region. In fact, you are the first person from the Upper Midwest I've ever met that thinks your region is so much like the Great Lakes region of the Northeast. and as far as ignoring the part of my quote that doesn't seem to have a point, I guess you are too proud to admit that maybe you don't have all the answers.

[WeSoHood]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Ok, here's an architectural example...places like Pittsburgh have rowhouses, which are very characteristic of Northeastern cities. You don't find architecture like that in states of the Upper Midwest. Not to mention, Upstate New York leans more conservative historically than most of the Upper Midwest. Finally, Upstate New York has a lot of English ancestry. Pennsylvania and Upstate New York differ from the Upper Midwest in that they have more culture and architecture resembling that of Northeastern cities. They feel Northeastern, at least to me. They do not feel the same as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. As far as those 4 states being more like the latter two, the Upper Midwest states do not have any type of architecture or culture that resembles that of New England or the Northeast. The Upper Midwest is not as conservative and has many more Catholics and Lutherans. There is also not a presence of Northeastern Elitism...this has long been mistrusted. You can think what you want to about Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, but they are not Midwestern. They could be called transition zones between the Midwest and Northeast, but in no way could they be described as Midwestern. As far as places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Northern Indiana, and Michigan being forested, that depends on which parts of the states you are in. And Missouri is not the only place in the Lower Midwest that is not hilly and forested. Southern Illinois can be quite hilly and forested, as well as in Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana. The Northern half of Missouri isn't flat as a board but in many instances comes pretty close to that when you aren't near the rivers. I can certainly tell you that residents from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania would not consider themselves to be oriented with Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota. Also, Upstate New York has very noticeable French Canadian influence. This isn't something you tend to find in most of the Midwest. As far as St. Louis not being rust belt, it not being that is your opinion strictly. in no point does that article say St. Louis isn't rust belt. And as far as Memphis and Baton Rouge, their economies were far different from that of St. Louis, the Quad Cities, and Minnesota. The latter three were more manufacturing oriented and gained in population during the Great Migration. You seem to argue for Great Lakes and river culture as binding regions together. While I somewhat agree on this, it isn't a very strong binder of a region. Someone living in Upstate New York or Pennsylvania might better be able to answer the cultural question than me...all I know is that I've been to Wisconsin, Michigan, Northern Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Upstate New York, and Pennsylvania, and people in these regions that I've had a chance to ask consider themselves linked only by the Great Lakes, not by anything else. Someone from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania could answer that better than me. You're out to pick fights, and I'm really not in the mood to engage. If you want them to be a region, fine, that's your opinion. I don't agree with it, neither does my family that lives in the region or most of the people that live in your region. In fact, you are the first person from the Upper Midwest I've ever met that thinks your region is so much like the Great Lakes region of the Northeast. and as far as ignoring the part of my quote that doesn't seem to have a point, I guess you are too proud to admit that maybe you don't have all the answers.

Stopped reading after that. Obviously you haven't been to Cleveland (more highrises and apartments compared to cinci) or Cincinnati. To start off a post with a completely false statement is the reason I'm not giving anything else you say a chance.

Although, this is the most typical housing in Cleveland:
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...airfax+025.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...remont0007.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...Glenville2.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...Cleveland2.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...leveland39.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...image=OC30.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...image=OC16.jpg
http://www.urbanohio.com/gallery/ind...Glenville1.jpg

So I certainly believe Ohio cities have more in common with the Northeast... Obviously, they are more similar to Chicago or Detroit.. but if you don't see similarities, then this debate is worthless. Oh and Cleveland IMO has nothing similar to cities outside the rust belt in the Midwest.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by WeSoHood

Stopped reading after that. Obviously you haven't been to Cleveland (more highrises and apartments compared to cinci) or Cincinnati. To start off a post with a completely false statement is the reason I'm not giving anything else you say a chance.

