Great Lakes Cities

[JManc]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I think most Pennsylvanians would agree.

It's hard to really consider it a Great Lakes state, having only ~50 miles of shoreline in the far NW corner of the state. It just doesn't have that connection to the Lakes like the other states have.

It's a tough sell to describe New York as a Great Lakes state as well. It's moreso than PA is, but both still have their primary identities as East Coast states due to the outsized influences of NYC and Philly.

NYS is both. Of course downtstate is "east coast" but Buffalo and Rochester are very much "Great Lakes" and have little to do with New York City or the rest of the east coast.

Ohio is classified as a Midwest state, New York as Mid-Atlantic but both are also considered Great Lakes. NYS borders two of them and they along with the ST. Lawrence Seaway were a huge part of their economy.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by LouisVanDerWright

Flights are actually as low as $50 roundtrip to Denver from O'Hare and Midway. Also, you can get hotels in Frisco for much less than that. Everything in Vail is expensive, but that's because it's the second most hoity toidy resort town after Aspen.

Aspen is like five hours from Denver. I would imagine most people fly into Aspen, and I bet you it's a pricey flight. Vail is much better, like 2 hours from Denver, but I would still call that quite a schlep, and not worth it unless you're a serious skier or have family/social reasons for going.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by north 42

Wow! People in Pennsylvania must be pretty stupid if they can’t name the only Great Lake that holds the only true shoreline in the state! I think you underestimate the geographical knowledge of most people in your state

Maybe, but I think you may be overestimating that geographical knowledge of the population of SE PA and underestimating their total apathy/ignorance to anything in the state west of Harrisburg.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

getting this thread back on topic, what do people think about my ranking of great lakes states (those with any amount of great lakes shoreline) based on their degree of "great lakiness"?

1. michigan - duh!
2. wisconsin - also duh!
3. ohio - cleveland, toledo, sandusky, etc.
4. illinois - sure, the shoreline is small, but over 70% of the state's population lives there
5. new york - yeah, NYC utterly dominates the states, but new york's #2 and #3 metros are on lake erie and lake ontario, respectively
6. indiana - again, a small shoreline, but home to the state's 2nd largest metra area
7. minnesota - duluth is really cool, but quite small compared to the twins over on the missisippi
8. pennsylvania - seems like it would have to be last by default

Sounds about right to me. But I don't really have too much knowledge of states/their collective cultural identities of states west of Ohio. I imagine that Indiana's Great Lakesiness is tied to Chicago (like Illinois' is as well)?

Originally Posted by JManc

NYS is both. Of course downtstate is "east coast" but Buffalo and Rochester are very much "Great Lakes" and have little to do with New York City or the rest of the east coast.

Ohio is classified as a Midwest state, New York as Mid-Atlantic but both are also considered Great Lakes. NYS borders two of them and they along with the ST. Lawrence Seaway were a huge part of their economy.

Yeah, I agree. Didn't mean to suggest that it's not a Great Lakes state, because it obviously is. Just that its national identity ties to the Great Lakes aren't as strong due to that NYC influence.

[LouisVanDerWright]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Aspen is like five hours from Denver. I would imagine most people fly into Aspen, and I bet you it's a pricey flight. Vail is much better, like 2 hours from Denver, but I would still call that quite a schlep, and not worth it unless you're a serious skier or have family/social reasons for going.

I never said anything about driving to Aspen from Denver, I said that Vail is expensive because it is the second most hoity toidy of any ski town out there after Aspen. Though I did drive from Chicago to Telluride last year and holy cow is that a long ways past Denver. It's like 6+ hours further from Chicago than Denver.

Vail is about 1 hour, 45 minutes from Denver if you are driving slow, if you know I-70 well and know where you can safely pick up some speed, it's like 1 hour 30 minutes. I spend about 4 weeks a year skiing in Colorado and do that drive all the time, it's enough of a hike that I'd prefer not to stay in Denver and do it both ways every day, but A Basin and Keystone, for example, are only 1 hour and I know people who commute longer than that every day and they take the L.

