What cities are Midwest
 

Where does the midwest begin and end? I have heard the following cities being called part of the Midwest by coastal types but am not sure if they know what they are talking about.

I have heard numerous people refer to Pittsburgh, Denver, Cleveland, Omaha, Salt Lake City and Buffalo as the "Midwest". Are any of those cites "midwest"?

What city does the midwest begin with and where does it end?

I don't consider Rust Belt cities like Detroit, Pittsburgh or Cincinnati Midwest, I consider it Great lakes or Rust Belt. Colorado, Utah, and Idaho are "Mountain West" sorts not midwest. Oklahoma, Kansas, Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, and parts of Texas.

I think cities in the states of Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan, Missouri, Iowa, and maybe Kentucky and Kansas are midwest cities. I would add Pittsburgh to the list. I think that Minnesota and Wisconsin are Upper Midwest.

hence being Midwest ;).

It depends on your perspective
 

I've been on both coasts. From a coastal view, I'd say anything E of the Cascade/Sierras and W of the Appalachians is "Midwest".

That said, I now live in the Midwest (Central Illinois). I'd say the E border of the Midwest is somewhere in Ohio; the W border somewhere in Eastern Colorado; and the S border at about the MO-AR line, or else the Ohio River. I consider Cincinnati Eastern, but others would say it's Midwest, and a few say it's "The South".

I'd also say the Midwest extends up into Canada: Winnipeg, Regina, and so-forth.

I don't consider Denver Midwestern, but Seattleites might argue. After all, it's East of the Rockies. I consider places like Wilkes-Barre, Pittsburgh, Syracuse, etc. as Eastern, but from a Manhattanite they would probably consider it Midwest.

Although St. Louis is definitely Midwest, St. Louis seems to be quite Eastern. Baseball is big. There are row houses. There is lots of industry.

Just my two cents worth.

Gets a little muddy. Does a place like Wichita have the same Midwestern qualities as a place like Milwaukee?

The boundaries could arguably stretch from Kansas to Western Pennsylvania (Pittsburgh embodies certain characteristics of Midwestern cities), but nobody on SSP has ever agreed on regional boundaries/characteristics/qualities/etc., so its kinda pointless anyway.

Whenever this is brought up, it's always important to remind folks that the Midwest includes both the Great Lakes and the Great Plains; it spans both sides of the Mississippi. It includes a state as heavily industralized a Michigan, ot a state as heavily agricultural as Kansas. It spans the Old Northwest (Great Lakes) to the Old West (Great Plains); Ohio is just as "Midwest" as Nebraska and vice versa. Even then, not every part of these states are "Midwest" just as there are some "Midwest" portions of some states bordering the Midwest. The question of the definition of the Midwest is not an either/or proposition.

As for the examples of Pittsburgh, Denver, Cleveland, Omaha, Salt Lake City and Buffalo, I'd say that Pittsburgh is neither Midwestern in culture nor geography, Denver is practically at the foot of the Rockies, so geographically I'd give them to the Moutain West as I would culturally. Omaha is most definitely Midwestern in every since of the word. SLC, no way, and Buffalo is very similar in culture to every other city along the Great Lakes.

of course, you can further divide the midwest up from that broad definition.

You won't find a Pittsburgher alive who considers his/her city "Midwest". It's usually used as a term of derision by Philadelphians who can't be troubled to travel west of Lancaster.

To me, the Midwest is mostly made up of areas in the US where most land is under cultivation without general irrigation. So, the NE boundary is Cleveland, down to Columbus, Dayton, Indianapolis, St. Louis, Kansas City, Lincoln, Bismarck, to the Canadian border. Areas in northern Wisconsin and Minnesota that are not agricultural are usually called "upper Midwest." I think the shared economic, cultural, political and linguistic (etc) characteristics of Midwest cities is drawn more from the land use, heavy ag industries, lack of broad natural spaces, German-Scandinavian immigration, and postindustrial landscapes. This area is defined by the Great Lakes, since those are the remnants of the glaciers that ground the Midwest like a rolling pin.

The South is the mountainous/hilly area south of this; the Plains extend to the Rockies/Intermountain West (with its own divisions); East coast is on the Appalachian fall line eastward; the South and the Appalachians share some characteristics into Southern PA. I dont know upstate NY at all to know what's going on there. Buffalo might also be called a Midwestern outpost, but Pittsburgh is the capital of Appalachia, and not Midwestern.

