Do you consider Ohio "Midwest" or "Back East?" (Cleveland: move to, transit)

[PosterExtraordinaire]

I consider it a combination of the Midwest/Great Lakes and Appalachia. Cincinnati is her best city and very beautiful to drive by during the night and through the hills.

[BuckeyezRule]

Haven't read all the posts. I'm from Akron, OH, have now lived in a SW 'burb of SLC, UT for over 5 years. I called Ohio, 'back home', & the 'midwest' when I moved here. There are alot of transplants here. Most I know here, call Ohio 'back east'. It is east, I do understand that, but, I do think of 'east', as the 'east coast'. Just how 'I' think. The different ways we talk in all 4 areas of Ohio, NE, SE, NW, SW, not even counting Columbus, is a big difference. lol I'm the weird one who picks up on dialect (sp?) . Yes, I'm a nerd. lol

My family is mostly in the Akron area, but, hubby's family is in the SE Ohio/Wheeling, & Pittsburgh areas, so, for us, those areas kinda blend in speech, if that makes sense. Hubby still says 'yinz', as do his relatives. lol

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Because when people think of mountains, they think of the South???

The Appalachians with regard to the US and Appalachia at least are predominantly thought of as the South, even though the range does run through Pennsylvania and further north. That was my point.

Originally Posted by JoeP

who said it did? Most states have agricultural areas of some sort.

Nobody specifically that I can directly quote. I've just seen the general association. Midwest = farms, agriculture, etc. Both on this forum and in daily encounters.

Originally Posted by JoeP

I noted earlier that the Midwest has 2 distinct areas, the Great Lakes, which is more industrial and urban and the plains. Ohio and Michigan aren't anomalies, they are defining states of the Great Lakes.

Considering Ohio and Michigan are the only two Midwestern states with extensive coast and multiple moderate to large urban centers I'd say they are a bit of an anomaly compared to the other 10 states that the census bureau defines as the "Midwest" - I'd include Wisconsin as well if it were more urbanized; but outside of Milwaukee or Madison areas there isn't much else anywhere. Furthermore, subdividing the region into "The Plains" and "The Great Lakes" as you say, only furthers my point that neither Ohio nor Michigan are truly "Midwestern" states based on properties that generally define most of the Midwest - which would be mostly rural and absence of a large body of water. I.E. they are anomalies compared to the rest of the Midwest even if you sub-divide the region into the two areas that you have. Parts of eastern Ohio actually fall within Appalachia for that matter. Another distinct feature the state boasts in comparison to the rest of the Midwest.

Cleveland and Detroit for example have much more in common and are much more like Buffalo, NY than Kansas City, Des Moines or Omaha.

[JoeP]

Illinois has even more people than Michigan and Ohio. My point is that these 2 states, along with Illinois and Wisconsin (and I would say MN as well) lake cities, grew with industry etc etc.

They share some commonality with some Northeastern cities like Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Rochester (and actually Baltimore, Philly, NYC, etc also had manufacturing and many blue collar jobs too).

BUT, there Great Lakes feel and culture that is a little a different than than the Northeastern states and of course these urban areas are different than the more agricultural Midwestern states.

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Illinois has even more people than Michigan and Ohio. My point is that these 2 states, along with Illinois and Wisconsin (and I would say MN as well) lake cities, grew with industry etc etc.

They share some commonality with some Northeastern cities like Pittsburgh, Buffalo and Rochester (and actually Baltimore, Philly, NYC, etc also had manufacturing and many blue collar jobs too).

BUT, there Great Lakes feel and culture that is a little a different than than the Northeastern states and of course these urban areas are different than the more agricultural Midwestern states.

And outside the NE quadrant of Illinois you have largely rural settings, unlike Michigan and Ohio. Chicago and it's suburbs form a huge ring along Illinois extremely limited coast compared to these other two states with Rockford being the only 150,000+ population city in the state outside of Chicagoland, and even then it's still in the same region. The rest of Illinois is much more like Iowa, Nebraska etc than the the rest of Ohio or Michigan are outside one of their major cities. As I said before, Wisconsin and Minnesota despite being on the Great Lakes are not developed as extensively as Michigan or Ohio are with both Wis. and Minn. featuring only one or two major cities. I'm not concerned with the amount of blue collar jobs that exist in one of these areas vs. another area; using that logic anywhere in the rust belt is similar to anywhere else featuring a prominent industrial center. Which is not the case nor the point I'm making. With regard to "the Midwest" - Michigan and Ohio feel much more like eastern states than they do anything the overwhelming majority of the Midwest ever thought of dreaming up, despite the census bureau classifying these areas as one region.

[JoeP]

with Rockford being the only 150,000+ population city in the state outside of Chicagoland

Yes the dynamics are different with IL, as Chicagoland makes up most of the population, but Rockford and Peoria are both 350,000-400,000 pop, plus Champaign, Springfield and smaller border urban areas.

But again, there is commonality between Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee etc.