And yes, flying into Eagle-Vail, Aspen, or Telluride is expensive as hell, but even then not that terrible if you book in advance, like $300-500 round trip and then you don't need to rent a car or anything like that.

[Sun Belt]

^Flights to Mammoth Lakes, CA from LAX are as low as $64 on Alaska Airlines.

1 hour flight and an Angeleno could be one of the best mountains in the world like last winter. Not this year -- 78 inches so far, season average is around 400 inches of snowfall.

[10023]

I flew into Vail/Eagle a few times when I lived in Chicago. It was more expensive than flying to Denver but hardly extortionate, and yeah, the fact that you can skip the rental car makes up for the cost difference let alone the extra time.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

getting this thread back on topic, what do people think about my ranking of great lakes states (those with any amount of great lakes shoreline) based on their degree of "great lakeyness"?

1. michigan - duh!
2. wisconsin - also duh!
3. ohio - cleveland, toledo, sandusky, etc.
4. illinois - sure, the shoreline is small, but over 70% of the state's population lives there
5. new york - yeah, NYC utterly dominates the states, but new york's #2 and #3 metros are on lake erie and lake ontario, respectively
6. indiana - again, a small shoreline, but home to the state's 2nd largest metra area
7. minnesota - duluth is really cool, but quite small compared to the twins over on the missisippi
8. pennsylvania - seems like it would have to be last by default

i'd agree with that. i'm really only really familiar with the western great lakes on the ground...michigan almost seems like it's in another category being essentially TWO giant peninsulas that jut into the great lakes.

[jd3189]

States can have multiple identities, especially large ones. Florida is both a South Atlantic and Gulf state while Texas is a Gulf and Southwestern state. Even some of the Great Lakes States are part of the Mississippi River system that forms the heart of this country.

[Boisebro]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

getting this thread back on topic, what do people think about my ranking of great lakes states (those with any amount of great lakes shoreline) based on their degree of "great lakeyness"?

1. michigan - duh!
2. wisconsin - also duh!
3. ohio - cleveland, toledo, sandusky, etc.
4. illinois - sure, the shoreline is small, but over 70% of the state's population lives there
5. new york - yeah, NYC utterly dominates the states, but new york's #2 and #3 metros are on lake erie and lake ontario, respectively
6. indiana - again, a small shoreline, but home to the state's 2nd largest metra area
7. minnesota - duluth is really cool, but quite small compared to the twins over on the missisippi
8. pennsylvania - seems like it would have to be last by default

Good list. The only change I’d make is swapping Indiana and Minnesota. I’d take Duluth over Gary or Michigan City, and even though Indiana has the dunes, the north shore of Minnesota is pretty spectacular. The drive from Duluth to Thunder Bay is incredibly scenic and rugged.

[Docere]

Does Minnesota get a bonus for having more of a "lakes" culture akin to Michigan, Wisconsin and the province of Ontario?

[mrnyc]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

getting this thread back on topic, what do people think about my ranking of great lakes states (those with any amount of great lakes shoreline) based on their degree of "great lakeyness"?

1. michigan - duh!
2. wisconsin - also duh!
3. ohio - cleveland, toledo, sandusky, etc.
4. illinois - sure, the shoreline is small, but over 70% of the state's population lives there
5. new york - yeah, NYC utterly dominates the state, but new york's #2 and #3 metros are on lake erie and lake ontario, respectively
6. indiana - again, a small shoreline, but home to the state's 2nd largest metra area
7. minnesota - duluth is really cool, but quite small compared to the twins over on the missisippi
8. pennsylvania - seems like it would have to be last by default

you can tighten that list up by just lumping erie in as greater cleveland.

[10023]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

this whole skiing discussion is dumb.

if you're an avid downhill skier and convenient access to world class downhill skiing is a top priority for you, then you simply shouldn't live in the great lakes region.

the great lakes region is freaking awesome for so many reasons, but convenient access to world class downhill skiing is absolutely NOT one of them.

Most people who are avid downhill skiers don't have the luxury of choosing their home based entirely on its convenience for skiing. Nor is it their only priority.

