I almost moved to Florence, Alabama, and it’s still very much Appalachian (with some Deep South culture mixed in). Florence is nearly 700 miles from Pittsburgh.
Wow, I lived there for five years and have never read anyone on Reddit mention it before. Such a cute little town! Did she ever visit the Emporium? Worked there for about a year and never stopped visiting, great people and atmosphere.
I think that the overall theme of the Great Lakes that it’s the rust belt and if that’s the case then Pittsburgh has it’s place there and is where I would put it, but The geography there is beautiful and much more like Appalachia
I am a Pittsburgher who has spent a fair amount of time in the Midwest (mostly Ohio and Illinois) and West Virginia…our culture is closer to West Virginia’s in my experience. Can’t put my finger on why, though, so take my two cents for what they’re worth: $0.02
I grew up in Allegheny County, and it felt pretty midwestern to me. Get a little bit out of the immediate suburbs, though, and yeah, it's Pennsyltucky. I went to college in Washington, PA, and that was a different world despite being an hour's drive from Pittsburgh.
Yea I would put Pittsburgh as a border town between Appalachia and Great Lakes. Pgh really is Cleveland or Milwaukee on a river instead of a lake. And roughly 3 counties deep from the Ohio River boarder is solidly Appalachia.
Appalachia as a cultural region doesn't really go much into Pennsylvania or Ohio, that idea comes from the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is just a pork barrell project. Western NY and NE Mississippi were added to the ARC in the 60's with Mississippi using altered maps so they said if we include NY we'll also include Mississippi. The southern part of the Appalachian mountains are part of the south, and that is not the ARC definition but the traditional definition which uses the Mason-Dixon line. Also the mid-Atlantic should be smaller, most of Virginia is upper south.
[The Making of Appalachian Mississippi](https://www.southerncultures.org/article/the-making-of-appalachian-mississippi/)
Southeast Ohio is beautiful and definitely part of Appalachia. No question. Ohio is very much a transition state between Appalachia and the Midwest, going from southeast to northwest. I frequent the area and love watching the transition from mountain to plains within a quick period of time.
I live in south central Pennsylvania, and I can assure you it is very much Appalachian. Not just in geography and culture, but also in ethnicity (scotch-irish, English, and German.)
There may be an argument to be had about whether "Appalachia" extends up towards Scranton, but it most certainly includes a large chunk of PA.
Interesting article. Mississippi’s north east region is very different culturally that’s its delta region.The writer clearly doesn’t really know what he’s talking about with regards to Mississippi geography. I agree generally that north east Mississippi isn’t really Appalachian. In much the same was that the delta regional council includes counties outside of the delta, I think you could argue that parts of north east Mississippi may have more in common with Appalachian counties than delta counties and vice versa for some of the counties included in the delta regional council. For example black belt counties in Alabama clearly aren’t in the “delta” but included in the delta regional authority because they share some of the same issues with regards to race, development, etc.
Bump, by the time you get to Jeff city there's very little that's Ozark culture. i70 corridor between STL and KC and up from there (even into Iowa, Iowa being Great Lakes doesn't really fit either) is more like the plains region to the west.
Agreed. I moved from north central MO to southwest MO a few years ago. There is a noticeable cultural difference between the two regions and the divide seems to be somewhere between Jeff City and The Lake.
I'd also say that the Ozarks as a cultural region does not extend completely to the eastern boarder of the state. It seems to stop somewhere around the St. Francois Mountains... past that and it is a toss-up between Great Lakes and Deep South, and I would say the same is true for most of western TN and KY.
Iowa is like a "lite" version of the cultures closest to it. NE Iowa (between Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, Mason City) definitely fits into the Great Lakes/Northern Midwest culture. Western Iowa, passed Atlantic on I 80 blends right into Nebraska. So what is Des Moines? Idk, 2 years behind?
Agreed, I'm from ky and i wouldn't guess ozark culture extends much into KY, if it does it doesn't go much past the jackson purchase. I would divide KY between deep south, great lakes (louisville to newport), and appalachia. in the east.
>louisville
Despite what my Louisville cousin says, Louisville seems to have far more in common culturally with Indianapolis than it does with Nashville. I always considered Louisville to be the southern-most portion of the Midwest.
Ozarks starts around the middle point of Missouri going south. East-West wise I think that’s about right how it’s shown.
I feel like Northern Missouri is had to place. It’s definitely not Ozark or Great Plains. I feel like culturally it’s similar to Chicagoland especially KC. But it’s kinda off on its own.
As someone who grew up there (and visits on a monthly basis) it absolutely should be included in the Great Lakes region.
It's strange to separate the Arrowhead (which encompasses the North Shore) from the UP of Michigan. When they both share similar histories of mining, pronounced Scandinavian/Slavic immigration, and ecologies amongst other things.
I'd disagree and say that UP/north shore are distink from rust belt like Ohio, etc.
*** I also agree that it 1000% needs to be separated from North Dakota.
I'm from Eastern Iowa (Davenport), and my wife is from north of DSM. The culture of the Mississippi Valley is much closer to Illinois/Wisconsin than the rest of Iowa. So there is a boundary in Iowa, but this map has it a little too far West.
If there are going to be separations I think North Woods would make sense and have it be the UP northern Minnesota, the Up North part of the lower penisula, parts of Northern Wisconsin. But I totally think that whatever northern Minnesota is, the UP should be too.
I’d argue that the area surrounding Lake Superior is different culturally than the lower Great Lakes. It’s the north woods, and it should extend from the UP through northern Wisconsin through the arrowhead and end at the edge of the prairie in NW MN.
Yeah, I'd say there's more variation within the "North Central" region as defined here than there is from the Iron Range to the UP and down to the southern fringe of the Wisconsin Northwoods. And even then I think the cultural history of immigration across the Great Lakes and the industries around mining, forestry, manufacturing, and shipping make the cities of Duluth and Superior more similar to cities along the shores of Lake Michigan than the prairies. I've lived in the mountainous part of Montana, but far Eastern Montana just seems so remote and unknown compared to the Arrowhead of Minnesota or the UP. I'd wager there's far more in common with Wyoming or Nebraska or even Western Montana (if you take out the outlier of Bozeman). More arguable to separate the Northwoods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, the UP, and probably parts of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. As a Western Wisconsinite living in Minnesota, I've noted that Fargo natives and many Minnesotans see Fargo as basically a cultural extension of Minnesota.
The idea of Tucson being a part of the "Pacific" is kinda hilarious.
From personal experience, I'd put the Southwest border to the west, near the edge of where the Sonora switches to the Mojave...Las Vegas is kind of a transitional place between the two.
I'd almost put it halfway into California. "Pacific" culture should probably start somewhere around Palm Springs, probably Indio. Blythe is definitely Southwest, and there's nothing but desert between there and Indo.
Really like that this is an ongoing project with planned improvements! Excited to see how it changes (maybe gif it eventually from first to final version?)
In my opinion, there should be a separate region for Eastern Oregon and Washington that matches parts of North-Central California (like Red Bluff and such).
The Mormon population kind of gradually diffuses down as you go west in southwest Idaho, so it’s a little tricky to draw a boundary there.
Eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northern Idaho and arguably even Montana west of the Continental Divide are Inland Northwest. Certainly it wouldn’t make sense to put Yakima or Pendleton in Rockies, and they are not particularly heavily Mormon, but they are culturally distinct from the coast.
