I thought this was a pretty cool idea. Since the Midwest is such an arbitrary geographic term, here is a place to draw it on a map. Then you can toggle what people from different states think the Midwest is and by how long someone has lived in the "Midwest".

 

http://myc.sasakistrategies.com/branches/mymidwest/

Shoot cannot get the link on archaic OS here at work.

 

I'd start at Youngstown, then continue west until reaching a state where there is tumbleweed. If there's tumbleweed, that's West. Kentucky is South. All Great Lakes States are Midwest. Iowa is Midwest, which is obvious if you watch Field of Dreams.

IMHO, this question has special application to Cleveland, with the eastern boundary being the Cuyahoga River..... if there has to be a specific boundary. 

IMHO, this question has special application to Cleveland, with the eastern boundary being the Cuyahoga River..... if there has to be a specific boundary. 

 

Wasn't the River the western boundary of the United States at one time?

 

A Cleveland connection ie "Midwest meets East" would be really cool. It'd help the city.

 

Driving on I-80 there's a distinct change in scenery at the Ohio border/Youngstown. The mountains flatten out, the trees and grasses suddenly look different, the roadway is worse. To me that "Ohio Welcomes You" sign just seems like the gateway to the Midwest.

I'd go with what I think turns out to be the consensus, based on the Atlantic Cities article about this:

 

Ohio

Indiana

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

 

(Those would be under the subgroup "Great Lakes")

 

Iowa

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

 

(I'd put those under the "Great Plains" category)

 

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas are definitely not Midwestern states.  Nor are Montana, Wyoming, or anywhere with mountains.  The only one I can really see an argument for adding is Oklahoma as similar to the "Great Plains" states, but I think it should be more properly grouped with Texas--either with a Texas/Arizona/New Mexico "south west" or with a Texas/Louisana/Arkansas "south central." 

I don't know what a "Midwest" is and I try to avoid using the term.

^I agree because the general consensus covers too wide a geographic area to have much in common.  If I was asked to define the region I lived in, it would be the Great Lakes region.... which covers pretty much everything along the lakes from western NY to eastern Wisconsin.

I'd go with what I think turns out to be the consensus, based on the Atlantic Cities article about this:

 

Ohio

Indiana

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

 

(Those would be under the subgroup "Great Lakes")

 

Iowa

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

 

(I'd put those under the "Great Plains" category)

 

Kentucky, Pennsylvania, and Arkansas are definitely not Midwestern states.  Nor are Montana, Wyoming, or anywhere with mountains.  The only one I can really see an argument for adding is Oklahoma as similar to the "Great Plains" states, but I think it should be more properly grouped with Texas--either with a Texas/Arizona/New Mexico "south west" or with a Texas/Louisana/Arkansas "south central." 

This is how we learned it in school.

I'd put the midwest at starting at the Cuyahoga-Lorain County line, going west past Chicago and all the cornfields beyond. Lots of people say the River is the boundary. But what's so 'Midwest' about Ohio City or Edgewater?

Typically, I think of "The North" and "Central" to seperate the two Great Lakes/Plains regions.  Like "The South," the North has been historically north of the Ohio River, east of the Mississippi and would include Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Illinois, and Wisconsin.  Typical "rustbelt" states, Northwest Territories, blah blah.  The Central States would be Minnesota, Iowa, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota.  Those states typically relied on more agriculture and, well, look at a map.  Midwest is an outdated term seeing how anyone can look at a map and see Ohio, Indiana, and Michigan being more "Mideast" than anything else.

Midwest is an outdated term

 

Maybe so, but its still very much in use.

Well, of course, but not too long ago "negro" was on Census forms.  Times are changin'!

When I think Midwest I think west of Ohio, perhaps west of Chicago, but at minimum west of Cleveland.  I see the Great Lakes region as a separate entity.  Not sure which grouping MN fits into.  I think you could make the case that Ohio is in 3 different regions, part Midwest, part Great Lakes, and another part in Appalachia.

I agree with dividing the Midwest into Great Lakes states and Plains states.