My point, which was a pretty simple one-off post until two people decided to quote it and accuse me of pretentiousness, was more or less exactly that - there is no good skiing in the Great Lakes, and so the city with the best access to skiing is the ones with the most flights to places that do have good skiing.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by Boisebro

Good list. The only change I’d make is swapping Indiana and Minnesota. I’d take Duluth over Gary or Michigan City, and even though Indiana has the dunes, the north shore of Minnesota is pretty spectacular. The drive from Duluth to Thunder Bay is incredibly scenic and rugged.

i wasn't ranking the states by the quality of their great lakes shorelines (otherwise illinois would be nowhere near #4), i was ranking them by the degree to which the state is influenced by its great lakes shore.

minneapolis's lake superior shoreline is certainly more scenic than NW indiana's, and duluth is certainly a nicer city than gary. however NW indiana constitute's indiana's 2nd largest metro area and is a significant driver of indiana's economy with all of the steel mills, refineries, and other heavy industries that rely on lake transportation.

duluth certainly has a busy great lakes port, but i don't think duluth has the same kind of economic impact on minnesota the way the NW indiana has on its state because the twin cities so completely run the show in minnesota. indiana is not that monopolar.


but you can flip indiana and minnesota if you want. it's no big deal because i think we'd all agree that they're both near the bottom, so it's a hair split more or less.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 10023

My point, which was a pretty simple one-off post until two people decided to quote it and accuse me of pretentiousness, was more or less exactly that - there is no good skiing in the Great Lakes, and so the city with the best access to skiing is the ones with the most flights to places that do have good skiing.

I doubt it was the first time one of your posts on this forum has been thought of as pretentious... but that's just a guess...

Evergrey's post was about Buffalo being flat, but also being very close to significant enough topography within its metro area to ski on... and thus having the best access to skiiing in the Great Lakes region.

No shit the skiing's much, much better in Colorado or Utah or anywhere out west... everyone knows that. And sure, you can jump on a flight to those places more easily from Chicago... so what?

Why bother even bringing it up? Other than that it gives yo a chance to say, 'yeah whatever, that skiing's garbage. I'm going to Austria in the morning."

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

you can tighten that list up by just lumping erie in as greater cleveland.

That would be stretching it far beyond reality.

Even stretching 'Greater Cleveland' to far NE Ohio to places like Conneaut/Kingsville/Ashtabula area is pushing it, as those places are probably just as connected to Erie (if not moreso) as they are to Cleveland, i.e., Erie TV stations, commuting, shopping, etc.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by pj3000

I doubt it was the first time one of your posts on this forum has been thought of as pretentious...

understatement of the millennium.

but if you're in the market for a $20,000 sofa, he's your man!

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

understatement of the millennium.

but if you're in the market for a $20,000 sofa, he's your man!

$20,000 sofa?

I have a $20,000 sofa, it's parked outside on the curb. Comfortable seats.

[Centropolis]

i love how there is a town on the minnesota coast called "castle danger." really seems like the "lost coast" of the u.s. side of the great lakes. i've never been there, looks intriguing.

[10023]

Originally Posted by benp

So for that's roughly €116 travel and €130/day skiing/accommodations, or $150 travel and $162/day. A 3-day trip (2 nights) should cost about $500.

Travel from Chicago to Vail is roughly $400 travel, hotels start at $300/night, lift tickets about $150/day. A 3-day trip should cost about $1500.

That's why living close to a ski area is important to many people.

I don't live close to a ski area. I live in a city where it hasn't snowed in 4 years.

Skiing is an expensive hobby and no one should think otherwise.

[Chef]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

i love how there is a town on the minnesota coast called "castle danger." really seems like the "lost coast" of the u.s. side of the great lakes. i've never been there, looks intriguing.

That is one of my all time favorite place names. Apparently it refers to rock formations just under the surface of the lake that boats sometimes got wrecked on in the early days. The north shore of Minnesota is a lot like the coast of Maine but with fresh water. The Apostle Islands are great too.