Thoughts on these American culture zones

[Mr. Illini]

So I spent a good amount of time today procrastinating making this map. I have seen that one with the different zones ("Yankeedom," "Midlands," etc.) many times and I really dislike it, so I wanted to make my own. These are culture zones that share a similar culture. Although there are differences among them, these are general zones (and even more specific than the one I have seen previously). Here's what I came up with. There are a couple of subtle humors in there, some more subtle than others.



What I struggled with the most is, ironically, my own backyard, the upper Midwest. Chicago really could be its own culture zone, as it does not fit well with Detroit or Cleveland nor Iowa. The same goes with MPLS/St. Paul. I put it with Southern Wisconsin and the Twin Cities, representing a culture zone ("Interior Coast") that separated itself in development in terms of not bingeing on manufacturing, which has led to lower affluence and development in other Midwestern cities as jobs have gone overseas. Parts of "The Union" and "Progress" overlap, but I wouldn't feel comfortable grouping the Quad Cities with the Upper Penninsula, so I separated them.

Let me know what you think.

[TDAS04]

Pretty interesting.

I would merge Rocky with Interior West, but then separate Mormonland (Utah and SE Idaho) into its own culture zone.

[Mr. Smith]

All the Central Valley counties and Sierra counties of California are NOT hipster-ie in the slightest (sans the island of Alpine county). No way is a county with a place like Stockton hipstery.

Only Yolo is a a hipster Central Valley county in any way. The rest of them may as well be Texas or Applachia transported westward.

Arizona is totally "Interior West" as is the west half of New Mexico

Coastal South needs to cross over to Georgia with Savannah.

"Interior Coast" needs Gary,Indiana

[Lief 🗽]

Why is Travis County in the New York culture zone?

[Snowstalker Mk. II]

As someone who lives in Central PA...no.

[bedstuy]

New York zone:  Take out some of the western counties (western NY, Eastern PA) and add more of CT.  Connecticut is connected to NYC via Amtrak and Metro North so it's more a part of New York.  Certainly add New Haven to the New York zone.

Texas:  Yikes.  Arizona and Western NM are not a part of the Texas culture.  Texas is the South.  People talk with a southern accent and it's a historical part of the slave-holding South.  Arizona and NM are the Southwest.  I would have a zone that's the Southwest which include all of Arizona and some/all of New Mexico, and parts of Utah, Nevada, and Colorado. 

[Lief 🗽]

East Texas and the Coastal Bend are the South. The rest of Texas is not. I agree that it's weird to call the Southwest region "Texas" though...

[Mr. Illini]

All the Central Valley counties and Sierra counties of California are NOT hipster-ie in the slightest (sans the island of Alpine county). No way is a county with a place like Stockton hipstery.

Only Yolo is a a hipster Central Valley county in any way. The rest of them may as well be Texas or Applachia transported westward.

Yeah, I wanted to grab Mono and Alpine Counties out there for all of the nature-seekers moving east. Could have gone either way.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Still strike me as largely southwestern culturally, as much of Texas does.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a resident of this area, I firmly disagree. While Gary is certainly in the Chicago metro area, it acts far more like Detroit or Cleveland than it does Chicago or Minneapolis.

[Mr. Illini]

Why is Travis County in the New York culture zone?

That was me humoring myself.

[Lief 🗽]

Why is Travis County in the New York culture zone?

That was me humoring myself.

It would make more sense in the Hipsterie region, if anything. But we Austinites, despite any political differences, are proud Texans.

[Panda Express]

Several places in Colorado, particularly Boulder, Denver and Laramie counties, should be in "Hipsteria"

[bedstuy]

East Texas and the Coastal Bend are the South. The rest of Texas is not. I agree that it's weird to call the Southwest region "Texas" though...

You definitely can't lump them all under the headline Texas.  Maybe it's best to break it up into three regions. 
1. "The Border": Yuma, Nogales, Douglas, Las Cruces, El Paso, McAllen, Laredo, etc.  Maybe include San Antonio in that area.

2. Lubbock, Abilene, Odessa, Amarillo, "West Texas" lumped in with Oklahoma.

3. The rest of Texas

[Mr. Illini]

Several places in Colorado, particularly Boulder, Denver and Laramie counties, should be in "Hipsteria"

I was not prepared to do discontinuities, especially of that magnitude.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Coastal South needs to cross over to Georgia with Savannah.