It's simple mathematics..!

Mid = North & South
+ West = West of the Mississippi River
_________________________________
Midwest = Missouri..! :yes:

The Heart of the nation..

No matter which way you travel.., there are 8 other states to choose in
all 4 directions from Missouri...:tup:

I've always thought of the Midwest as being the following:


Illinois
Iowa
Wisconsin
Minnesota
North Dakota
South Dakota
Northern half of Missouri
Nebraska
Kansas
Central Oklahoma
North Central Texas (e.g., DFW area)

It's not really very cut and dried, though, and certainly debatable.

As an outsider, this pretty much matches my my idea of the Midwest.

I'd throw in St. Louis and accept that Pittsburgh is probably more Appalachia than Midwestern.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...USA-states.PNG
src: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fi...USA-states.PNG

Having lived briefly in Michigan, I think most Michiganders think of themselves as part of the "Great Lakes region". That's more important to them than being either Northeast or Midwest.

I've also lived in Kansas City, which is most definitely the Midwest. Their subregion is the Heartland, but everything about that Metro in character scope says Midwest.

Dallas is part of the South... not a part of the Midwest. It's still too rooted in southern culture to claim that. A stronger case can be made for Oklahoma IMO... I could see it being included in the Midwest. But Texas is much too large of a state to be counted in one region.

There used to be a concept of the mid-eastern states, usually Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, which had more attachment to the rolling hills country of the east than to the plains which characterize the true midwest. Illinois could be tossed in as well. Under this concept the true midwest begins near the Mississippi and extends as far west and south as there is profitably arable farmland. Then the high-plains (with their short growing seasons making them ranching country) and the Rockies. Social structures changed with each of these agricultural and economic structures, which in turn were climate driven.

Of course, the fringes of the Great Lakes constitute an altogether different, more industrialized zone. This would include Pittsburgh and most of northern Ohio, Indiana, etc.

While being surrounded and isolated lakes will do that to you, I've yet to meet a Michigander that doesn't also consider his or her state to be a subset region of the Midwest. I'll just reiterate that like most any other region, this one has subregions. Just as the Northeast consists of the subregions of New England and the Mid-Atlantic (and then whatever you call Maryland, Delaware, West Virginia), or the South divided between Deep, Upper, etc...the Midwest has the Great Lakes and Great Plains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...5/Midwest6.jpg
Wiki

I lived in TC... they think differently than downstaters on many subjects. But I will agree, from a cultural perspective, Michigan identifies more with the Midwest than it would the East Coast. Though where I lived, they didn't refer to themselves as either.

BTW, the East region of the map is what I would refer to as the Great Lakes Region... the west would be the Central Plains.

I'd hope so, because that's what these subregions are known as, with Great Plains being more common than Central Plains, but can be used interchangeably.

Places like Denver, SLC, Dallas are part of Middle America, which some people might confuse as being the same as the Midwest, which is a region in Middle America. Basically, don't trust a Californian on any geography over 50 miles from the Pacific. They are good people, and I am friends with many, but they tend to blur everything between the coasts. Cleveland, Denver, whatever.

Well, the term "Middle America" is about as glossing over as any. That's not to mention that it's not a geographical concept, but a social one. It's exactly the kind of term someone on the coasts would use for anything 50 miles inland. lol

the great lakes is just a sub region of the midwest. Its like how New England is part of the North East. I agree with that map but id probably group Minnesota with the Great Lakes region, instead of great plains... ive never been there, but it is on a great lake, and is more built up than kansas, nebraska, south dakota etc...

That map is my definition of Midwest by state lines, and living in Iowa I'm close to the center. To get precise, I tend to think of the Midwest/West line being halfway through the Plains states, so the Black Hills, Badlands, and Sand Hills are more Western to me than Midwest. Also, to me the southern parts of Missouri are more Southern than Midwestern, and perhaps Little Egypt in Illinois as well. Cincinnati is Midwestern, Louisville is Southern.

Basically, my Midwest is the region planted by grain crops (wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.) and including the North Woods.

I would also consider these states as Midwest. Minnesota is definitely upper Midwest but it is Midwest. I am of the opinion that these states are beautiful. I absolutely love the nature there. I think I will visit Minnesota in summer once again. Just love it there.