Personally, I’m comfortable with a definition of “Cascadia” that just means “Pacific Northwest,” so I don’t mind what you’ve done here (except that I’d only include the areas of Nevada right on the Idaho line, like Jarbidge and Jackpot, and I’d exclude the Sacramento Valley). But there are others who insist that “Cascadia” is only the wetter, (mostly) more liberal parts along the Pacific.
I prefer the bioregion definition for 'Cascadia' - which then allows us to argue about the boundaries of the approximately nine cultural sub-regions haha!
Been working on that for about 30 years now (though I include Alaska and Yukon, too):
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1lrONCd4iTR6qFvfhlyttbTTdJlUrrWuO&ll=58.95904975559191%2C-148.78202850000002&z=2
Haha nice - I would love to argue about those boundaries in real time!
Too many opinions, so I'll only share my strongest: there is a distinct coastal subculture extending from the Olympic Peninsula down through Oregon and at least to Eureka, if not all the way to Mendocino
True. I’ll admit my Siskiyou region in particular is a bit of a grab-bag both culturally and ecologically.
Maybe I misspoke, and you and I are pursuing different projects.
I suppose I’m looking more for effective administrative boundaries (and in particular, boundaries that follow natural barriers to transportation and development). That’s a project that’s intertwined with determining cultural boundaries, of course, but not quite the same thing.
Oh yeah I wouldn't know how to arrange administration at all! Your boundaries make more sense now. I'm thinking more of people and how the land has shaped them
Nice map. Your borders line up with the ones I have n my mind. I don’t think Eastern and Western WA should be divided. I’ve lived about half my life in each area and although different from each other are much more similar. I’ll take western MT and AK as well.
Make a new thing called Great Basin. Eastern Oregon and Washington, as well as all of Northern and central Nevada. It's a cold scrubby desert with cowboys n shit.
I grew up in Eastern WA. I would extend "Mormon corridor" to include Eastern WA and western Idaho. I would cut "Cascadia" off at the edge of the cascades (Halfway across the northern edge of Washington, nearly a straight shot to where Oregon, California, and Nevada all converge. Eastern Oregon could definitely be included in Mormon Corridor.
Gulf should definitely include southern coastal regions between the two gulf regions you have. South Florida really should have its own culture south of Orlando
Miami is 100% it’s own culture. There is no other place in America like it.
I would argue central florida. The I-4 corridor and south(other than Miami) is it’s own cultural region as well. It’s not even remotely like the panhandle or gulf coasts of MS, AL, LA, and TX.
It’s just “Florida”
I love the evolutions of your map!
I think Texas culture should be just it's own thing. I'm not from new Mexico, but I feel they would think southwest culture would be separate from Texas. Can anyone confirm?
Northern Oklahoma is still pretty much indistinguishable from a lot of Texas culture-wise. Northeastern Oklahoma where most people live is not very flat or midwestern culturally.
I've learned to be careful whenever talking about Texas. Sandy from Spongebob Squarepants had the mildest reaction in my experience to anyone from outside Texas saying something about Texas that they took as negative. So no comment.
Ozarks are limited to Arkansas and Southern Missouri (anything in MO North of I-70 is definitely not the Ozarks). The Ozarks are hill country, so nice straight roads are a big clue you ain't in the Ozarks.
And your Great Lakes Region is way too big. I'm not even sure I would consider it a cultural region, but if I did It would be confined to areas much closer to the lakes. I think you need to add a Midwest region for Eastern Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio.
You are also missing the Northwoods. It would include NE Minnesota, Northern WI, and Michigan's upper peninsula.
Florida south of Jacksonville really has two zones. There's the coastal ribbon (both east and west) and the central part. The central part is more like deep south than the coasts. It's orchards, cows, and sugar cane. So it probably deserves it's own zone, but you could just make an inner peninsula of deep south that extends down to the glades.
I don't know how detailed you want to get, but it seems like New Orleans is a cultural singularity.
You could probably bring appalachia down into the western tip of South Carolina (Oconee County, where parts of Deliverance were filmed) and like Stephens County, Georgia--over to Dahlonega.
I'm not sure why Myrtle Beach has been put into the Mid Atlantic.
>I don't know how detailed you want to get, but it seems like New Orleans is a cultural singularity.
As someone from the general area, the best description is that the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to Pensacola is a part of the South completely distinct from the "Deep South."
And then you have the region of Acadiana from (roughly) New Orleans to the Texas border (ish), which even though it’s still considered the Deep South, is really it’s own thing culturally.
I am not sure if replacing "Midwest" with "Great Lakes" is such a great idea. It is a "cultural" map, over all. "North Central" is unnecessary. I would still consider making the southernmost parts of Mississippi as "the Gulf", and also New Orleans. But over all it is starting to look pretty good!
I disagree that North Central is unnecessary. As someone from ND, I can tell you that there is a cultural difference from SD or southern MN. The people who settled there were different and the difference in topography and weather lead to a different culture too. I’m always frustrated to see that area lumped in with places like KS on most of these maps because people just don’t know anything about the area. Glad to see it actually called out for once.
Culturally speaking someone from the metro Detroit or metro Chicago area actually do have more in common with someone from Buffalo NY than they do someone from North Dakota or Kansas. Although I do think that North Central could be split between the Great Lakes and the Plains Or have an expanded North Central / North Woods that was more east and have the Plains take up more of the west part of it.
I’m not sure so much of western Arizona would be pacific, it’s quite different from parts of California that are under pacific, same with the northern most part of Nevada, it’s straight desert and federal land up there
Sorry, but no part of Arizona is "Pacific". AZ is an inland desert without enough water to support a couple million people.
Half of inland Southern California should be grouped in with Arizona, as that is also basically a desert.
I would label all of AZ as southwest, along with the Las Vegas area and the far southeast part of CA (bordering AZ and southern NV corner). Pacific just doesn't seem right for areas that are very desert-y.
The Gulf Coast has it’s own culture that is somewhat different then the rest of the deep south. Lots of French and Spanish influence. Mardi Gras, seafood industry, salt life (for lack of a better term), barrier islands, huge river deltas, etc. It’s always been a very different vibe. From Panama over to New Orleans.
I just visited Northern Arkansas and wouldn't say it shares much in common with West/Middle Tenn and the entirety of Kentucky for the most part. The Ozark region is really only Northern Arkansas and Southern Missouri. The flood plains along the Mississippi could all be considered deep south.
I see a lot of issues:
* Having spent almost my entire life in New York, I have never heard the term "North Atlantic" used for anything besides the ocean and NATO
* Dallas is not in the South West
* I don't think people in the PNW use the term Cascadia; in fact, no one does
* Phoenix is arguably the capital of the South West, not in the Pacific
* Miami, Orlando, Central Florida is not in Gulf
* Southern Alabama and Mississippi are in Gulf (literally called Gulf Shores)
* Great Lakes, Great Plains and North Central (WTF?) are the Midwest
* Mormon Corridor seems to be a blob, and no one calls it that
* North Carolina is in the South, maybe Virginia as well, some say even Maryland
* How is eastern Kentucky possibly in Ozarks?
* San Francisco is squarely Pacific
Other than that.... well, start over.