 

If you're not going to make the line the state line, then IMO the eastern edge of the midwest needs to be diagonal from Rochester NY to just south of Erie then squeeze between Youngstown and Akron, through the middle of Canton, go around the SE side of Columbus then turn south toward the Ohio River well before Cincinnati. Then anything north of the Ohio is midwestern.

 

Missouri is weird to me because KC and STL feel midwestern, but the rest of the state feels southern.

Oklahoma feels like North TX, not midwestern.

Kansas, I'd include though the SW corner isn't much different than OK or TX.

On the West side, if we're not going by states, I'd include the eastern parts of Colorado, Wyoming and Montana as they're still plains even if the state as a whole is thought of as a mountainous state. The mountains are not Midwestern in any way to my mind.

The Northwest Territories +Iowa & Minnesota and Kentucky - because they didn't join the Confederacy.

Midwest is a terribly poor description for an area. I would generally call the Midwest areas East of the Rocky Mountains and West of the Mississippi River (north of Oklahoma) with a couple exceptions.

 

States mostly in the Midwest: Montana, Wyoming, N/S Dakota, Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Missouri, Iowa, central Illinois, and central Indiana.

 

I would argue that Ohio, Wisconsin, Michigan, (northern and southern) Illinois, (northern and southern) Indiana, Kentucky, (western) Pennsylvania, (western) New York, West Virginia, (far western) Maryland, and St. Louis should be in their own category because of their status as an industrial region unlike much of what I defined as the "Midwest". I think Great Lakes is too limiting of a name because of my inclusion of St. Louis, Kentucky, western Maryland, and West Virginia. Rust Belt (while I like the name, personally) is not a positive term to most people. Not sure what to call the region I identify with, but there has to be a better name than Rust Belt or Great Lakes.

 

Here is a very quick map I sketched up in Paint.

 

When I'm standing in craggy Monroe County, you're not going to convince me I'm in the Midwest.

There are probably 40 Monroe Counties in the US... which state? Ohio?

Yeah, I left the Ohio off since this is an Ohio forum.

When talking about regions, I prefer smaller dissections.  Here would be a very rough list:

 

New England (Me. to northern Conn.)

The NYC Metroplex (NYC metro, Philly metro, DC metro, etc.)

Appalachia (Pittsburgh and its fiefdom to the south)

The Great Lakes region (Upstate NY to eastern Wisc.)

The Ohio Valley/Bluegrass region (Cbus may be split into this and the GL region)

The Bible Belt (everything south of NoVa, including northern Fla. and the panhandle)

South Florida (everything south of the Bible Belt)

The Gulf Coast (Bama, Miss., La., southern Tenn, plus Houston)

The Republic of Texas (including parts of Oklahoma)

The Ozarks (the forgotten part of America)

The Great Plains (the geographically largest,  and culturally least diverse area of America)

The Southwest (NM, Arizona, Nevada, minus Vegas, and parts of Utah and Colorado)

The Rockies (the rest of Colorado, Utah, and areas to the north).

SoCal (plus Vegas)

NoCal (SF, San Jose, Napa Valley, etc.)

The Northwest (Wash., Ore.)

 

 

 

In my vision of the regions, Florida is its own region. Too much weird there.

This is how I view the regions of the US.  This is what I learned in school.

 

 

However, I'd re-title "mideast" to Mid Atlantic

 

 

^That's how I always envision the region dissection in my head. The Great Lakes Region definitely needs to be its own entity. The cultural difference between someone in Ohio's cities (maybe not quite as much in rural areas) and someone in, say, Kansas is pretty profound and lumping those two things together doesn't make all that much sense.

I like using state lines to delineate regions as much as I like using county lines to divide metro areas

I like using state lines to delineate regions as much as I like using county lines to divide metro areas

 

Couldn't agree more.

 

I'd love to see what people would draw if they were given a blank map of the US with no state lines drawn in. I'm sure people would put down a much different thought of what the Midwest is.