Although, this is the most typical housing in Cleveland:
fairfax 025
tremont0007
ClvGlenville2
Cleveland2
Cleveland39
OC30
OC16
ClvGlenville1

So I certainly believe Ohio cities have more in common with the Northeast... Obviously, they are more similar to Chicago or Detroit.. but if you don't see similarities, then this debate is worthless. Oh and Cleveland IMO has nothing similar to cities outside the rust belt in the Midwest.

I've been going to Cleveland at minimum twice a year for the past 22 years. Stop thinking you are the final judge of where I've been, because believe me, you're not. My only guess is that you stopped reading because you couldn't handle the truth. Please just f*** off if you don't agree with me. And I've been to Cincinnati just as many times as well. Downtown Cleveland feels like and architecturally resembles Downtown St. Louis for crying out loud. I was just in Downtown Cleveland a few months ago. The only difference is Cleveland being on a Great Lake and St. Louis being on a river as far as their downtowns are concerned, and Cleveland's being more spread out. Pittsburgh does have rowhouses, and if you think that's not true, ask the people who live there or go there yourself. You think that you know where I've been. Good for you. I don't care whether or not you give me a chance to say anything. I'll keep talking, because you obviously seem uneducated about anything and are not the final judge of me. You know nothing about me, so to think you are qualified to make conclusions about the events in my life just makes you look more ridiculous and wrong. More highrises and apartments makes a city more similar to the Northeast or very very different from Cincinnati...you're a laughingstock. Did you bother to check cultural or architectural similarities or anything like that? I can't put names to all the similarities I've seen, but I know they are there. With that, I'm just going to ignore you.

[WeSoHood]

Originally Posted by ajf131

I've been going to Cleveland at minimum twice a year for the past 22 years. Stop thinking you are the final judge of where I've been, because believe me, you're not. My only guess is that you stopped reading because you couldn't handle the truth. Please just f*** off if you don't agree with me. And I've been to Cincinnati just as many times as well. Downtown Cleveland feels like and architecturally resembles Downtown St. Louis for crying out loud. I was just in Downtown Cleveland a few months ago. The only difference is Cleveland being on a Great Lake and St. Louis being on a river as far as their downtowns are concerned, and Cleveland's being more spread out. Pittsburgh does have rowhouses, and if you think that's not true, ask the people who live there or go there yourself. You think that you know where I've been. Good for you. I don't care whether or not you give me a chance to say anything. I'll keep talking, because you obviously seem uneducated about anything and are not the final judge of me. You know nothing about me, so to think you are qualified to make conclusions about the events in my life just makes you look more ridiculous and wrong. More highrises and apartments makes a city more similar to the Northeast or very very different from Cincinnati...you're a laughingstock. Did you bother to check cultural or architectural similarities or anything like that? I can't put names to all the similarities I've seen, but I know they are there. With that, I'm just going to ignore you.

When did I say Pitt doesn't have rowhouses? Why do you get so sensitive to everything I post? Where did I say anything about St Louis? What are you talking about high rises and apartments in comparison to Cinci? I never compared Cinci to Cleveland - I simply stated it has MANY rowhouses like the northeast.

My suggestion would be to quit putting words in my mouth and think I'm implying certain things. Seriously, I'm not sure how you wrote a whole paragraph rebuttal to things I didn't even say. It's pretty obvious you are doing the same thing for jjacobeclark... He seems to be lost and doesn't understand how you assume so much. You are making yourself look like a fool when you THINK people meant stuff or completely fabricate what was said. Seriously... you are hilarious. Oh and you have yet to post any kind of relative information. Paragraphs and paragraphs of unsubstantiated opinions.

Like what does that bold comment even mean? Architectural and cultural similarities? I have posted information before for you, which you quickly dismissed with 'I've been there' or 'Relatives blah blah blah'.. Have YOUchecked architectural and cultural differences?

[EastSideMKE]

Originally Posted by ajf131

Ok, here's an architectural example...places like Pittsburgh have rowhouses, which are very characteristic of Northeastern cities. You don't find architecture like that in states of the Upper Midwest.

Chicago, IL


St. Paul, MN


Cincinnati, OH


Detroit, MI

Originally Posted by ajf131

Not to mention, Upstate New York leans more conservative historically than most of the Upper Midwest.