Bone Thugs member layzie bone when asked if he would resolve beef (who originated fast flowing first) with Twista and both rep the midwest together... "He (twista) can have the midwest, We aint from the midwest, we from Cleveland, east 99 and st. clair..."

On a more serious note, I agree with the Great Lakes/Rust Belt and Plains distinction. There are nuances though to be sure.

Having lived in both Michigan and Ohio, I've always considered myself midwestern. However, after living outside the 'midwest', I realized I had to identify myself as from the Great Lakes, or else people would think I grew up on some farm in the middle of the plains.

Big Ten map??

I just noticed the link as well, haha. Not for long if expansion comes to fruition! Re: rutgers, Uconn, syracuse, texas....

The midwest is such a strange term, in that even for me, a midwesterner, it conjurs images of tractors and corn - I'm looking out of my window and not seeing any tractors :haha: (although soon I will be planting corn next to the alley). The midwest I know is an interesting patchwork of both urban and rural fiefdoms of varying size and power, all with more personality than many on the coasts would ever acknowledge. I definitely don't agree with that map Brickell posted, as population wise, states like Nebraska are crowded against their eastern borders in very midwestern cities, and Kansas City isnt anything but midwestern. I think there are some breaks like somewhere along the Ozark plateau, or the vicinity of the Ohio, but not anything as clear as a state line in most cases. Louisville, for instance, is definitely a bit of a hybrid place.

I think of the midwest as the 'second' phase of American expansion after the original states. Though there's exceptions. The Mountain West contains cities like Salt Lake and Denver, or basically those cities located within the huge Rocky Mountain range. Denver can be a little weird because it's basically the beginning of the Rocky's and the end of the plains. The hardest to gauge though is the sunbelt.

Some place Phoenix and Vegas in the Mountain West when they have much more characteristics of a sunbelt city. The same goes for most of Texas. They seem more sunbelt then midwest. Actually, they seem like neither - Texas is its own category. I think again it has to do with the time period the areas and cities were settled.

With lyrics in mind, Kayne West, a native Chicagoan says 'You know what the midwest is? Young and restless', thereby implying Chicago is the midwest, not Great Lakes or rust belt.

Well maybe he's a big fan or the Young and the Restless and didn't want to compromise the rhyming. "You know what the Great Lakes are? Young and... bizarre"

That has nothing to do with drawing a distinction where as the quote I supplied directly related to geography distinctions. In addition my quote was from an interview and not lyrics. Lastly, Kanye is a loser who's career got squashed by a 105 lb country singer... :haha:

ummmmm, no. chicago is BOTH midwest and great lakes. it's not an either/or proposition; these various geographies hold overlapping territory.

You know, I was really trying to figure out whether he was joking, and just assumed he was so I left it alone. lol

To me, I consider the states in blue to be the Mideast. East of there is the Appalachia & the Northeast. South of there is the South central. Everything between the blue states west of the Mississippi, north of Texas and east of the Rockies is the Midwest.

So the states in blue are the Mideastern states and everything southwest of those, which lie west of the Mississippi, north of Texas and east of the Rockies is the Midwest.


I'd divide the country up something close to this:
http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/b...USA-states.png

I'm 3 months late to this party but wanted to add a little perspective from someone who grew up in the "west" and only later, after living in Boston, Tampa and Milwaukee came to understand the geographical and cultural significance of it all. A westerner is very different than a midwesterner. We don't have an intuitive sense for the power and amazing brevity of a summer storm front. We don't grow up amid fields of corn. Humidity is something other people talk about. Our rivers are your streams or canals. On the other hand, we spend a significant portion of our lives above 4000'. Your mountains aren't even our hills. 12" of water a year is a good year. 90 degrees feels OK here. Most of our lakes are reservoirs. We can ski and mountain climb by middle school. The soft sputtering of nighttime sprinklers is second nature. I wouldn't necessarily call it western pride, because our issues and problems are just as prevelant as any other region, but if you grew up in the west and have later lived for a significant amount of time in a different region of the US, you know you are a "westerner." In my mind, the midwest ends at Roosevelt Nat'l Park, Black Hills, the Rocky Mountain front range and then who knows what happens in Texas... I'm all about complexity and ambiguity, but with this issue there is little debate. If you don't know what I'm talking about, you need to spend a little time in Idaho, Montana, Utah, Arizona or Nevada. You'll figure it out. It's different here.