 

For those that draw the line at the Ohio border ... what makes Cleveland distinctly Midwest compared to Erie, PA or Buffalo, NY? When you look at it that way it's very hard to come up with a reasonable answer. Pretty much same culture, geography, weather, industry, and so forth. But what's Midwestern about Cleveland? Perhaps that's a reason that Cleveland isn't Midwest?

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

 

In the same breath.  Indianapolis and Indiana don't belong or feel Great Lakes to me.  Personally, I feel Cleveland is a lot like Philly, Newark, Baltimore.  I think Cleveland feels a lot like Philly.  Outside of the row houses, Cleveland mirrors Philly.

Outside of the row houses? You mean the building type that overwhelmingly defines the entire city? What's outside of that? The CBD in Center City? Pah-lease.

 

Cleveland and Philly feel nothing alike in terms of how one experiences a city. Philly's small blocks, narrow streets, pedestrian only cart paths, neighborhood parks, corner stores, incredible human scales are quite opposite of the grander scales and boulevards Great Lakes cities developed around.

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

 

In the same breath.  Indianapolis and Indiana don't belong or feel Great Lakes to me.  Personally, I feel Cleveland is a lot like Philly, Newark, Baltimore.  I think Cleveland feels a lot like Philly.  Outside of the row houses, Cleveland mirrors Philly.

 

I get the same feel as far as Cleveland and Philadelphia go.

 

When I think of Midwest I think of flat cities surrounded by cornfields. Basically Indiana, Illinois outside Chicagoland Iowa, Oklahoma, Missouri, basically all the great plains states.

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

 

In the same breath.  Indianapolis and Indiana don't belong or feel Great Lakes to me.  Personally, I feel Cleveland is a lot like Philly, Newark, Baltimore.  I think Cleveland feels a lot like Philly.  Outside of the row houses, Cleveland mirrors Philly.

 

I could see Newark, maybe, because it has a number of wide boulevards and had its golden age around when Cleveland did, making much of it feel of the same Rustbelt vintage. But it still has a lot more narrow streets and row houses, which as atlas points out, really colors the feel of a city.

 

Baltimore has similar demographics, but the similarities end there. Baltimore feels much more southern and, again, is full of narrow streets and row houses.

 

Philly? Different planets. Only similarity is the blue-collar tough-guy feel that pervades them both. But that's hardly a regional feature.

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

 

In the same breath.  Indianapolis and Indiana don't belong or feel Great Lakes to me.  Personally, I feel Cleveland is a lot like Philly, Newark, Baltimore.  I think Cleveland feels a lot like Philly.  Outside of the row houses, Cleveland mirrors Philly.

 

I could see Newark, maybe, because it has a number of wide boulevards and had its golden age around when Cleveland did, making much of it feel of the same Rustbelt vintage. But it still has a lot more narrow streets and row houses, which as atlas points out, really colors the feel of a city.

 

Baltimore has similar demographics, but the similarities end there. Baltimore feels much more southern and, again, is full of narrow streets and row houses.

 

Philly? Different planets. Only similarity is the blue-collar tough-guy feel that pervades them both. But that's hardly a regional feature.

 

I'm very familiar with Philadelphia outside of Center City.  Cleveland and Philly just like Cleveland and Chicago are very much alike.

 

It's really simple. The Midwest consists of all of Iowa, Illinois, and Indiana, and part of the surrounding states:

 

The Midwest corresponds with the CORN BELT:

 

The quintessential image of the Midwest is a corn field.