Charleston and Savannah definitely need to be in the same region, but I'm not certain they need to be mixed in with any other metro areas.  Also, you need to carve off a Gulf Coast region and a New South region, with the latter centered on the I-85 corridor from Atlanta to Richmond.

[Mr. Smith]

@Illini: Look at Antonio's map for where the divide between "Pacific" and "California" is and that is where "Hipster" vs "Interior West". That's the best reference point you can get.

[muon2]

East Texas and the Coastal Bend are the South. The rest of Texas is not. I agree that it's weird to call the Southwest region "Texas" though...

I agree, and I thought that Antonio's three way split of TX was pretty reasonable. Culturally I'd take his Rio Grande piece and add NM and AZ from Albuerquerque and Phoenix south (you could argue for it into southern CO. Instead of calling it Texas, call it Tejas or El Norte. I have found DFW and West TX to be more like OK (and parts of the southern plains) than either Dixie or the Tejano areas. Northern AZ is definitely part of the Interior West and different from AZ south of the Rim.

[muon2]

I don't quite understand the Interior Coast. Progress and Union should cover most of what's northeast of Chicago; all of rural Wisconsin and Minnesota that's there, while bring the Plains to the outer counties of the Twin Cities (but not having been there, I could be wrong on that). Chicago really should be it's own thing.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

As a resident of this area, I firmly disagree. While Gary is certainly in the Chicago metro area, it acts far more like Detroit or Cleveland than it does Chicago or Minneapolis.

There is far more to Lake County than Gary (especially considering it's not even the largest city anymore; that would be Hammond, which is basically a continuation of the southeastern most neighborhoods of Chicago). It should definitely be included.

Also, I'd extend Rocky down further and include New Mexico, and Upper South a bit more into Illinois and Indiana, as well as Kansas and Oklahoma.

Also, why is Vegas part of Texas?

Other than these little nitpicks and Chicago being it's own thing, the map looks good.

As a long time resident of Chicagoland who grew up in the Twin Cities I think the upper Midwest is overthought here. It's probably due to the author's home and a greater sense of subdivision near home than in other regions of the US. Chicagoland is pretty similar to the other Rust Belt metro areas and perhaps extends up to Milwaukee, though many have argued that it can be seen as a unique region anchored by its global city, like NYC. The Progress, Union and Interior coast (less an extended Chicagoland) could then easily be lumped together.

BTW, if a board mod wants to move this to Political Geography, I'm fine with that. There are similar threads on PG&D stretching back to the early Atlas.

[memphis]

There's no real fair way to make discrete zones like this. It's not how life works. Reality is far more complicated and individual counties, especially in major metro areas, are incredibly diverse. Some sort of nod to ethnic differences needs to be implicit.

[Sol]

Charlotte is not a deep south city, whereas most of eastern NC is not unlike South Georgia or Alabama.

[angus]

Let me know what you think.

I think it depends upon how you define culture, and how many regions you're willing to have.  Mainers are very different than Bostonians, for example.  

PBS did something called patchwork nation.  You can view it here.  It considers politics, economics, lifestyle, and nature and creates maps based on these criteria.  I don't think it tries to defines cultural regions, but you might use it to do that.  It does define 12 different types of communities based on its criteria and labels each county in the USA with one of these 12 community types.  I live in a Service Worker Center, for example.  You live in a Campus and Career center.

If you're really determined to do continuous regions, then here are a couple of model mapping schemes created by various people, one of which I posted on this forum at least a decade ago.  

[Mr. Illini]

There's no real fair way to make discrete zones like this. It's not how life works. Reality is far more complicated and individual counties, especially in major metro areas, are incredibly diverse. Some sort of nod to ethnic differences needs to be implicit.

But there are different levels of generalization that are fair to make when attempting something like this. On can recognize regional differences while also recognizing similarities.

[King]

Oklahoma and North Texas should be absorbed into the Plains.

[Ban my account ffs!]

The Twin Cities operate as the de facto capital of the Union, Progress, and the northern part of the plains...but have little in common with Milwaukee or Chicago.