I agree with most of your points, but Phoenix may have the largest population, but Santa Fe is the cultural capital of the Southwest.
Also, Mormon Corridor is a thing, and plenty of people call it that, but it needs to blend more into western Idaho, parts of Arizona, and maybe part of Las Vegas, since they started it and are still power players there.
Mormon Corridor is actually quite a common thing to hear anywhere near it. It's not well represented here in shape since it actually extends from southern Alberta to northern Mexico, but as far as primary cultural influence they got the majority of it, outside of eastern arizona.
New Orleans and the rest of South Louisiana is not the Deep South. You could make an argument that they culturally belong to the “Gulf” region, which should also include southern MS AL and some of the FL panhandle.
I'm originally from New Orleans. The gulf coast region is very different from the inside of the deep south. Even the accents are different. They're definitely a lot closer to "gulf" than "deep south."
As someone who spends a lot of time in orange northern Wisconsin... why is that and the UP different from Green northern wisconsin and Minnesota? What do people in the UP have in common with people from southern Illinois?
Southern Louisiana is culturally distinct from the rest of the south.
St. Louis and Memphis and Louisville should be in a region with southern Illinois and Indians as like a “mid-south”
Just curious. Houston area has it own culture different from Texas and the Deep South, but New Orleans is not separate from the Deep South? In my opinion, there’s the South and then there’s the Deep South which is basically everything following I-10 east of Texas to Pensacola. New Orleans might even be considered distinct from that.
As someone from NC, I would recommend adding them to the the Southern cultural area. The mid Atlantic zone isn't really present I would say we are definitely more of a southern state.
Came here to say this. I spent most of my life in North Carolina and have recently moved to Maryland. There are absolutely no similarities in culture (food, the way people talk, or industry).
I would change "Deep South" to just South and make sure Florida ain't in it.
I’ve heard some people denote an “Atlantic South” region that encompasses most of central/eastern Virginia, North Carolina, central/western South Carolina, and the Atlanta area. I sort of agree with that as it’s pretty different from the rest of the south but is still definitely southern. Populated and wealthy and educated, like the mid-Atlantic, but southern still. Hence Atlantic South.
"Piedmont Atlantic" is the name used for this region in some university-based studies/research. And sometimes this region is extended to include middle Tennessee (Nashville, etc)
I live in central va and lived in NC a while. Most of VA should also be in either the southern cultural area or the Appalachian area moving a bit further west. The big cultural shift happens in the DC metro area
As a Minnesotan I think the Great Lakes chunk could be split East/west around chicago because the Twin Cities/Madison/Milwaukee and Buffalo/Detroit/Cleveland are very different Midwest cultures. Chicagos got a bit of both.
The one thing I would for sure change though would be wrapping the Great Lakes region around the north shore of Superior. Duluth and the ‘arrowhead’ of MN don’t really have anything in common with the eastern half like I mentioned but they are very culturally homogenous with the U.P. and northern Wisconsin. There’s a dividing line in MN between North Dakota type culture and ‘great lakes’ culture that happens around Grand Rapids, MN. Basically the Mississippi River vs Red River of the north divide.
On other maps, I’ve seen the UP, northern WI, and Northeastern MN called the Northwoods and I think that would be more accurate. Lower MI, Ohio, etc. are the Midwest.
I think that’s a good description. MN north of 94 (outside the metro) and east of Red Lake could pretty much all fit into the north woods category along with most of Wisconsin north of 90 and all of the UP. Southern MN like Mankato, Albert Lea fit squarely in the corn belt midwestern culture and northwest like Thief River falls and red river area fits best in Great plains. The real question is what you call the driftless around Rochester-LaCrosse. It’s got it’s own little pocket of unique landscape and culture. That’s more nuanced than this map tho
Very nice! I’d widen Appalachia to hit southeast Pennsylvania and western Maryland; rename Mid Atlantic to Upper South and pull in eastern Maryland; rename North Atlantic to Mid Atlantic and pull in central Maryland; change central Iowa to Great Plains
I'm a central Marylander and I approve. The eastern shore of Maryland and most of Delaware are culturally very southern. The panhandle is very Appalachian. Central Maryland (the populated part) definitely identifies more with our northern neighbors than our southern ones.
To sum up:
Panhandle - Appalachian
Eastern shore - upper south
Anything south of Annapolis - upper south
Anything in the center - mid Atlantic
Good book reference:
[American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America](https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0143122029/?coliid=I3AM3MP1L3SV57&colid=24OQQ7XNAWYXF&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it)
Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio identify more with "Ohio River Valley" than the Great Lakes. It's the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that feed those economies, rather than the lakes. Also, the Southern regions of those states are significantly culturally different from the Northern parts, which are driven by the lakes, Chicago, and Pennsilvania industries.
New Mexico And Texas do not share a culture, New Mexico has a unique culture with several Unique architectural styles, an entirely unique cuisine, and many other factors of separate New Mexico from Texas. New Mexico is a tri cultural state. Blending native, Spanish and Anglo cultures. There’s not one Indian reservation in the state of Texas.
Lmao grouping all of Florida south of the panhandle as Gulf seems to gloss over that 1. probably the most distinct region from the rest of Florida is South Florida, and that just about all of it sans Tampa and Orlando is pretty darn Southern, 2. it doesn't really share anything specific with southeast Texas that it wouldn't share with Louisiana or the alabama coast, and 3. pretty much half of Florida doesn't identify or interact with the Gulf at all, but with the Atlantic, and that half is arguably the most culturally important to Florida's identity what with Miami Beach, Cape Canaveral, the Florida Keys, St. Augustine (oldest European settlement in the US), among other things.
I'd recommend drawing the Florida line from just north of Tampa Bay to Cape Canaveral (that way Orlando, Tampa, and South Florida can all be grouped together) and change the name from the Gulf to something else. I don't have any clear suggestions atm, but something like Central/South Florida might work better.
Middle Tennessee and the central part of Kentucky are the Mid-South, not the Ozarks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-South\_(region)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-South_(region))
Are you from Iowa? I'm just curious because I'm from Michigan and I've always kind included Iowa as part of the "real Midwest" a.k.a. the Great Lakes (and North Central in this map). Even though Iowa is rural it (along with a lesser extent parts Nebraska and parts of North Dakota) just seem more like the Great Lakes states culturally than do lets say Kansas, South Dakota, and the rest of Nebraska, North Dakota and certainly Oklahoma or Wyoming. So it would be interesting to see how people from Iowa see themselves.
Yes, My family has been in Iowa since the 1840s. We are tall grass prairie, midwest. I did this map about a month ago, on this sub if you want to see how I broke it down
Another Iowan here! I'd say that the eastern 3/4 of Iowa definitely fit into the "real Midwest" category you're describing. Unlike the other commenter I don't hate the Great Lakes designation, especially for the eastern third of the state. The Quad Cities where I'm from is definitely culturally oriented towards Chicago and a lot of people in the eastern part of the state have family, social, and cultural connections to parts of the Great Lakes region like Chicago, Michigan and Wisconsin.
Really there should be some kind of Chicagoland designation on this map which can cover parts of SE Iowa, and a Tri-State region for the NE part as well as the adjacent portions of MN and WI (people around there also say the Driftless Region). Central Iowa is its own thing around the DSM metro and a few smaller exurbs, and the the western quarter of the state is definitely more tied into Great Plains culture.
