Great Lakes Cities

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

See I don't think Pittsburgh feels 'northeastern' at all. It feels much more Appalachian (WV, southern OH, western MD) than it does New England to me... not even close really. Whereas Buffalo feels much more connected economically and culturally to the rest of NY state (and Canada even) than it does other Great Lakes cities like Detroit, Chicago, Milwaukee, etc. which could be termed solidly midwestern.

I think it could be arguably said that Cleveland looks more east for its affiliations than it does west. Since it's overall history is more closely tied to NY and New England and points east than it is tied to Chicago, et. al.

i'll argue here that pittsburgh feels like a very specific kind of interior northeast city from my position (obviously you are there)...not confusing it for coastal, surely. there's a finer grain to the city (which becomes fully realized as you head east towards philadelphia) than the great lakes cities which exhibit broad skeletons and a specific kind of gigantism and broadness in their built environment, where it is fully realized in cleveland as much as anything on lake michigan.

cleveland doesn't appear to look any more to the east than any other older midwestern city that has old, east coast money originated private universities along the lines of case western or better, guilded age institutions, etc. st. louis feels kind of like an older, brick cleveland for instance. cincinnati of course feels older, more smug than cleveland..

[goat314]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

bethesda definitely looks more suburban boom than i remember. but clayton is getting a ton of residential highrise along with corporate towers and the area feels a lot like inner suburban dc or something (one of the main streets is maryland ave)...magnolias in front of luxury apartment buildings, etc. it may kind of resemble white plains functionally but feels much more dc area. the newer development is rapidly swallowing the old town center.

edit: i think i meant silver spring, md, not bethesda.

It's very apparent that St. Louis was founded by people from the Mid-Atlantic. You definitely see hints of Baltimore and DC in St. Louis development patterns and overall feel. I had a girlfriend from Philly who always talked about how St. Louis was a very weird place that seems like it should be on the East Coast.

[pj3000]

^^ I get where you're coming from. Though I guess I just have to ask then... what "very specific kind of interior northeast city" does Pittsburgh look like to you?

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I get where you're coming from. Though I guess I just have to ask then... what "very specific kind of interior northeast city" does Pittsburgh look like to you?

i mean, it's it. it's the only one. it has cousins, though, further afield on the inland (river) waterways.

edit: new york state of course kind of has that going on. duh.

[Docere]

Thoughts?

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.ca/2012/02/five-midwests.html

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.ca/2014/02/repost-five-midwests-part-ii.html

[pj3000]

I'll stick with the corn/soybean belt boundaries. Overall, the changes at its eastern boundary likely tell more about the differences between the regions than anything else.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

Thoughts?

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.ca/2012/02/five-midwests.html

http://cornersideyard.blogspot.ca/2014/02/repost-five-midwests-part-ii.html

yeah, that individual falters terribly with the lack of complexity regarding the settlement of the area that they admit as the oldest, the midland swath from pittsburgh to st. louis. really ignored the european immigration to this area...not to mention new england influences, etc.

they state: Midland Valley: This area begins in western Pennsylvania and runs along the northern edge of the Ohio River to include southeastern and southern Ohio, southern Indiana, southern Illinois and northern Missouri. Unlike the three subregions mentioned above, it was initially settled by people from the Upper South (Kentucky, Tennessee, West Virginia). This area grew from its reliance on river trade and coal. It is also the home of most of the Midwest’s oldest settlements.

yet, in reality...

By 1850, 43 percent of all St. Louisans were born in either Ireland or Germany... and was initially settled by Canadiens... ...by 1880 Germans accounted for slightly more than half (of the population).


source: https://www.stlouis-mo.gov/government/de...vation-plan/Part-I-Peopling-St-Louis.cfm

pittsburgh and cincinnati of course saw colossal waves of european immigration as well...

but there's a lot of good stuff there too. they cared to take a look at kentucky and west virginia as well.



http://2.bp.blogspot.com

[Docere]

St. Louis was part of the "German triangle", along with Cincinnati and Milwaukee.

[creamcityleo79]

After having read the fascinating book, American Nations by Colin Woodard, I think history and migration patterns are best (although, not singularly) explained by this map:

[Centropolis]

that hand drawn map i posted, courtesy of the guy i also just criticized, i really feel is a higher resolution depiction of the midwest. the sort of greater "yankeedom" thing is totally bunk as it pertains to the midwest...there's just far too much german/northern euro/etc influence...

also, the midlands does not wrap around through the dakotas over to ontario...