I wrote this in response to the question "Where is the Midwest?" on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog last week, and it was published:

 

Midwest = Germans + Grids + Gardens

 

Germans: On this map of ethnic ancestry from the 2000 census, there's a broad swath of German-plurality counties starting from central New York, through Pennsylvania stretching westward to the Rockies and beyond. Germans help define the southern border of the Midwest, though those stray Finnish, Dutch and African-American counties are certainly Midwestern as well. Germans heavily influenced Midwestern architecture, food, religion, and its devotion to public education. The "American" cultures of Kentucky and southern Missouri are southern - the accents change, Baptists predominate, and so does the food. (It gets better down South, but that's not Paula Deen's doing, quite the contrary). But not all German areas are Midwestern, so a limit to this is:

 

Grids. A central man-made feature of the Midwest is its grid pattern, which, thanks to the Land Ordinance of 1785 and Glaciation, stretches from south of Cleveland toward Cincinnati, and then west to the Rockies, defining the eastern and southern borders of the region. There are a few pockets where 'queer' roads must follow the hills, such as around Bloomington, Indiana, or Athens, Ohio, or in the Ozarks. Those areas are on the fringes of the Midwest. Driving a Detroit-made sedan or pick-up truck down a straight state highway is a Midwestern rite of passage. So straight roads and flatlands (not Appalachian or Ozark zomias) help define the Midwest. This grid was made possible in part by Glaciation, which covered the land with very fertile soil. So the last characteristic is:

 

Gardens. (I couldn't find a better synonym for farms that maintained the alliteration.) Anywhere that farming occurs on a wide scale and without irrigation is Midwestern, which defines the western border from about Joplin, Missouri, northward to Topeka, Lincoln continuing to just west of Fargo. Northern Michigan and Wisconsin are also peripherally Midwestern, and I suspect residents of those regions agree, though I can't speak to northern Minnesota.

 

Putting this all together, Germans, Grids and Gardens means the Midwest begins in Downtown Cleveland, south to about Athens, Ohio, then west about Cape Girardeau, Missouri, with a bump up I-55 to St. Louis, and back down I-44 to Joplin, then north to Topeka, Lincoln, west of Fargo, to Canada.

 

[it's very similar to map just below showing the Midwest in red, though I go all the way up to Canada. ]

Ohio is more Eastern than Midwestern, and so is Detroit.  Indiana is the frontier of the Midwest.  Cleveland and Chicago are very Midwestern in character but not in infrastructure.  Cincinnati is Eastern and Southern at the same time, but not really Midwestern.  Inner city Columbus has neighborhoods that can remind you of an area in any city east of Indiana and north of Maryland.

I grew up in the Great Lakes region.  Rarely (but occasionally) would you hear the term Midwest used. It is what it is....

I'd be more inclined to lump Erie, Pittsburgh, and Buffalo in with the Midwest than Cleveland in the Northeast. People in Chicago and Detroit look at Cleveland as a regional cousin. People in NYC, Philly, and Boston do not.

 

In the same breath.  Indianapolis and Indiana don't belong or feel Great Lakes to me.  Personally, I feel Cleveland is a lot like Philly, Newark, Baltimore.  I think Cleveland feels a lot like Philly.  Outside of the row houses, Cleveland mirrors Philly.

 

I get the same feel as far as Cleveland and Philadelphia go.

 

When I think of Midwest I think of flat cities surrounded by cornfields. Basically Indiana, Illinois outside Chicagoland Iowa, Oklahoma, Missouri, basically all the great plains states.

 

You may get the same feel architecture-wise. But I feel like there is a cultural world of difference between Cleveland and Philly. To me,  the term "Midwest" isn't just geographical; it comes with a certain politeness factor, as well as a certain speed as to how people live.

 

I'd go with what I think turns out to be the consensus, based on the Atlantic Cities article about this:

 

Ohio

Indiana

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

 

(Those would be under the subgroup "Great Lakes")

 

Iowa

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

 

(I'd put those under the "Great Plains" category)

 

Yup.  Or, another way of looking at it, the Old Northwest + the Mississippi River states of Iowa and MInnesota, plus the plains.

 

When you get to places like Missouri and maybe the western parts of the Plains, it starts getting maybe more complicated in cultural terms....."Missourah" can be sort of "appalachia extended' in the Ozarks (AKA 'The Upper South")(like Tenn & KY), and the 100th Meridian...west of that its cowboy country with arid plains, etc.....