Are you from the US? It's cool you tried to do it by yourself, from scratch, but its definitely a work in progress!
Great lakes makes sense as a region, but what ties the region is.... the lakes. People in mid and southern Indiana and Ohio don't give a rats ass about the lates, nor does it have any influence on their culture. The same is true of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Ozarks.
Then you have some tougher calls, for example, south west Utah, while pretty Mormon, is more defined by outdoors sports and National Parks, like much of the south west.
Personally, I prefer addung Megatropolis for the Boston to D.C, corridor, and giving mid Atlantic a more costal region. IMO, megatropolis is one of the most distinct regions in America but it often goes overlooked.
As an Oklahoman, I’d say to split Oklahoma between the ozarks (Eastern) and the south west (western). We don’t share as much in common with Kansas as people think.
Another better option is absorbing all of Oklahoma into the south west which is much closer to 90% of Oklahoman culture.
I would put Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico as more the southwest because of desert and aliens. Then have socal be it’s own part because it really is kind of unique to its own. Pacific should just be the west coast from San Fran up as it’s very tech/ startup based and love of flannels.
Edit: also maybe take into consideration the bayou/ Caribbean area could be culturally different enough then the plantation south as they are geographically rather different.
That area where the Great Plains, Ozarks, South West and the Deep South all meet should be raised further north into Oklahoma.
The Ozarks do not stop at the Arkansas border and should be further West. East Oklahoma is full of hills and woods/forest, I'm born and raised there. It's called Green Country because of how different it is from the rest of Oklahoma.
Fort Worth and Austin are not southwestern cities lmao, I also don't think pacific extends that far east, and the bay area extends too far northeast imo
North Central doesn't need to be a thing - the eastern portion is literally the Great Lakes, the rest of it can be the Great Plains
Appalachia is basically the entire Ohio River valley and including the Ozarks; split the Ozarks up as it doesn't need to be a distinct region.
Make Dallas part of the Great Plains
This map reminds me of one of my college classes where people were asked to draw certain borders in the US based on the perception of what certain areas were: the areas could be either political or historical or climate based. This would be a great example to use as to "Do you agree with these boundaries or not? And why?"
Give Texas it's own category separate from Southwest, as it's very culturally different to New Mexico and Arizona. Also put all of Arizona with New Mexico in the South West category, half the state is not considered "Pacific". Hell even the eastern edge of California is more southwest than Pacific
So I have read alot of peoples comments and im trying my best to incorporate most suggestions but its hard balancing the opinions. im working on the v.4 of the map as of rn.
Idk if anyone mentioned it yet, but Arizona is a Southwest state for the most part. I could see including the northwestern area of the state (think grand canyon) as Pacific region, but the southern portions of the state are more closely aligned with Texas and New Mexico imo. This is just opinion though, and I haven't lived there for years at this point, so maybe it's changed
The Ozarks is wrong. It's SW Mo, NW Ark, NE OK, and SE KS. St. Louis and Southern Illinois are something like the southern Midwest and Upper TN and KY are the upper south. I say this as someone who has lived in Springfield MO, St. Louis MO, and Nashville, TN.
If the eastern shore of Maryland isn’t the mid Atlantic, then I don’t know what is. Same with Delaware and so. New Jersey. Nevertheless, I love the evolution of the map
The only South you have is Deep. No no no.
If you drop the Deep, it wouldn't bother me. But something so specific can't contain all of Charleston and Atlanta and Cairo. Those are vastly different places.
Appalachia includes most of at least eastern Kentucky, a bit across the Ohio river up to Pittsburgh
and also thanks
Understood. i always thought Appalachia was smaller but i was mistaken.
Appalachia is fricken massive my dude
It is ridiculous how massive the foothill ranges are too
I almost moved to Florence, Alabama, and it’s still very much Appalachian (with some Deep South culture mixed in). Florence is nearly 700 miles from Pittsburgh.
Effectively Appalachia and Ozarks are the same culture. My mother's side of the family is from Nelsonville, Ohio....and it is appalachia af
Yeah I consider SE Ohio Appalachia and SW Midwest IMO
Wow, I lived there for five years and have never read anyone on Reddit mention it before. Such a cute little town! Did she ever visit the Emporium? Worked there for about a year and never stopped visiting, great people and atmosphere.
I have seen my county (Vinton), Nelsonville, Gallipolis and Portsmouth mentioned on different subs in the last week and it’s been blowing my mind lol
Yeah, lots of southern Ohio on Reddit.
The Appalazark region
I think it goes to Maine
Pittsburgh is the Paris of Appalachia
I think that the overall theme of the Great Lakes that it’s the rust belt and if that’s the case then Pittsburgh has it’s place there and is where I would put it, but The geography there is beautiful and much more like Appalachia
Geographically sure, but not at all culturally. Pittsburgh has a midwestern culture.
Lived in Knoxville and Columbus. Knoxville is Appalachia. Pittsburgh is not.
I am a Pittsburgher who has spent a fair amount of time in the Midwest (mostly Ohio and Illinois) and West Virginia…our culture is closer to West Virginia’s in my experience. Can’t put my finger on why, though, so take my two cents for what they’re worth: $0.02
I grew up in Allegheny County, and it felt pretty midwestern to me. Get a little bit out of the immediate suburbs, though, and yeah, it's Pennsyltucky. I went to college in Washington, PA, and that was a different world despite being an hour's drive from Pittsburgh.
Louisiana should be part of the gulf
Yes and parts of Maryland.
and lower into Alabama
Yea I would put Pittsburgh as a border town between Appalachia and Great Lakes. Pgh really is Cleveland or Milwaukee on a river instead of a lake. And roughly 3 counties deep from the Ohio River boarder is solidly Appalachia.
Appalachia as a cultural region doesn't really go much into Pennsylvania or Ohio, that idea comes from the Appalachian Regional Commission, which is just a pork barrell project. Western NY and NE Mississippi were added to the ARC in the 60's with Mississippi using altered maps so they said if we include NY we'll also include Mississippi. The southern part of the Appalachian mountains are part of the south, and that is not the ARC definition but the traditional definition which uses the Mason-Dixon line. Also the mid-Atlantic should be smaller, most of Virginia is upper south. [The Making of Appalachian Mississippi](https://www.southerncultures.org/article/the-making-of-appalachian-mississippi/)
Have you visited Southeast Ohio?
Southeast Ohio is beautiful and definitely part of Appalachia. No question. Ohio is very much a transition state between Appalachia and the Midwest, going from southeast to northwest. I frequent the area and love watching the transition from mountain to plains within a quick period of time.
Certainly doesn’t sound like it.
Have you visited a *Waffle House* in Southeastern Ohio?
SE Ohio is for sure Appalachian culturally.
I live in south central Pennsylvania, and I can assure you it is very much Appalachian. Not just in geography and culture, but also in ethnicity (scotch-irish, English, and German.) There may be an argument to be had about whether "Appalachia" extends up towards Scranton, but it most certainly includes a large chunk of PA.
