AN63093's Definitive Map of US Regions

[Tintrlvr]

I take it DC/Maryland/NOVA are put together with NY/NJ/PA (the Census Bureau's Mid-Atlantic) because you don't want to place the former in the South and you want to separate the latter from New England.   But the two "mid-Atlantics" seem very different to me.  NY/NJ/PA are filled with working class white ethnics and ethnic enclaves and have much older housing stock.  DC/MD/NOVA are filled with transplants, grew rapidly after WWII and is much "newer", there is no visible white ethnic presence, and while some say they're no longer "really" Southern they are historically Southern and feels like more of a transition from North to South.  

Baltimore definitely fits into the NY/NJ/PA mold. Agree that the DC metro is different and in some ways is most like a mash-up of Atlanta and Denver or Seattle.

[AN63093]

K of Kensington

Yes, that's basically right, but I put significantly more thought into it than you may realize.  First, NY/NJ/PA has to be separated from New England.  NE is a very distinct region of the US (arguably the most distinct) and no definition of it throughout US history has ever included anything west of CT.  It would be like saying Vermont is part of Canada. That border west of CT/MA is the closest thing to a "hard border" of any region in the US.

I'm aware of where the Census draws regions, but I don't consider them very helpful for two reasons- a) it's clear that not a lot of thought went into it since some states are obviously just 'tacked on' to where it was convenient, and b) it puts too much emphasis on history.  As I explained in my intro, historical regions are absolutely irrelevant unless it says something about where a state belongs today.  I'm drawing a map of US regions today, not what they were during the Civil War.  100 years ago, the South Bronx was a majority Jewish and Irish.  Today, it is 58% Hispanic and 39% Black.  You're more likely to find a Jew in a southern baptist church than you are in the South Bronx.  So should it go on a map of Jewish enclaves of the US?  See where I'm going with this?

If you wiki "Mid-Atlantic," you'll notice that over time (and depending on the federal agency), it has had a wide variety of definitions.  A map from 1897 has VA in the Mid Atlantic and some other maps go as far down as NC (I wouldn't go that far).

Now that being said, there is a dividing line between what I would call the "Chesapeake Bay" region, and the "classic" Mid-Atlantic.  The line would be somewhere around the Delaware Memorial Bridge.  If I was doing a map of sub-regions, take everything south of that line and make it a Chesapeake sub-region.

The reason I didn't separate it like that on my map is two fold- first, the separate sub-regions would be too small to be a "proper" region.  Second, over the past 50 years, these two sub-regions have become blended together to a sufficient enough degree that it is now really just one urban corridor.  I grew up in NY and I know this area of the country better than anywhere else in the US.  You can get on I-95 up in Fairfield County, CT, drive south, and feel like you've never really left a metro area until you get south of Richmond, VA.  I'm not saying every section in that corridor is exactly the same, but decades of people moving around back-and-forth in it, suburban growth, urban sprawl, commuting patterns, the Acela train (only high speed rail in the US, connecting DC to NY) and so on have practically turned this "northeast corridor" into one giant metro area.

In regards to some of your other points-

Yes, NY/NJ/PA once had "working class white ethnics" concentrated in certain areas.. but, quite frankly, your depiction is about 60+ years out of date.  There are still a couple areas left, but mostly these groups have dispersed throughout the country.  Take Manhattan- there are zero "white ethnic" neighborhoods left.  Little Italy is basically two restaurants on one block, but otherwise has been completed swallowed up by Chinatown.

In regards to your point about housing stock, that really isn't true.  The housing stock in NYC isn't significantly older than DC or Baltimore.  NYC is an older city than DC, but there is basically no buildings left in it from the 1700s.  Rather, both have lots of rowhouses/brownstones that were all built around the same time.  Do a google image search for "baltimore rowhouses."  This is a very characteristic style of housing that you only see in DC, Baltimore, Philly and a little in Virginia.

What you're thinking about are probably those new luxury condo style developments in Northern Virginia.. places like Reston or Herndon, VA, or high-rises in Arlington.  But that does not make up the entire housing stock of the metro area.

But yes, you would be right that VA/MD/DC has its own flavor compared to a place like NY.  I guess you could say it is a bit of a "transition" from North to South, but it would be a mistake to place these areas in the "true" South for lots of reasons.  The area all around the Chesapeake Bay (starting up by the Delaware River, including Baltimore, southern MD, DC, northern VA, and going down to the Hampton Roads) has a very separate and distinct culture.  For one, it's heavily influenced by the bay and maritime culture.  One example, throughout the area there are crab houses with large picnic tables, piles of crabs, buckets of beer, and Old Bay seasoning on the table.  This is a very MD/VA Mid-Atlantic "thing" and you don't see it anywhere else in the country.  I have never seen Old Bay frequently used south of Norfolk, or north of Baltimore.  

Other examples would include the influence of the Ports (such as in Baltimore or Norfolk), which are some of the largest in the US and the two busiest on the East Coast (after NY), or the many Navy bases in the region, and so on.  Historically, this region also developed differently than the rest of the South- the area around eastern VA and southern MD were settled by aristocrats (some of which were some of the only US colonists that actually had a link back to English nobility) who created large estates modeled after country estates in places like Yorkshire England.  This is a very different demographic than people who eventually settled in places like Tennessee.  Now I know I said history doesn't necessarily matter, but in this case the influence lasts to today- this area does not have much of the "Appalachian" type culture that is often associated with the South, but much more of a coastal/maritime culture which is actually not so common in the South outside of a few areas.

Once you go west on I-64 and pass around Charlottesville or so, and head into the Shenandoah Valley, that's when you start getting less of the "Chesapeake" culture and more of that "Appalachian" culture (and as such, you'll notice that's where I draw the boundary between Mid-Atlantic and Upper South on my map).  If you look at my "DC region" detail map from the last page... I chose each and every one of those counties deliberately and would be happy to answer further questions about them.

Hopefully this helps explain a little more why I drew the boundaries where they are for the Mid-Atlantic.

[Epaminondas]

The population gap between your new states seems considerable.

Regarding the "Senate" in this alternative Congress, would I correct in counting 5 strong Gop States and 5 Dem States, with Rust Belt uncertain?

[SInNYC]

K of Kensington

Yes, that's basically right, but I put significantly more thought into it than you may realize.  First, NY/NJ/PA has to be separated from New England.  NE is a very distinct region of the US (arguably the most distinct) and no definition of it throughout US history has ever included anything west of CT.  It would be like saying Vermont is part of Canada. That border west of CT/MA is the closest thing to a "hard border" of any region in the US.

There are a few who consider NYS as New England (more so 40 years back when upstate had more people), though I dont agree with them.

A significant number of people consider NY east of the Hudson and outside NYC suburbs as New England. I tend to agree with them, as it just feels New Englandish there, while west of Hudson feels more like the rust belt with a few patches of Appalachia thrown in. Actually, even some of the leafy parts of northern Bronx feel New Englandish, though few know those parts. So, I consider the Hudson (or a few miles west, to include Hudson Valley towns) a better line than the state boundaries.

[AN63093]

Near the regional boundaries you're always going to have some characteristics of neighboring regions.  While I'm sympathetic to your point, particularly since those portions of upstate were largely settled by those who descended from or originated out of the Massachusetts Bay Colony (as opposed to New Netherland), the reason I draw the boundary at NY/VT, is because I'm aware of no map, definition, etc., from any source whatsoever, that has ever included NY in New England.  Except for when NY was briefly part of the Dominion of New England, but you have to go back all the way to 1689 for that.