Yeah.

Denver isn't midwest. At all.

Sure it sits on the plains, but the culture seems to be western.

http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/b...USA-states.png

According to this, I've lived in 8 of those regions!

That map's regions are more accurate than the Census Bureau's. :haha:

I think of the Midwest as the Ohio River over to the Dakotas and down to Kansas. Pretty much Chicago's historical sphere of influence. CO, Wyo and all of those are Rockies, Texas out west to AZ are SW, Pacific is Pacific, NE are the Yankee bastards, and SEC is the South.

MidWest as defined by the US Census Bureau

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...idwest.svg.png

By the way, here's the 4 geographic areas recognized by the US Census Bureau
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...egions.svg.png

It is very critical for me understand the map.
Due to this reason i am not able to tell you any vital information.

I think it's very clearhttp://godimage.co.cc/thumb/base/ima...r/34/h/eek.gif

I live in Oklahoma City, and we all consider ourselves midwest. I rarely meet someone who thinks we're southern.

Most midwesterners consider the midwest to end along the Ozarks in Missouri, which isn't too far south and southwest of St. Louis, and somewhere not to far south of KC. I'd have to agree with them, as I start seeing cowboy hats, etc, and the climate starts noticeably shifting in Missouri - deeply hot summers and somewhat frequent mildish winter days here and there. Most people around here and east/north would lump Oklahoma in with Texas as being south-central or southern plains.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...idwest.svg.png

I'd agree with that map with the caveat that far SE Missouri is Dixie. The Ozarks are more like Appalachia.

This map is basically correct. I have lived in Michigan my entire life and traveled extensively. Michigan is in the midwest and Detroit is a Midwestern city. You can basically say any state with a college in Big 10 country is the Midwest. lol. So Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, Wisconsin, Nebraska, Minnesota Missouri and maybe the Dakotas. The only one that I would not include is Pennsylvania. Anything west of that is the West. Anything south is the South. lol. Oh, and Kansas.

I appreciate the map. Being a westerner, I knew roughly where the midwest was, but not exactly. Nice to finally get a little better understanding.

I have driven through all of those states and there is a distinct difference between the east Midwest and the west Midwest (separated by the Mississippi. The eastern states, Michigan, Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Wisconsin and Minnesota are all still heavily forested with lots of large cities. West of the Mississippi always seems more open with an even greater agricultural and less industrial identity. Michigan is very distinct because so much of its identity comes from the great lakes. I think part of the reason it is hard to identify Midwestern states because they very so much more varied than people who live outside the region understand.

sort of. most of illinois and indiana north of Indy seem very wide open. missouri has lots of woodlots, and of course huge national forests south of I-44/sw of st. louis which has a completely different character than most of the midwest. minnesota is like missouri in a way with a mix of thick forests and farmland. iowa is pretty agricultural obviously. rural illinois north of I-70 and east of the illinois river (or away from the mississippi valley) often feels like a giant industrial scale agricultural machine.

The most out of place city I hear called midwestern is Pittsburgh. It isn't an "east coast" city per se, but it certainly isn't midwest. Its kind of its own place, the only major city in the middle of Northern Appalachia.

A forest cover map, for reference, so no one has to guess:

http://www.globalforestwatch.org/eng...ap1_forweb.gif
Globalforestwatch.com

Illinois is, indeed, mostly cleared, as is much of western Ohio. It's also pretty clear that Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota have northern lands that remain pretty heavily forested. I know in Michigan, at least, it'ss because much of the state consists of soils and climate that don't lend themselves to intensive agricultural usage relative to the areas south and west. We've got a very heavily agricultural area based off Saginaw Bay that travels southwest to around metropolitan Lansing, and a very narrow (but long) fruit belt along the coast of Lake Michigan. But much of the rest of the land used for agriculture is more scattered.

From a Canadian perspective, Manitoba is the only "Midwestern" type of province in Canada. It's a very different feel in Manitoba (feels like Minnesota, Illinois, Iowa, etc.)than the other two Prairie, or "Plains" Provinces, which feel more like eastern Montana and Wyoming, western North and South Dakota, etc.