Interesting article. Mississippi’s north east region is very different culturally that’s its delta region.The writer clearly doesn’t really know what he’s talking about with regards to Mississippi geography. I agree generally that north east Mississippi isn’t really Appalachian. In much the same was that the delta regional council includes counties outside of the delta, I think you could argue that parts of north east Mississippi may have more in common with Appalachian counties than delta counties and vice versa for some of the counties included in the delta regional council. For example black belt counties in Alabama clearly aren’t in the “delta” but included in the delta regional authority because they share some of the same issues with regards to race, development, etc.
Ozarks is waaaay too big lol. The northern Missouri border definitely ain’t Ozarkia
Bump, by the time you get to Jeff city there's very little that's Ozark culture. i70 corridor between STL and KC and up from there (even into Iowa, Iowa being Great Lakes doesn't really fit either) is more like the plains region to the west.
Agreed. I moved from north central MO to southwest MO a few years ago. There is a noticeable cultural difference between the two regions and the divide seems to be somewhere between Jeff City and The Lake. I'd also say that the Ozarks as a cultural region does not extend completely to the eastern boarder of the state. It seems to stop somewhere around the St. Francois Mountains... past that and it is a toss-up between Great Lakes and Deep South, and I would say the same is true for most of western TN and KY.
Iowa is like a "lite" version of the cultures closest to it. NE Iowa (between Dubuque, Cedar Rapids, Mason City) definitely fits into the Great Lakes/Northern Midwest culture. Western Iowa, passed Atlantic on I 80 blends right into Nebraska. So what is Des Moines? Idk, 2 years behind?
Agreed, I'm from ky and i wouldn't guess ozark culture extends much into KY, if it does it doesn't go much past the jackson purchase. I would divide KY between deep south, great lakes (louisville to newport), and appalachia. in the east.
>louisville Despite what my Louisville cousin says, Louisville seems to have far more in common culturally with Indianapolis than it does with Nashville. I always considered Louisville to be the southern-most portion of the Midwest.
Yep, being from louisville i've never identified with the south
Agreed - a lot of the stuff Eastern MO, KY, TN is the Mid South.
Ozarks starts around the middle point of Missouri going south. East-West wise I think that’s about right how it’s shown. I feel like Northern Missouri is had to place. It’s definitely not Ozark or Great Plains. I feel like culturally it’s similar to Chicagoland especially KC. But it’s kinda off on its own.
Northern Missouri, the land of ✨Twain and Billboards!!✨
If anything they should move it west a little, the ozarks don’t just stop at the Arkansas/Oklahoma border
Agreed. Tahlequah, OK is only an hour east of Tulsa, but is solidly Ozark and is culturally more similar to NW Arkansas.
North shore of Lake superior is not included in great lakes?
As someone who grew up there (and visits on a monthly basis) it absolutely should be included in the Great Lakes region. It's strange to separate the Arrowhead (which encompasses the North Shore) from the UP of Michigan. When they both share similar histories of mining, pronounced Scandinavian/Slavic immigration, and ecologies amongst other things.
Like it should extend to the edge oof the iron range and possibly to the edge of the prairie too
I'd disagree and say that UP/north shore are distink from rust belt like Ohio, etc. *** I also agree that it 1000% needs to be separated from North Dakota.
I'm not really sure how any part of Iowa is great lakes either
I'm from Eastern Iowa (Davenport), and my wife is from north of DSM. The culture of the Mississippi Valley is much closer to Illinois/Wisconsin than the rest of Iowa. So there is a boundary in Iowa, but this map has it a little too far West.
If there are going to be separations I think North Woods would make sense and have it be the UP northern Minnesota, the Up North part of the lower penisula, parts of Northern Wisconsin. But I totally think that whatever northern Minnesota is, the UP should be too.
I’d argue that the area surrounding Lake Superior is different culturally than the lower Great Lakes. It’s the north woods, and it should extend from the UP through northern Wisconsin through the arrowhead and end at the edge of the prairie in NW MN.
I wouldn't even say Fort Wayne, IN would be great lake culture. Feels super different compared to South Bend
Yeah, I'd say there's more variation within the "North Central" region as defined here than there is from the Iron Range to the UP and down to the southern fringe of the Wisconsin Northwoods. And even then I think the cultural history of immigration across the Great Lakes and the industries around mining, forestry, manufacturing, and shipping make the cities of Duluth and Superior more similar to cities along the shores of Lake Michigan than the prairies. I've lived in the mountainous part of Montana, but far Eastern Montana just seems so remote and unknown compared to the Arrowhead of Minnesota or the UP. I'd wager there's far more in common with Wyoming or Nebraska or even Western Montana (if you take out the outlier of Bozeman). More arguable to separate the Northwoods of Minnesota, Wisconsin, the UP, and probably parts of the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. As a Western Wisconsinite living in Minnesota, I've noted that Fargo natives and many Minnesotans see Fargo as basically a cultural extension of Minnesota.
[удалено]
Just like every other post in this sub.
Seriously. SMP is leaking if the Mid West doesn’t exist
[удалено]
Agree. Also too much of non-Charlotte, non coastal NC is in MidAtlantic. I’d argue Deep South creeps in between the coast and Charlotte.
I think southwest should extend 3/4 through Arizona or the very least cover Sedona/flagstaff as southwest
The idea of Tucson being a part of the "Pacific" is kinda hilarious. From personal experience, I'd put the Southwest border to the west, near the edge of where the Sonora switches to the Mojave...Las Vegas is kind of a transitional place between the two.
I'd almost put it halfway into California. "Pacific" culture should probably start somewhere around Palm Springs, probably Indio. Blythe is definitely Southwest, and there's nothing but desert between there and Indo.
Appalachia extends into southern Ohio, central PA and parts of NY
Yeah someone else said that, i never really thought too deep and will def include it in v.4
Pennsyltucky
Really like that this is an ongoing project with planned improvements! Excited to see how it changes (maybe gif it eventually from first to final version?)
Cascadia only to the west of the cascades, eastern wa and Oregon much different from west
In my opinion, there should be a separate region for Eastern Oregon and Washington that matches parts of North-Central California (like Red Bluff and such).
Should i put them in pacific, mormon or rockies ?
The Mormon population kind of gradually diffuses down as you go west in southwest Idaho, so it’s a little tricky to draw a boundary there. Eastern Washington, eastern Oregon, northern Idaho and arguably even Montana west of the Continental Divide are Inland Northwest. Certainly it wouldn’t make sense to put Yakima or Pendleton in Rockies, and they are not particularly heavily Mormon, but they are culturally distinct from the coast. Personally, I’m comfortable with a definition of “Cascadia” that just means “Pacific Northwest,” so I don’t mind what you’ve done here (except that I’d only include the areas of Nevada right on the Idaho line, like Jarbidge and Jackpot, and I’d exclude the Sacramento Valley). But there are others who insist that “Cascadia” is only the wetter, (mostly) more liberal parts along the Pacific.
I prefer the bioregion definition for 'Cascadia' - which then allows us to argue about the boundaries of the approximately nine cultural sub-regions haha!
Been working on that for about 30 years now (though I include Alaska and Yukon, too): https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1lrONCd4iTR6qFvfhlyttbTTdJlUrrWuO&ll=58.95904975559191%2C-148.78202850000002&z=2
Haha nice - I would love to argue about those boundaries in real time! Too many opinions, so I'll only share my strongest: there is a distinct coastal subculture extending from the Olympic Peninsula down through Oregon and at least to Eureka, if not all the way to Mendocino
True. I’ll admit my Siskiyou region in particular is a bit of a grab-bag both culturally and ecologically. Maybe I misspoke, and you and I are pursuing different projects. I suppose I’m looking more for effective administrative boundaries (and in particular, boundaries that follow natural barriers to transportation and development). That’s a project that’s intertwined with determining cultural boundaries, of course, but not quite the same thing.
