Timmy's States

[muon2]

You said the borders are fixed, but you haven't said what the rationale was for the divisions. If they are fixed there is presumably a reason they are that way. I'm hoping you'll share that reason.

[muon2]

Gitchigumi is supposed to unite the mining belt around the Great Lakes. It unites the Finns in the Great Lakes area
It is one of my favorite states on the map.

You should ask Muon, BRTD or another poster of the region if it's sound from a socioeconomic point of view. Personally I have serious doubts, but I might be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The split that I see most easily would be to make one State with only Cook, Du Page and Lake counties, another one with Milwaukee, Madison and the northern Chicago suburbs, and a third one with southwestern MI, northern IN, and the eastern Chicago suburbs. Two-way splits might be a bit trickier, but if you have to choose between putting Chicago with either Milwaukee or Indianapolis I'd say Milwaukee makes more sense.

Since the map started with the statement that the names could change but the borders were fixed I didn't weigh in. The inclusion of the MI LP doesn't fit in Gitchigumi at all. There's really no connection to the bulk of the population in MN. Linking the MI UP with the Twin Cities is fine.

An interesting variant of the state would be to cut off the LP, then run Gitchigumi all the way west across ND to Glasgow MT. That would pick up the whole area that speaks the North Central dialect, often thought of as the Minnesotan accent. If you do go that way, stay away from SD and the I-90 corridor. They don't speak Minnesotan.

[muon2]

Gitchigumi is supposed to unite the mining belt around the Great Lakes. It unites the Finns in the Great Lakes area
It is one of my favorite states on the map.

You should ask Muon, BRTD or another poster of the region if it's sound from a socioeconomic point of view. Personally I have serious doubts, but I might be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The split that I see most easily would be to make one State with only Cook, Du Page and Lake counties, another one with Milwaukee, Madison and the northern Chicago suburbs, and a third one with southwestern MI, northern IN, and the eastern Chicago suburbs. Two-way splits might be a bit trickier, but if you have to choose between putting Chicago with either Milwaukee or Indianapolis I'd say Milwaukee makes more sense.

Since the map started with the statement that the names could change but the borders were fixed I didn't weigh in. The inclusion of the MI LP doesn't fit in Gitchigumi at all. There's really no connection to the bulk of the population in MN. Linking the MI UP with the Twin Cities is fine.

An interesting variant of the state would be to cut off the LP, then run Gitchigumi all the way west across ND to Glasgow MT. That would pick up the whole area that speaks the North Central dialect, often thought of as the Minnesotan accent. If you do go that way, stay away from SD and the I-90 corridor. They don't speak Minnesotan.

Surely at least parts of MI LP have a similar culture? Why not put the Bay City area in the Ohio state with Detroit and have the Chicagoland one gain, say, Muskegon and the Grand Rapids area?

The LP and UP are very different cultures. It's why folks in the LP make fun of the Yoopers. But the Yooper culture does have a lot in common with da Raynch in northern MN.

What interesting is that the LP has a lot more in common with southern, and particularly southeastern WI. That includes settlement, dialect, and economic development. Wrapping a state from Door county south around Chicago and north to Traverse City isn't all that crazy. You basically are picking up the Lake Michigan cities up to where Chicagoans go on vacation. I don't do it in my map on the other thread because I have population limits on my states.

Edit: One other note on Chicagoland and the Lake Michigan area. I wouldn't include anything south of Kankakee in IL or Lake county to South Bend in IN. If you are looking at cultural changes in the Midwest that's a significant divide.

[muon2]

Gitchigumi is supposed to unite the mining belt around the Great Lakes. It unites the Finns in the Great Lakes area
It is one of my favorite states on the map.

You should ask Muon, BRTD or another poster of the region if it's sound from a socioeconomic point of view. Personally I have serious doubts, but I might be wrong.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The split that I see most easily would be to make one State with only Cook, Du Page and Lake counties, another one with Milwaukee, Madison and the northern Chicago suburbs, and a third one with southwestern MI, northern IN, and the eastern Chicago suburbs. Two-way splits might be a bit trickier, but if you have to choose between putting Chicago with either Milwaukee or Indianapolis I'd say Milwaukee makes more sense.

Since the map started with the statement that the names could change but the borders were fixed I didn't weigh in. The inclusion of the MI LP doesn't fit in Gitchigumi at all. There's really no connection to the bulk of the population in MN. Linking the MI UP with the Twin Cities is fine.