 

 

 

 

 

I'd go with what I think turns out to be the consensus, based on the Atlantic Cities article about this:

 

Ohio

Indiana

Michigan

Illinois

Wisconsin

Minnesota

 

(Those would be under the subgroup "Great Lakes")

 

Iowa

Nebraska

Kansas

Missouri

North Dakota

South Dakota

 

(I'd put those under the "Great Plains" category)

 

Yup.  Or, another way of looking at it, the Old Northwest + the Mississippi River states of Iowa and MInnesota, plus the plains.

 

When you get to places like Missouri and maybe the western parts of the Plains, it starts getting maybe more complicated in cultural terms....."Missourah" can be sort of "appalachia extended' in the Ozarks (AKA 'The Upper South")(like Tenn & KY), and the 100th Meridian...west of that its cowboy country with arid plains, etc.....

 

 

 

 

 

I've never heard the term "upper south" to refer to TN or KY.  I've only heard Mid-South.

 

I wrote this in response to the question "Where is the Midwest?" on Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish blog last week, and it was published:

 

...the discussion on the DD would be interesting.  Do you know what day this ? was posted so I can go look for it? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I grew up in the Great Lakes region.  Rarely (but occasionally) would you hear the term Midwest used. It is what it is....

 

The term was used in Chicago...."Midwest Hi-Fi", "Midwest this midwest that"...the magazine section of one of the Sunday papers was called "Midwest" (think it was the old Daily News that had that).  Chicago is/was pretty much the defacto capital and economic center of the Midwest, so the term being used there makes sense....

 

 

 

I've never heard the term "upper south" to refer to TN or KY.  I've only heard Mid-South.

 

Upper South (or apparently Upland South) is the "proper" term. It's the non-"deep" part of the South.

 

I only realized recently that Arkansas is not considered Deep South. I had always lumped it in with Mississippi and Alabama in my head. I've never been there, so I couldn't begin to consider cultural differences. I had the pleasure of visiting MS and AL on my trip to the Sugar Bowl in 2010, though. Guess that means I've been to all the Deep South states. Woo, joy.

I don't get why people have such an aversion to Ohio being Midwestern. Embrace your Midwesterness, you Midwesterners. Great Lakes is just a sub-region.

^^ I think if you ask anyone from the rest of the country, Arkansas is as much not a part of the deep south as Ohio is not in the Midwest. In that they both are. In the deep south and midwest. Respectively.

 

 

Look into your heart. You know it to be true!

I don't get why people have such an aversion to Ohio being Midwestern. Embrace your Midwesterness, you Midwesterners. Great Lakes is just a sub-region.

 

It's not an aversion.  An aversion is better exemplified as your reaction whenever someone from other parts of the state try to explain differences in their region which you somehow, for whatever reason, get offended by ;)

 

To the extent that one insists upon diving up the Country into the most basic regions of East, South, Midwest, and West...... AND to the extent you want to use state lines to deliniate those regions..... Ohio most certainly would fall under 'Midwest'.  But what we know about Ohio is that it is an extremely diverse state with extremely diverse influences.  That's one of the main reasons why it is used for market testing so much.  It's not anything like Kentucky or Arkansas or Oregon.  We should embrace that diversity instead of constantly trying to deny its existence

I don't get why people have such an aversion to Ohio being Midwestern. Embrace your Midwesterness, you Midwesterners. Great Lakes is just a sub-region.

 

It's not an aversion.  An aversion is better exemplified as your reaction whenever someone from other parts of the state try to explain differences in their region which you somehow, for whatever reason, get offended by ;)

 

To the extent that one insists upon diving up the Country into the most basic regions of East, South, Midwest, and West...... AND to the extent you want to use state lines to deliniate those regions..... Ohio most certainly would fall under 'Midwest'.  But what we know about Ohio is that it is an extremely diverse state with extremely diverse influences.  That's one of the main reasons why it is used for market testing so much.  It's not anything like Kentucky or Arkansas or Oregon.  We should embrace that diversity instead of constantly trying to deny its existence

You know she tries to use big words to appear smart!  ;)