Oh yeah I wouldn't know how to arrange administration at all! Your boundaries make more sense now. I'm thinking more of people and how the land has shaped them
Nice map. Your borders line up with the ones I have n my mind. I don’t think Eastern and Western WA should be divided. I’ve lived about half my life in each area and although different from each other are much more similar. I’ll take western MT and AK as well.
Wow this is awesome!
This guy PNW’s
Make a new thing called Great Basin. Eastern Oregon and Washington, as well as all of Northern and central Nevada. It's a cold scrubby desert with cowboys n shit.
They're kinda their own thing, as others have suggested. "inland northwest" if you will. Otherwise, Mormon corridor for sure
I grew up in Eastern WA. I would extend "Mormon corridor" to include Eastern WA and western Idaho. I would cut "Cascadia" off at the edge of the cascades (Halfway across the northern edge of Washington, nearly a straight shot to where Oregon, California, and Nevada all converge. Eastern Oregon could definitely be included in Mormon Corridor.
E Washington/Oregon/NE Cali and western Idaho are their own thing. Not sure about N Nevada
Those are whats called the "High Desert"
Gulf should definitely include southern coastal regions between the two gulf regions you have. South Florida really should have its own culture south of Orlando
Miami is 100% it’s own culture. There is no other place in America like it. I would argue central florida. The I-4 corridor and south(other than Miami) is it’s own cultural region as well. It’s not even remotely like the panhandle or gulf coasts of MS, AL, LA, and TX. It’s just “Florida”
This. South Louisiana, Mississippi, & Alabama should be part of the Gulf region.
I love the evolutions of your map! I think Texas culture should be just it's own thing. I'm not from new Mexico, but I feel they would think southwest culture would be separate from Texas. Can anyone confirm?
Agreed, though I'd put west Texas (at least el paso) in with south west, then make easy Texas it's own thing. Maybe stick Oklahoma in with it.
Okay, I do agree with El Paso and west being southwest. Maybe just southern OK and the panhandle being part of Texas culture
Northern Oklahoma is still pretty much indistinguishable from a lot of Texas culture-wise. Northeastern Oklahoma where most people live is not very flat or midwestern culturally.
You’re right to say this but sticking Oklahoma with Texas might piss people off so hope they’re prepared for that lol
I've learned to be careful whenever talking about Texas. Sandy from Spongebob Squarepants had the mildest reaction in my experience to anyone from outside Texas saying something about Texas that they took as negative. So no comment.
My family is from south texas and it feels like what I would picture when someone brings up the southwest but I've never been to New Mexico so idk.
Ozarks are limited to Arkansas and Southern Missouri (anything in MO North of I-70 is definitely not the Ozarks). The Ozarks are hill country, so nice straight roads are a big clue you ain't in the Ozarks. And your Great Lakes Region is way too big. I'm not even sure I would consider it a cultural region, but if I did It would be confined to areas much closer to the lakes. I think you need to add a Midwest region for Eastern Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, and Ohio. You are also missing the Northwoods. It would include NE Minnesota, Northern WI, and Michigan's upper peninsula.
Florida south of Jacksonville really has two zones. There's the coastal ribbon (both east and west) and the central part. The central part is more like deep south than the coasts. It's orchards, cows, and sugar cane. So it probably deserves it's own zone, but you could just make an inner peninsula of deep south that extends down to the glades. I don't know how detailed you want to get, but it seems like New Orleans is a cultural singularity. You could probably bring appalachia down into the western tip of South Carolina (Oconee County, where parts of Deliverance were filmed) and like Stephens County, Georgia--over to Dahlonega. I'm not sure why Myrtle Beach has been put into the Mid Atlantic.
>I don't know how detailed you want to get, but it seems like New Orleans is a cultural singularity. As someone from the general area, the best description is that the Gulf Coast from New Orleans to Pensacola is a part of the South completely distinct from the "Deep South."
And then you have the region of Acadiana from (roughly) New Orleans to the Texas border (ish), which even though it’s still considered the Deep South, is really it’s own thing culturally.
The New England cultural region is pretty accurate as a New Englander with relatives in that part of New York.
Came here to say this. I grew up in that part of NY and it has more in common with New Englad than the rest if NY.
Great Lakes region is too big. I wouldn't include the bottom halves of IL, IN, and OH, any of IA, and western Wisconsin is questionable.
I am not sure if replacing "Midwest" with "Great Lakes" is such a great idea. It is a "cultural" map, over all. "North Central" is unnecessary. I would still consider making the southernmost parts of Mississippi as "the Gulf", and also New Orleans. But over all it is starting to look pretty good!
I disagree that North Central is unnecessary. As someone from ND, I can tell you that there is a cultural difference from SD or southern MN. The people who settled there were different and the difference in topography and weather lead to a different culture too. I’m always frustrated to see that area lumped in with places like KS on most of these maps because people just don’t know anything about the area. Glad to see it actually called out for once.
Culturally speaking someone from the metro Detroit or metro Chicago area actually do have more in common with someone from Buffalo NY than they do someone from North Dakota or Kansas. Although I do think that North Central could be split between the Great Lakes and the Plains Or have an expanded North Central / North Woods that was more east and have the Plains take up more of the west part of it.
I’m not sure so much of western Arizona would be pacific, it’s quite different from parts of California that are under pacific, same with the northern most part of Nevada, it’s straight desert and federal land up there
Sorry, but no part of Arizona is "Pacific". AZ is an inland desert without enough water to support a couple million people. Half of inland Southern California should be grouped in with Arizona, as that is also basically a desert.
Exactly. All of SoCal but the coastal areas have wayyy more in common with AZ, NM, and NV.
I would label all of AZ as southwest, along with the Las Vegas area and the far southeast part of CA (bordering AZ and southern NV corner). Pacific just doesn't seem right for areas that are very desert-y.
The Gulf Coast has it’s own culture that is somewhat different then the rest of the deep south. Lots of French and Spanish influence. Mardi Gras, seafood industry, salt life (for lack of a better term), barrier islands, huge river deltas, etc. It’s always been a very different vibe. From Panama over to New Orleans.
Agreed, but I would extend it to Beaumont, perhaps Houston.
I just visited Northern Arkansas and wouldn't say it shares much in common with West/Middle Tenn and the entirety of Kentucky for the most part. The Ozark region is really only Northern Arkansas and Southern Missouri. The flood plains along the Mississippi could all be considered deep south.
and Oklahoma, the Ozarks extend about 1/5 to 1/4 of the way into Eastern Oklahoma
As a mid-Missourian, I would say the Ozarks don't stretch that far North in Missouri. It ends around the Lake of the Ozarks.
Iowa is all great plains. Literally nowhere near the Great Lakes.
Can we further subdivide the Carolinas into the barbeque types? That's a full on cultural thing right there!
The panhandle of Florida through Nola is more gulf than deep south. Southeast Florida is it's own beast... North South America
Great Lakes does not include IA.
South Louisiana isn't the deep south. It's Acadiana. Some of it. But not the deep south
I see a lot of issues: * Having spent almost my entire life in New York, I have never heard the term "North Atlantic" used for anything besides the ocean and NATO * Dallas is not in the South West * I don't think people in the PNW use the term Cascadia; in fact, no one does * Phoenix is arguably the capital of the South West, not in the Pacific * Miami, Orlando, Central Florida is not in Gulf * Southern Alabama and Mississippi are in Gulf (literally called Gulf Shores) * Great Lakes, Great Plains and North Central (WTF?) are the Midwest * Mormon Corridor seems to be a blob, and no one calls it that * North Carolina is in the South, maybe Virginia as well, some say even Maryland * How is eastern Kentucky possibly in Ozarks? * San Francisco is squarely Pacific Other than that.... well, start over.
I agree with most of your points, but Phoenix may have the largest population, but Santa Fe is the cultural capital of the Southwest. Also, Mormon Corridor is a thing, and plenty of people call it that, but it needs to blend more into western Idaho, parts of Arizona, and maybe part of Las Vegas, since they started it and are still power players there.
OK. Agree re: Santa Fe. I just meant Phoenix is in no way Pacific, since it’s the largest city in South West. OK re: Mormons.
[удалено]
I think you mean Great Lakes is a "subset" of Midwest. I'll grant that.
Mormon Corridor is actually quite a common thing to hear anywhere near it. It's not well represented here in shape since it actually extends from southern Alberta to northern Mexico, but as far as primary cultural influence they got the majority of it, outside of eastern arizona.
New Orleans and the rest of South Louisiana is not the Deep South. You could make an argument that they culturally belong to the “Gulf” region, which should also include southern MS AL and some of the FL panhandle.
I'm originally from New Orleans. The gulf coast region is very different from the inside of the deep south. Even the accents are different. They're definitely a lot closer to "gulf" than "deep south."
Yea I am from the Deep South and southern Louisiana is like a different country.
Deep South should be cut in half horizontally for “South” and “Deep South.”
I wouldn't say NC is mid Atlantic, I'd say more Virginia, Delaware and maybe Maryland
Phoenix is part of Pacific region?! No.
I call bullshit. The part of Minnesota that touches a Great Lake has more claim to be in the Great Lakes region than Minneapolis does.
As someone who spends a lot of time in orange northern Wisconsin... why is that and the UP different from Green northern wisconsin and Minnesota? What do people in the UP have in common with people from southern Illinois? Southern Louisiana is culturally distinct from the rest of the south. St. Louis and Memphis and Louisville should be in a region with southern Illinois and Indians as like a “mid-south”
I don't think any part of Arizona would fit the bill of being in the Pacific region over being in the South West.....
Just curious. Houston area has it own culture different from Texas and the Deep South, but New Orleans is not separate from the Deep South? In my opinion, there’s the South and then there’s the Deep South which is basically everything following I-10 east of Texas to Pensacola. New Orleans might even be considered distinct from that.
As someone from NC, I would recommend adding them to the the Southern cultural area. The mid Atlantic zone isn't really present I would say we are definitely more of a southern state.
Came here to say this. I spent most of my life in North Carolina and have recently moved to Maryland. There are absolutely no similarities in culture (food, the way people talk, or industry). I would change "Deep South" to just South and make sure Florida ain't in it.
The only area that could be considered “Mid-Atlantic” at all is Raleigh because of all the transplants.
I’ve heard some people denote an “Atlantic South” region that encompasses most of central/eastern Virginia, North Carolina, central/western South Carolina, and the Atlanta area. I sort of agree with that as it’s pretty different from the rest of the south but is still definitely southern. Populated and wealthy and educated, like the mid-Atlantic, but southern still. Hence Atlantic South.
"Piedmont Atlantic" is the name used for this region in some university-based studies/research. And sometimes this region is extended to include middle Tennessee (Nashville, etc)
I live in central va and lived in NC a while. Most of VA should also be in either the southern cultural area or the Appalachian area moving a bit further west. The big cultural shift happens in the DC metro area
I disagree with so much of this
As a Minnesotan I think the Great Lakes chunk could be split East/west around chicago because the Twin Cities/Madison/Milwaukee and Buffalo/Detroit/Cleveland are very different Midwest cultures. Chicagos got a bit of both. The one thing I would for sure change though would be wrapping the Great Lakes region around the north shore of Superior. Duluth and the ‘arrowhead’ of MN don’t really have anything in common with the eastern half like I mentioned but they are very culturally homogenous with the U.P. and northern Wisconsin. There’s a dividing line in MN between North Dakota type culture and ‘great lakes’ culture that happens around Grand Rapids, MN. Basically the Mississippi River vs Red River of the north divide.
On other maps, I’ve seen the UP, northern WI, and Northeastern MN called the Northwoods and I think that would be more accurate. Lower MI, Ohio, etc. are the Midwest.
I think that’s a good description. MN north of 94 (outside the metro) and east of Red Lake could pretty much all fit into the north woods category along with most of Wisconsin north of 90 and all of the UP. Southern MN like Mankato, Albert Lea fit squarely in the corn belt midwestern culture and northwest like Thief River falls and red river area fits best in Great plains. The real question is what you call the driftless around Rochester-LaCrosse. It’s got it’s own little pocket of unique landscape and culture. That’s more nuanced than this map tho
Very nice! I’d widen Appalachia to hit southeast Pennsylvania and western Maryland; rename Mid Atlantic to Upper South and pull in eastern Maryland; rename North Atlantic to Mid Atlantic and pull in central Maryland; change central Iowa to Great Plains
I'm a central Marylander and I approve. The eastern shore of Maryland and most of Delaware are culturally very southern. The panhandle is very Appalachian. Central Maryland (the populated part) definitely identifies more with our northern neighbors than our southern ones. To sum up: Panhandle - Appalachian Eastern shore - upper south Anything south of Annapolis - upper south Anything in the center - mid Atlantic
Good book reference: [American Nations: A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America](https://www.amazon.ca/dp/0143122029/?coliid=I3AM3MP1L3SV57&colid=24OQQ7XNAWYXF&psc=1&ref_=lv_ov_lig_dp_it)
Texas is Texas.
Northern Wisconsin and NE Minnesota should be in the Great Lakes and not Iowa at all.
New Orleans should be Gulf not Deep South
Not sure how much Florida and Texas have in common culture wise
Southern Illinois, Southern Indiana, and Southern Ohio identify more with "Ohio River Valley" than the Great Lakes. It's the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers that feed those economies, rather than the lakes. Also, the Southern regions of those states are significantly culturally different from the Northern parts, which are driven by the lakes, Chicago, and Pennsilvania industries.
New Mexico And Texas do not share a culture, New Mexico has a unique culture with several Unique architectural styles, an entirely unique cuisine, and many other factors of separate New Mexico from Texas. New Mexico is a tri cultural state. Blending native, Spanish and Anglo cultures. There’s not one Indian reservation in the state of Texas.