[Docere]

Woodard's analysis really ought to be stopped at the border. Ontario and the Canadian Maritimes are their own political cultures, they're not simply extensions of the Midlands or Yankee New England.

[Docere]

Pittsburgh a century ago had an ethnic composition fairly similar to Cleveland, even though it's not a Great Lakes city. Cincinnati and St. Louis were never major centers for "Ellis Island" era immigration.

[Steely Dan]

that woodward map is retarded.

toronto, baltimore, and the oklahoma pandhandle all occupy the same sub-region?

but boston, NYC, philly, and DC occupy four separate sub-regions?

ooooooooo-kay........... whatever you say.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Docere

Pittsburgh a century ago had an ethnic composition fairly similar to Cleveland, even though it's not a Great Lakes city. Cincinnati and St. Louis were never major centers for "Ellis Island" era immigration.

i'm not sure what the numbers are but there was some polish and (northern) italian immigration to st. louis, i've even seen photos of immigrants specifically stated as being bound for st. louis on the wall at ellis island.

i'm not sure when ellis island came to dominate things, but lots of european immigrants into the interior came through new orleans instead of new york...typical passenger list of ship bound for new orleans from europe:

Johannes departed from Bremen and arrived in New Orleans on 23 October 1854:

https://stlgs.org/research-2/government/immigration/johannes-passenger-list-23-october-1854

[JManc]

Dallas and San Antonio are greater Appalachia? Amarillo...in the Midlands along with St. Louis and Philly?

Really?

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

that woodward map is retarded.

toronto, baltimore, and the oklahoma pandhandle all occupy the same sub-region?

ooooooooo-kay........... whatever you say.

LOL...If you read the book, you understand why he draws it like that. There was a time when they were settled by the same people. The way the cities are set up, the way government is involved, society as a whole is similar. Obviously, there are huge differences over the years. I encourage you to read the book before jumping to a conclusion.

[Steely Dan]

^ i'm not saying the guy doesn't have his reasons behind his wacky map, i'm just saying that it doesn't pass the sniff test.

but please enlighten me as to all of the strong similarities in "the way the cities are set up, the way government is involved, society as a whole" between toronto and the oklahoma panhandle.

[creamcityleo79]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

^ i'm not saying the guy doesn't have his reasons behind his wacky map, i'm just saying that it doesn't pass the sniff test.

but please enlighten me as to all of these strong similarities in "the way the cities are set up, the way government is involved, society as a whole" between toronto and the oklahoma panhandle.

That one was the hardest for me to understand. But, his full description in the book is better than this short synopsis:

the Midlands Founded by English Quakers, who welcomed people of many nations and creeds to their utopian colonies on the shores of Delaware Bay. Ethnic and ideological purity have never been a priority, government has been seen as an unwelcome intrusion, and political opinion has been moderate, even apathetic. The only part of British North America to have a non-British majority in 1775, the Midlands has long been an ethnic mosaic, with people of German descent compromising the largest group since the late 1600s. It spread directly west, south of Yankeedom and then north into Canada where many of the residents emigrated after the American Revolution forming the central core of English-speaking Canada. It is not very aware of its national identity but it is an enormously influential moderating force in continental politics, as it agrees with only part of each of its neighbors' strident agendas.

http://curlewkeep.name/Books/Political/WoodardC/WoodardCNations.html

I, personally, found the descriptions of El Norte, The Far West, Tidewater, and New Netherlands to be the most spot on...Yankeedom, to some degree. Even if you don't agree with his outcomes, I'd still encourage you to read the book. It really is fascinating.

[Docere]

His description doesn't describe Ontario very well at all. German was never the largest ethnic element in the province, nor has government historically been seen as an "unwanted intrusion."

[Capsicum]

Originally Posted by Docere

Woodard's analysis really ought to be stopped at the border. Ontario and the Canadian Maritimes are their own political cultures, they're not simply extensions of the Midlands or Yankee New England.

His trans-border regions in general, seem like a bit of a stretch, especially since the North American map is US-centric and non-US areas (Mexico and Canada) only seem to exist in reference to the US.

Quebec and Louisiana may have both been New France in the past, but they're very unlike one another, politically, at all today. Also, as much as the southwest US has by history, been influenced by Mexico and New Spain, to say that El Norte groups SoCal, parts of Colorado and Texas and land in the actual country of Mexico together is a big much. I doubt that English-speaking Americans living SoCal are actually politically or sociologically more like actual Mexicans in Mexico than they are to their NorCal friends up north in the same state.