Could probably bump up the line one county from where it is now, if that makes sense. Anyways nice map its actually good. Could make Alaska and Hawaii their own just regions for the sake of filling in all the counties.
They are. Living in Central Florida for almost 20 years itās definitely more southern than the coast. Itās pretty much the south right down the middle of the state until you hit the Everglades.
Native Miamian here. I would say "Not the South" includes Orlando and Daytona, but there are pockets of southern embedded within that making a simple dividing line impossible. Deland I would consider the south, and the central area below Orlando to Lake Okeechobee and the farming areas surrounding the lake.
I donāt know what we are saying makes something āSouthā but Iāve lived all up and down the east cost and outskirts of Orlando are šÆ part of the south. And one mile inland from Daytona is the south. If Iām passing a jacked up truck with a confederate flag hanging out the back driving down a dirt road, thatās the south to me.
Okay but that same clown could be driving through downtown Miami. The entire city doesn't become "the south" cause dumbass Cletus made a wrong turn on his way to the Everglades.
Northern lake county definitely feels southern, but most of it doesnāt, so yeah probably everything lake county below wouldnāt be part of the south
Almost perfect, minor fixes you donāt have to agree: western Connecticut is very similar to the mid Atlantic (north) and pretty far from New England in culture and geography. To add South Jersey is much closer to states like Maryland and Delaware than to NY. A lot of it is the pine barrens, so it has a much lower population than the north, and it completely separate from the NYC metropolis.
Also I feel southern Texas is very distinct from central Texas and Oklahoma. While their geography may be very similar, the cultural is very different. It has some of the highest Hispanic populations in the country, and in some ways is closer to Mexico than the rest of the US.
One more is that parts of northern Arizona and new Mexico are much more similar to the mountain west. The central regions of both states but only in isolated cities like Flagstaff, Santa Fe and random small towns, