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.
Cool map, but I have to say that when it comes to cultural influence in California you have it all messed up. Culture in the Central Valley is directly tied to Nor-Cal and for your middle California Coast it is half Nor-cal influenced and half So-cal influenced.
Pretty cool map. A couple observations. I think there needs to be a "Lower Coastal South" region. Charleston, Savannah... have a very different culture than 'Bama, Miss... Also, the Upper and Lower Rural North has a number of decent sized, very urban cities...Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse... Perhaps another name for those regions?
Additionally, I think Northern New England (Maine, NH, VT) and Southern New England (MA, CT, RI) are different enough to warrant separate regions.
Cool map, but I have to say that when it comes to cultural influence in California you have it all messed up. Culture in the Central Valley is directly tied to Nor-Cal and for your middle California Coast it is half Nor-cal influenced and half So-cal influenced.
people in stockton sure seem to think that, but nobody in oakland does. its flat, dusty, and sprawled out in the valley. when i think of norcal, i think of the bay area and the hills outside of them, not flat farmland.
Pretty cool map. A couple observations. I think there needs to be a "Lower Coastal South" region. Charleston, Savannah... have a very different culture than 'Bama, Miss... Also, the Upper and Lower Rural North has a number of decent sized, very urban cities...Pittsburgh, Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse... Perhaps another name for those regions?
you raise a valid point, but because the culture of alabama and missippi is so directly tied to south carolina and georgia (given that they settled west, and brought customs that direction), i decide that they are culturally similar enough to be part of a greater region.
as far as the inner north goes, ive definitely considered that. i feel that that is part of that culture region, to have industrial cities and sparely populated rural areas (often times with what were once smaller industrial towns).
i thought about going to each major city and individually making them their own region, but felt that that would have to be self explanitory that urban areas of culture regions will differ from the rural areas.
you raise a valid point, but because the culture of alabama and missippi is so directly tied to south carolina and georgia (given that they settled west, and brought customs that direction), i decide that they are culturally similar enough to be part of a greater region.
as far as the inner north goes, ive definitely considered that. i feel that that is part of that culture region, to have industrial cities and sparely populated rural areas (often times with what were once smaller industrial towns).
i thought about going to each major city and individually making them their own region, but felt that that would have to be self explanitory that urban areas of culture regions will differ from the rural areas.
Yeah, it is tough. I was born in Buffalo, NY. It is hard to characterize. Buffalo is a gritty, industrial, in a lot of ways decaying, but still very urban city. Yet just a few miles outside of Buffalo it is nothing but dairy farms and very rural in a lot of ways. I'm trying to think of another terminology, but not having any luck.
My biggest issue is with the way in which the Great Lakes/Great Plains region is depicted; very strange boundaries seem to be present. Otherwise, great map. +1
people in stockton sure seem to think that, but nobody in oakland does. its flat, dusty, and sprawled out in the valley. when i think of norcal, i think of the bay area and the hills outside of them, not flat farmland.
Yes, but when it comes to the central valley all the way down to Fresno, it is culturally the same as the bay area.
Not a bad typology at all. But I think that the upper and lower rural north areas are questionable. For instance, why isn't the upper part of West Virginia a part of Appalachia and why isn't the Buffalo-Rochester areas of NY part of the Great Lakes? Pittsburgh seems like an outlier and I'm not sure where it belongs. I think that it is maybe at the crossroads of 2 or 3 areas.
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.