Columbus, Cincy, and Indy, while not on the lakes, share similar Midwestern character.

I'm just saying that Michigan and Ohio are part of the Great Lakes region, which is part of the Midwest. I feel like it should be more separately defined as separate from the Midwest, but it's not. However, there are non Great Lakes cities like St Louis and KC, which have similar character to cities in Ohio and Michigan.

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by JoeP

Yes the dynamics are different with IL, as Chicagoland makes up most of the population, but Rockford and Peoria are both 350,000-400,000 pop, plus Champaign, Springfield and smaller border urban areas.

But again, there is commonality between Cleveland, Toledo, Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee etc.

Columbus, Cincy, and Indy, while not on the lakes, share similar Midwestern character.

I'm just saying that Michigan and Ohio are part of the Great Lakes region, which is part of the Midwest. I feel like it should be more separately defined as separate from the Midwest, but it's not. However, there are non Great Lakes cities like St Louis and KC, which have similar character to cities in Ohio and Michigan.

Rockford has a metropolitan area of 350,000, Peoria's closer to 375,000. Springfield roughly 210,000.

Toledo has a metropolitan area of 650,000 people.
Akron, 700,000
Dayton, 850,000

Each of these cities above by the way with city proper populations of 150,000+ with the exception of Dayton which is actually 141,000.

Then you have the metropolitan areas of the 3C's that are each 1.5 - 2 million+ residents. Giving you a grand total of six large urban areas in Ohio, spanning nearly each quadrant of the state. Three of them large Great Lakes region cities with two of them physically on Lake Erie.

Then you have the Canton-Massilon area of 400,000 people, Youngstown area of 565,000 people. Bringing the grand total of urban areas over 400,000 people to 8. Illinois has three, because St. Louis is in Missouri, no matter how close it is to Illinois. Without St. Louis the area would have 1/4 the population it does now. No different than Wisconsin cannot boast Minneapolis/St. Paul despite sharing a CSA with it.

Ohio is trumped in density of population only by New Jersey, Rhode Island, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland, Delaware, New York, Florida and Pennsylvania. The six bold states occupying an area less than 1/4 the size of Ohio. So for a fair representation, New York and Florida most closely resemble Ohio in terms of the expanse of large development. Neither of which are in the Midwest, as I'm sure you're aware.

No other state in the Midwest is even remotely similar, including Illinois as I've pointed out. Furthermore, Ohio has 312 miles of coastline on an international body of water. Beat only in the Midwest by Michigan and Wisconsin, both of which I've already discussed with regard to urban development vs. rural characteristics. Michigan's coast by the way, is only trumped by Alaska. In addition both Ohio and Michigan feature a population (even if a small one) that dwell on islands.

This combined with the amount of urbanization leads me to conclude that even though Ohio and Michigan are grouped up with the Midwest by our federal government, they could not be more different from the rest of the Midwest if they tried; the only exception being that certain Midwestern cities may share common traits with other cities regarding the region in question - most of which would apply to any city anywhere actually I would say. Which is why I believe the two states are anomalies compared to even other Great Lakes states like Wisconsin and Minnesota with similar/more extensive coast because they are also broadly defined with multiple Midwestern characteristics that Ohio and Michigan are not.

[JoeP]

I'm aware of everything that you mentioned, but none of that is relevant to the context of Ohio as part of the Great Lakes region, which it aptly fits.

[OhAcid]

Originally Posted by JoeP

I'm aware of everything that you mentioned, but none of that is relevant to the context of Ohio as part of the Great Lakes region, which it aptly fits.

When did I say anything about Ohio concerning The Great Lakes region? My dispute is with The Midwest, which is grouped with The Great Lakes because they're very extensive, although they reach the east as well. Would you consider Toronto or the surrounding area in upstate New York around Lake Ontario to be Midwestern just because it also belongs to The Great Lakes region? No. Which is exactly my argument with Michigan and Ohio - who have far more in common with the east than they do anything else in the Midwest for the most part including states like Minnesota and Wisconsin that are both on The Great Lakes but very different from Ohio and Michigan. I'm not arguing against Ohio belonging to the Great Lakes, but the term is not synonymous with Midwest nor do the states in question have anything in common with the vast majority of the Midwest as opposed to the East.

[JoeP]

There's a general grouping of the Midwestern Great Lakes region, which is part of the Midwest.

Nobody is saying great lakes = Midwest = Iowa.

But in the broader sense MI and OH are part of the Midwest, that's never been in dispute.

Having more urban clusters than other areas, doesn't make it less so.

Someone sitting in Chicago, might feel that only NYC and maybe, just maybe San Fran, or LA might be what most matches where they sit, but that doesn't change Chicago's place in the country.

Popuation doesn't = sameness. Culture, demographics and history may be the same or different. Industries, migration patterns etc etc all play into place.

Obviously Cleveland has more in common with a Pittsburgh or Philly than Des Moines or Omaha. That's not in dispute either.