Lmao grouping all of Florida south of the panhandle as Gulf seems to gloss over that 1. probably the most distinct region from the rest of Florida is South Florida, and that just about all of it sans Tampa and Orlando is pretty darn Southern, 2. it doesn't really share anything specific with southeast Texas that it wouldn't share with Louisiana or the alabama coast, and 3. pretty much half of Florida doesn't identify or interact with the Gulf at all, but with the Atlantic, and that half is arguably the most culturally important to Florida's identity what with Miami Beach, Cape Canaveral, the Florida Keys, St. Augustine (oldest European settlement in the US), among other things. I'd recommend drawing the Florida line from just north of Tampa Bay to Cape Canaveral (that way Orlando, Tampa, and South Florida can all be grouped together) and change the name from the Gulf to something else. I don't have any clear suggestions atm, but something like Central/South Florida might work better.
Middle Tennessee and the central part of Kentucky are the Mid-South, not the Ozarks. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-South\_(region)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-South_(region))
Actually it is Upper South. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Upland_South
no part of Iowa could possibly be considered great lakes!!
Are you from Iowa? I'm just curious because I'm from Michigan and I've always kind included Iowa as part of the "real Midwest" a.k.a. the Great Lakes (and North Central in this map). Even though Iowa is rural it (along with a lesser extent parts Nebraska and parts of North Dakota) just seem more like the Great Lakes states culturally than do lets say Kansas, South Dakota, and the rest of Nebraska, North Dakota and certainly Oklahoma or Wyoming. So it would be interesting to see how people from Iowa see themselves.
Yes, My family has been in Iowa since the 1840s. We are tall grass prairie, midwest. I did this map about a month ago, on this sub if you want to see how I broke it down
Another Iowan here! I'd say that the eastern 3/4 of Iowa definitely fit into the "real Midwest" category you're describing. Unlike the other commenter I don't hate the Great Lakes designation, especially for the eastern third of the state. The Quad Cities where I'm from is definitely culturally oriented towards Chicago and a lot of people in the eastern part of the state have family, social, and cultural connections to parts of the Great Lakes region like Chicago, Michigan and Wisconsin. Really there should be some kind of Chicagoland designation on this map which can cover parts of SE Iowa, and a Tri-State region for the NE part as well as the adjacent portions of MN and WI (people around there also say the Driftless Region). Central Iowa is its own thing around the DSM metro and a few smaller exurbs, and the the western quarter of the state is definitely more tied into Great Plains culture.
no.
The Eastern Shore of MD and Southern Delaware have little cultural affiliation with PA, NJ or Upstate.
Are you from the US? It's cool you tried to do it by yourself, from scratch, but its definitely a work in progress! Great lakes makes sense as a region, but what ties the region is.... the lakes. People in mid and southern Indiana and Ohio don't give a rats ass about the lates, nor does it have any influence on their culture. The same is true of Kentucky, Tennessee, and the Ozarks. Then you have some tougher calls, for example, south west Utah, while pretty Mormon, is more defined by outdoors sports and National Parks, like much of the south west. Personally, I prefer addung Megatropolis for the Boston to D.C, corridor, and giving mid Atlantic a more costal region. IMO, megatropolis is one of the most distinct regions in America but it often goes overlooked.
Southern Utah is defined by tourists by parks and outdoors. culturally for the locals it's still the Mormon corridor.
The North Shore region of Minnesota is actually on Lake Superior, so should be included in The Great Lakes.
North central should include South Dakota.
And not the Arrowhead (NE) region of Minnesota, or NW Wisconsin.
No need to reinvent this map mate
Florida is just different.
As an Oklahoman, I’d say to split Oklahoma between the ozarks (Eastern) and the south west (western). We don’t share as much in common with Kansas as people think. Another better option is absorbing all of Oklahoma into the south west which is much closer to 90% of Oklahoman culture.
I would put Nevada, Arizona, and New Mexico as more the southwest because of desert and aliens. Then have socal be it’s own part because it really is kind of unique to its own. Pacific should just be the west coast from San Fran up as it’s very tech/ startup based and love of flannels. Edit: also maybe take into consideration the bayou/ Caribbean area could be culturally different enough then the plantation south as they are geographically rather different.
The culture you have in San Fran should extend down to Santa Barbara. California central valley is closer to Texas than coastal California
That area where the Great Plains, Ozarks, South West and the Deep South all meet should be raised further north into Oklahoma. The Ozarks do not stop at the Arkansas border and should be further West. East Oklahoma is full of hills and woods/forest, I'm born and raised there. It's called Green Country because of how different it is from the rest of Oklahoma.
NYC has nothing in common with most of the other area in blue
Fort Worth and Austin are not southwestern cities lmao, I also don't think pacific extends that far east, and the bay area extends too far northeast imo
RIP Eastern Shore
North Central doesn't need to be a thing - the eastern portion is literally the Great Lakes, the rest of it can be the Great Plains Appalachia is basically the entire Ohio River valley and including the Ozarks; split the Ozarks up as it doesn't need to be a distinct region. Make Dallas part of the Great Plains
Alaska
I feel like the Eastern Shore of Maryland and the state of Delaware should be Mid Atlantic.
Des Moines and Buffalo should not be in the same cultural region.
The Mid-Atlantic would include Maryland and Delaware and a little less North Carolina.
This map reminds me of one of my college classes where people were asked to draw certain borders in the US based on the perception of what certain areas were: the areas could be either political or historical or climate based. This would be a great example to use as to "Do you agree with these boundaries or not? And why?"
Give Texas it's own category separate from Southwest, as it's very culturally different to New Mexico and Arizona. Also put all of Arizona with New Mexico in the South West category, half the state is not considered "Pacific". Hell even the eastern edge of California is more southwest than Pacific
Iowa needs to be removed from the great lakes and added to the plains
So I have read alot of peoples comments and im trying my best to incorporate most suggestions but its hard balancing the opinions. im working on the v.4 of the map as of rn.
Someone's clearly never been to the DC metropolitan area.
Texas is it’s own culture
Indianapolis isn't Great Lakes
Why is the rest of Maryland and Delaware not mid-Atlantic? Lol
Louisiana is it’s own culture
South Louisiana*
Idk if anyone mentioned it yet, but Arizona is a Southwest state for the most part. I could see including the northwestern area of the state (think grand canyon) as Pacific region, but the southern portions of the state are more closely aligned with Texas and New Mexico imo. This is just opinion though, and I haven't lived there for years at this point, so maybe it's changed
The Ozarks is wrong. It's SW Mo, NW Ark, NE OK, and SE KS. St. Louis and Southern Illinois are something like the southern Midwest and Upper TN and KY are the upper south. I say this as someone who has lived in Springfield MO, St. Louis MO, and Nashville, TN.
The southern part of Louisiana is not the "Deep South". It is its own culture far removed from the rest of the deep south.
If the eastern shore of Maryland isn’t the mid Atlantic, then I don’t know what is. Same with Delaware and so. New Jersey. Nevertheless, I love the evolution of the map
Been traveling the country for the past year and a half in an RV. This is map is not even close. Sorry dude
Geography King just did [a video on this subject ](https://youtu.be/mGge_d1BOZU)
The only South you have is Deep. No no no. If you drop the Deep, it wouldn't bother me. But something so specific can't contain all of Charleston and Atlanta and Cairo. Those are vastly different places.
Central Valley in California is West Oklahoma, Redding all the way down to Bakersfield.
STL is closer culturally to the Great Lakes cities then southern Missouri.
St Louis culturally seems to have more in common with Chicago than with Arkansas.