An interesting variant of the state would be to cut off the LP, then run Gitchigumi all the way west across ND to Glasgow MT. That would pick up the whole area that speaks the North Central dialect, often thought of as the Minnesotan accent. If you do go that way, stay away from SD and the I-90 corridor. They don't speak Minnesotan.

Surely at least parts of MI LP have a similar culture? Why not put the Bay City area in the Ohio state with Detroit and have the Chicagoland one gain, say, Muskegon and the Grand Rapids area?

The LP and UP are very different cultures. It's why folks in the LP make fun of the Yoopers. But the Yooper culture does have a lot in common with da Raynch in northern MN.

What interesting is that the LP has a lot more in common with southern, and particularly southeastern WI. That includes settlement, dialect, and economic development. Wrapping a state from Door county south around Chicago and north to Traverse City isn't all that crazy. You basically are picking up the Lake Michigan cities up to where Chicagoans go on vacation. I don't do it in my map on the other thread because I have population limits on my states.

I was talking to a Minnesotan on this forum and he said that most of Gitchigumi had the same kind of the consensus oriented politics Minnesota has. Surely he was talking about part of the LP too right?

I'm not so sure of that. Also, your quote suggests that you may have missed my edit.

[muon2]

Well I didn't say Allegheny was completely mountainous; it certainly isn't. However in its current incarnation it is centered on the Appalachian mountains and the culture that predominates there. What I meant was that by adding Metro Cinnicati to it I would be diluting that as well as throwing the area in with other places that collectively do not share in the Lower Ohio River culture that metro Louisville and metro Cincinnati both share.

I wasn't suggesting adding Cincinnati in with Allegheny.

As I understood it, the concern was that Cadillac/Erie was too large.

Currently it has a strong industrial cast from Detroit and Cleveland. On the wast end it reasonably extends out to include Youngstown, Akron, even Canton. In the middle you have Toledo, and out into Michigan you have Flint, Tri Cities, and Lansing. Places like Battle Creek and Kalamazoo and Fort Wayne are a close enough fit. But western Ohio and Columbus don't. They're not industrial.

So I was suggesting making the grey district (Lincoln?) along the National Road from St. Louis through Indianapolis and Columbus.

But that would trim off much of Miami. So I would make Miami snake along the Ohio River, and maybe rename it Ohio (after the river). That would only scoop some of the western part off Allegheny.

I agree with jimrtex about Columbus. I've been there many times. It fits well with the I-70 corridor west to Indy. In my experience Cincinnati could fit going along the Ohio river. However, I'd put it and Dayton with Columbus and Indianapolis. Cinci has a bit more in common with the midlands than with the midsouth.

[muon2]

Well I didn't say Allegheny was completely mountainous; it certainly isn't. However in its current incarnation it is centered on the Appalachian mountains and the culture that predominates there. What I meant was that by adding Metro Cinnicati to it I would be diluting that as well as throwing the area in with other places that collectively do not share in the Lower Ohio River culture that metro Louisville and metro Cincinnati both share.

I wasn't suggesting adding Cincinnati in with Allegheny.

As I understood it, the concern was that Cadillac/Erie was too large.

Currently it has a strong industrial cast from Detroit and Cleveland. On the wast end it reasonably extends out to include Youngstown, Akron, even Canton. In the middle you have Toledo, and out into Michigan you have Flint, Tri Cities, and Lansing. Places like Battle Creek and Kalamazoo and Fort Wayne are a close enough fit. But western Ohio and Columbus don't. They're not industrial.

So I was suggesting making the grey district (Lincoln?) along the National Road from St. Louis through Indianapolis and Columbus.

But that would trim off much of Miami. So I would make Miami snake along the Ohio River, and maybe rename it Ohio (after the river). That would only scoop some of the western part off Allegheny.

I agree with jimrtex about Columbus. I've been there many times. It fits well with the I-70 corridor west to Indy. In my experience Cincinnati could fit going along the Ohio river. However, I'd put it and Dayton with Columbus and Indianapolis. Cinci has a bit more in common with the midlands than with the midsouth.

Why not expand Miami to take Metro Columbus from Cadillac/Erie and Metro Indianapolis from Lincoln and leave Allegheny untouched?

It makes sense to me. It's what I did with my state of Miami.

[muon2]

Why not expand Miami to take Metro Columbus from Cadillac/Erie and Metro Indianapolis from Lincoln and leave Allegheny untouched?

It makes sense to me. It's what I did with my state of Miami.

Is this unqualified support for my idea, qualified support, qualified opposition? What exactly do you imply here?

I certainly support you making the same logical choices I did in drawing alternate states. Since I drew Indy, Cinci and Columbus together, I would support the same in your map.