3 ms·
> Skyscrapers not just generalized building, which are quite rare in the mid-west. If you ignore cities like: Chicago, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit
by ericmay 5y ago
> Skyscrapers not just generalized building, which are quite rare in the mid-west.
If you ignore cities like: Chicago, Columbus, Cleveland, Cincinnati, Detroit, Indianapolis, Kansas City, St. Louis, Minneapolis, etc.
So no not really quite rare by any measure. And if you want to take a look at economic output as well, Illinois (5) and Ohio(7) are heavy-hitters, with states like Michigan(14) and Indiana(17) rounding out the top 20 and Minnesota(19), Missouri(22), and Wisconsin(21) not far behind.
As an aside (not targeted toward you) we gotta stop the “Midwest” as a geographic representation. It makes no sense. Make it Great Plains and Great Lakes after the major geographic features of the regions and what uniquely define them.
- syshum 5y agoWhen ever possible I try to ignore cities... I firmly believe high population density is the root of most societal problems. That aside, I never said there were no skyscrpers I said they were rare compared to area's like NYC... Chicago is probably the closest, but a skyscraper is generally defined as building over 100m, indy has like 9 of them over a pretty large foot print, so ...
- ericmay 5y agoI agree with you w.r.t density. Skyscrapers are on the opposite end of the spectrum from suburbs. Probably better overall, but not great. Medium-density, mixed-use development is the sweet spot and how farming humans eventually lived.
- scruple 5y agoAn aside to your aside. I had quite an argument once with a man, who I learned after the fact was autistic (I wouldn't have engaged him on this point if I had known...), that was from New York City who was beyond adamant that Ohio, where I grew up, couldn't possibly be in the "Midwest" because it's not near the literal geographic center of the country. I eventually had to walk away from the guy because he would not let it go.
- Izkata 5y agoOn that note, why isn't it called the Mideast?
- rsj_hn 5y agoJust historical usage, as the nation settled on the East coast and headed West.
- syshum 5y agoHistorically "the west" referred to west of the Mississippi river. "Midwest" was the Territories mid way between the eastern colonies and the western plains west of the Mississippi
- bart_spoon 5y agoBecause it used to be the western frontier, with everything west being Spain/Mexico/France.
- bee_rider 5y agoThat seems like the opposite of what I'd expect. As an unrepentant coastal elite, I know that the Midwest starts in upstate NY and goes to... uh, IDK, eastern Oregon or something?
- bart_spoon 5y agoIt stops at Montana. Anything west of the Dakotas, Nebraska, or Kansas is either the “West”, “Mountain West”, or “Southwest”.
- AnimalMuppet 5y agoThere are two "lines". One is the hundredth meridian. It's important because west of there, there's much less rain. (The hundredth meridian lines up pretty closely with the western edge of the Gulf of Mexico, meaning that moist air from there doesn't lead to rain west of that line.) Also, west of (approximately) there, the elevation rises to above 2000 feet. Agriculture is much more limited by water west of this line. The other line is the mountains. Draw it through Denver. West of that line, you are definitely in "the West". It's the western third of the country. Between Denver and the hundredth meridian? Maybe call it the "Great Plains".
- SamPatt 5y agoEven smaller cities like Grand Rapids have skyscrapers. They're not rare in the Midwest at all. I agree that Great Lakes and Great Plains are good to distinguish. The Great Lakes has a long history of industrial development, you can't lump in Chicago, Cleveland, Milwaukee, and Detroit along with vast expanses of farm land.