What are you basing that assertion on? Cities like Buffalo, Rochester, and Pittsburgh don't strike me as being the least bit conservative. I think those labels are relative anyways. Buffalo could be considered conservative when compared to NYC, but compared to St. Louis they would probably seem more liberal.

Originally Posted by ajf131

Finally, Upstate New York has a lot of English ancestry.

Rochester, NY:
German 10.9%
Italian 10.0%
Irish 9.6%
English 5.8%
Polish 2.7%

Buffalo, NY:
German 13.6%
Irish 12.2%
Italian 11.7%
Polish 11.7%
English 4.0%

Cleveland, OH:
Slovenian 10%
German 9.2%
Irish 8.2%
Polish 4.8%
Italian 4.6%
English 2.8%

Milwaukee, WI:
German 38.0%
Polish 12.7%
Irish 10%
English 5.1%
Italian 4.4%
French 3.9%

Originally Posted by ajf131

Pennsylvania and Upstate New York differ from the Upper Midwest in that they have more culture and architecture resembling that of Northeastern cities. They feel Northeastern, at least to me. They do not feel the same as Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, or Minnesota. As far as those 4 states being more like the latter two, the Upper Midwest states do not have any type of architecture or culture that resembles that of New England or the Northeast.

Clambake (New England)


Fish Boil (Wisconsin)


Rockport, MA


Two Rivers, WI


Martha's Vineyard


Mackinac Island

Originally Posted by ajf131

The Upper Midwest is not as conservative and has many more Catholics and Lutherans. There is also not a presence of Northeastern Elitism...this has long been mistrusted.

Thanks to italianbluesboy for creating the map of the Catholic Belt. Catholicism appears to dominate all the way from New England across the Upper Midwest, ending around Minnesota (Lutheran Country).

Originally Posted by ajf131

You can think what you want to about Upstate New York and Pennsylvania, but they are not Midwestern. They could be called transition zones between the Midwest and Northeast, but in no way could they be described as Midwestern.

Once again, where are you getting this from? Can you please show me where I said Upstate NY and PA were Midwestern?

What I said, and have been saying the entire time, is that the Upper Midwest shares more commonalities with the Northeast than with the Lower Midwest. That isn't even close to saying that NY and PA are Midwestern. If you want to draw false conclusions, then it would be more accurate to claim I'm saying the Upper Midwest is Northeastern, which isn't at all what I'm saying.

Originally Posted by ajf131

As far as places like Wisconsin, Ohio, Northern Indiana, and Michigan being forested, that depends on which parts of the states you are in. And Missouri is not the only place in the Lower Midwest that is not hilly and forested. Southern Illinois can be quite hilly and forested, as well as in Southern Ohio and Southern Indiana. The Northern half of Missouri isn't flat as a board but in many instances comes pretty close to that when you aren't near the rivers.

46% of the State of Wisconsin is covered by dense forests. I don't have numbers for the rest of the Upper Midwest states, but I would imagine Minnesota will have slightly less than that, while I would imagine Michigan would have even more than that.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Aside from Missouri, the rest of the Lower Midwest falls within the Great Plains region and doesn't have anything remotely similar to the Ozarks.

Originally Posted by ajf131

I can certainly tell you that residents from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania would not consider themselves to be oriented with Michigan, Ohio, and Minnesota.

I could care less what people consider themselves to be. People in Phoenix think they're part of the West Coast. People in Boise think they're part of the Pacific Northwest.

People have a natural desire to be linked with glamorous places. Ask the people on the other side if they feel the same way. Do you think people in LA want to associated with Phoenix? Do you think people in Seattle want to be associated with Boise? Do you think people in NYC want to be associated with Buffalo? Do you think people in Philadelphia want to be associated with Pittsburgh?

Originally Posted by ajf131

Also, Upstate New York has very noticeable French Canadian influence. This isn't something you tend to find in most of the Midwest.

