Cleveland: Midwest or Northeastern/East Coast? (Columbus, Cincinnati: neighborhoods, living in, cost)

[Min-Chi-Cbus]

Originally Posted by Cleverfield

Just drove from Cleveland to Western PA and back. I definitely think that Cleveland is a midwest city, probably the first city in the midwest. It just doesn't have the same vibe as even cities on the far Western edge of PA. To me the church style is one of the defining differences. Northeast has more pointy wooden bell towers and steeples, Midwest has a lot of stone, brick and metal in their curches. They are more Eastern European in styling than New England churches, which are more Western European IMO. On a side note, my girfriend from Philly said that Cleveland was definitely not Midwest. We were going to college in Minnesota at the time, so that might have had something to do with it.

Surprisingly the first city in the Midwest is probably St. Louis (or maybe Cincy).

I'm not sure how going to college in Minnesota makes Cleveland any more or less Eastern......I'm from Minnesota and Cleveland feels distinctly Midwestern to me, and not all that different from Minneapolis-St. Paul (just older).

[nei]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Surprisingly the first city in the Midwest is probably St. Louis (or maybe Cincy).

Cleveland is not really any older than San Francisco, though Cleveland grew a bit faster with industrialization in the first few decades of the 20th century while San Francisco's growth slowed from the quake. Adding adjacent cities and suburbs, San Francisco is roughly the same as San Francisco has smaller city limits.

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Then you'd have to consider Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Louis, and Detroit "Northeastern" as well.

When it comes down to brass tax Cleveland sits in Ohio, which rests in the Midwest region, according to just about any map you'll find. I realize it's a bit of a blend, but it's still Midwestern.

Similarly, Denver is not Midwestern, Detroit is not Canadian, and Pittsburgh is not Midwestern (because it's in PA, which is Northeastern. If it was also in Ohio, it'd be Midwestern).

Yes, yes, yes, and yes! I get tired of these endless threads (sometimes on city forums) about is Pittsburgh midwestern, is Denver midwestern, yada, yada, yada where people argue these POV vehemently.

[natininja]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Surprisingly the first city in the Midwest is probably St. Louis (or maybe Cincy).

I'm not sure how going to college in Minnesota makes Cleveland any more or less Eastern......I'm from Minnesota and Cleveland feels distinctly Midwestern to me, and not all that different from Minneapolis-St. Paul (just older).

"Cincinnati was the first major city of the Midwest, making the top 20 list in 1820. By 1890 there were 9 midwestern cities in the top 20."
Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

I love this site. nei just linked to it, but I've had it bookmarked for a while. So very many stories told on that graph.

Cincinnati was a few decades ahead of St. Louis.

[gwillyfromphilly]

It's definitely a Mid-Western city but it does have some similarities with Pittsburgh and Buffalo.

[Cleverfield]

Originally Posted by Min-Chi-Cbus

Surprisingly the first city in the Midwest is probably St. Louis (or maybe Cincy).

I'm not sure how going to college in Minnesota makes Cleveland any more or less Eastern......I'm from Minnesota and Cleveland feels distinctly Midwestern to me, and not all that different from Minneapolis-St. Paul (just older).

I meant the first city in the midwest geographically as you go west from the East. And the upper midwest has a distinctly different feel to it than the lower Midwest. I think that might have played into her reasons for saying that, because Cleveland more closely resembled East Coast cities than it did upper midwest cities.

[DSS94]

As a former Clevelander, I agree that the Great Lakes is a distinct region.

[slengel]

Originally Posted by natininja

"Cincinnati was the first major city of the Midwest, making the top 20 list in 1820. By 1890 there were 9 midwestern cities in the top 20."
Historical Metropolitan Populations of the United States - Peakbagger.com

I love this site. nei just linked to it, but I've had it bookmarked for a while. So very many stories told on that graph.

Cincinnati was a few decades ahead of St. Louis.

cincinnati grew larger earlier than st. louis, but st. louis was founded earlier than cincinnati (1764).

[natininja]

IMO the population boom is what's relevant. Being founded does not make a settlement a city. And time of being incorporated is a poor measurement, too, if you look at the dates and statistics. (According to Wikipedia, Cincinnati was incorporated as a city in 1819, and had 9,642 population in 1820. St. Louis was incorporated as a city in 1822, with a population of 1,600 in 1810 and 4,977 in 1830. Meaning when Cincy became a city, it had more than twice the population STL had when it became a city.)

If you want to be really technical about it, Cincinnati was a "city" first (1819 vs. 1822). But I think population boom makes more sense, which also shows Cincinnati coming first (and by a more significant period of time than 3 years).

Cleveland was founded in 1796, incorporated as a city in 1836.

[Ninetails]

In my opinion Cleveland identifies
more with the Northeast/ east coast
states than it does Midwest. Things
don't truly feel Midwest until one goes
past central Ohio.

So basically Cleveland is the furthest west
the East coast extends.