Perhaps not French-Canadian, but the Upper Midwest definitely has Canadian influences. The states of Michigan and Minnesota both share borders with the province of Ontario.

Originally Posted by ajf131

As far as St. Louis not being rust belt, it not being that is your opinion strictly. in no point does that article say St. Louis isn't rust belt.

Actually, it did.

Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Saint Louis, Missouri may be considered a manufacturing center, although the surrounding parts of Missouri and Illinois are not part of the region."

Originally Posted by ajf131

And as far as Memphis and Baton Rouge, their economies were far different from that of St. Louis, the Quad Cities, and Minnesota. The latter three were more manufacturing oriented and gained in population during the Great Migration. You seem to argue for Great Lakes and river culture as binding regions together. While I somewhat agree on this, it isn't a very strong binder of a region. Someone living in Upstate New York or Pennsylvania might better be able to answer the cultural question than me...all I know is that I've been to Wisconsin, Michigan, Northern Illinois, Minnesota, Iowa, Upstate New York, and Pennsylvania, and people in these regions that I've had a chance to ask consider themselves linked only by the Great Lakes, not by anything else. Someone from Upstate New York and Pennsylvania could answer that better than me. You're out to pick fights, and I'm really not in the mood to engage. If you want them to be a region, fine, that's your opinion. I don't agree with it, neither does my family that lives in the region or most of the people that live in your region. In fact, you are the first person from the Upper Midwest I've ever met that thinks your region is so much like the Great Lakes region of the Northeast. and as far as ignoring the part of my quote that doesn't seem to have a point, I guess you are too proud to admit that maybe you don't have all the answers.

Not much to respond to in here.

[ajf131]

Originally Posted by jjacobeclark

Chicago, IL


St. Paul, MN


Cincinnati, OH


Detroit, MI




What are you basing that assertion on? Cities like Buffalo, Rochester, and Pittsburgh don't strike me as being the least bit conservative. I think those labels are relative anyways. Buffalo could be considered conservative when compared to NYC, but compared to St. Louis they would probably seem more liberal.



Rochester, NY:
German 10.9%
Italian 10.0%
Irish 9.6%
English 5.8%
Polish 2.7%

Buffalo, NY:
German 13.6%
Irish 12.2%
Italian 11.7%
Polish 11.7%
English 4.0%

Cleveland, OH:
Slovenian 10%
German 9.2%
Irish 8.2%
Polish 4.8%
Italian 4.6%
English 2.8%

Milwaukee, WI:
German 38.0%
Polish 12.7%
Irish 10%
English 5.1%
Italian 4.4%
French 3.9%



Clambake (New England)


Fish Boil (Wisconsin)


Rockport, MA


Two Rivers, WI


Martha's Vineyard


Mackinac Island





Thanks to italianbluesboy for creating the map of the Catholic Belt. Catholicism appears to dominate all the way from New England across the Upper Midwest, ending around Minnesota (Lutheran Country).



Once again, where are you getting this from? Can you please show me where I said Upstate NY and PA were Midwestern?

What I said, and have been saying the entire time, is that the Upper Midwest shares more commonalities with the Northeast than with the Lower Midwest. That isn't even close to saying that NY and PA are Midwestern. If you want to draw false conclusions, then it would be more accurate to claim I'm saying the Upper Midwest is Northeastern, which isn't at all what I'm saying.



46% of the State of Wisconsin is covered by dense forests. I don't have numbers for the rest of the Upper Midwest states, but I would imagine Minnesota will have slightly less than that, while I would imagine Michigan would have even more than that.

I'm not sure what you're even arguing here. Aside from Missouri, the rest of the Lower Midwest falls within the Great Plains region and doesn't have anything remotely similar to the Ozarks.



I could care less what people consider themselves to be. People in Phoenix think they're part of the West Coast. People in Boise think they're part of the Pacific Northwest.

People have a natural desire to be linked with glamorous places. Ask the people on the other side if they feel the same way. Do you think people in LA want to associated with Phoenix? Do you think people in Seattle want to be associated with Boise? Do you think people in NYC want to be associated with Buffalo? Do you think people in Philadelphia want to be associated with Pittsburgh?



Perhaps not French-Canadian, but the Upper Midwest definitely has Canadian influences. The states of Michigan and Minnesota both share borders with the province of Ontario.



Actually, it did.

Rust Belt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Saint Louis, Missouri may be considered a manufacturing center, although the surrounding parts of Missouri and Illinois are not part of the region."





Not much to respond to in here.

What that part of wikipedia says is incorrect. East Saint Louis and Alton, Illinois were heavy manufacturers of steel, HEAVY producers of steel...one of the reasons African Americans settled into East Saint Louis in particular was to get employed at the steel mills there. Granite City, all those areas along the Mississippi produced steel and suffered the same kind of decay that places like Youngstown, Ohio suffered. I happen to know people that used to work in the steel mills around St. Louis that would take what wikipedia says there and call it misinformed and delusional. And even then, the surrounding parts of Missouri and Illinois aren't part of the region...that does NOT automatically mean St. Louis can't be called that. There's a lot to debate about what that says. The Lower Midwest falling in the Great Plains region? Where the hell is that coming from..I said that those regions resemble the Great Plains in being flat and open, but that's where the similarities end. Parts of Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio might be flat and open for miles, but they are much greener and naturally fertile than the Midwestern states that lie in the Great Plains, which are more wheat-oriented instead of corn and soybeans. The unglaciated part of Northwestern Illinois, Southwestern Wisconsin, Northeastern Iowa, and Southeastern Minnesota, while maybe not mountainous and having more fertile soil and slightly different tree species, resemble the Ozarks in terms of the rocky and tall cliffs in the area. And the Ozarks actually do extend into parts of Southern Illinois, and Southeastern Ohio contains the Appalachian foothills. The entire Ohio valley for the most part has hilly and rocky terrain. Also, that "Catholic Belt" you presented is not entirely accurate...I have seen it posted on another thread here and if I recall it was used to depict another user's opinion of what the Catholic Belt was, and to leave St. Louis out of that is pretty laughable. St. Louis may be the most Catholic city in the entire Midwest. I'm not going to present concrete evidence to prove or disprove everything to you. Upstate New York and Western Pennsylvania draw influences from the Midwest, Appalachia, and the Northeast. That's my opinion. If you don't like it, stick to your's and leave mine alone. If you don't care what the people who live there think, then you've got a serious problem as you are an outsider thinking you are more qualified to judge a region than anyone who lives there. I'm not interested in arguing with you anymore, mainly because like I said, I've got better things to do with my life than argue with someone who obviously thinks Des Moines and Omaha are not real cities Not to mention, I got those sources about Upstate New York from wikipedia. Something else to note is that the Northeast is very Catholic...Upstate New York draws influence from New England. Massachusetts is a very heavily Catholic state as is I believe much of all of New England. Also, the Bos-Wash corridor was very big on manufacturing, and cities like Baltimore and Philadelphia are also included in the Rust Belt. Don't even bother responding to me though, as I'm putting you on my ignore list.

[phreshlyfe]

Originally Posted by phreshlyfe

distance between DMI (Des Moines Iowa) and Kansas City 184 miles/297km...
distance between Fresno and San fransico 186 miles/299 km...
Distance between DMI and Minneapolis, Minnisota 234 miles
Distance between Fresno and Los Angeles 209 miles...
Distance between DMI and St. Louis 270 miles...
According to Forbes Des Moines is ranked #1 best metro and is constantly being placed within the top ten list of Places to conduct business...currently ranked #7...
Fresno and Tucson might have a larger population then DMI but thats about all they have going for them compared to DMI... So with a population of well over a half a million people and growing and a top ten buisness conductivity ranking...and with access to Minneapolis,Kansas City, Chicago,Omaha,and St. Louis I think its safe to say DMI is defintily a city and one thats on the rise.

i've spent alot of time in both Fresno and Tucson and i got love for both... but as far as city potential goes Des Moines has one up on both.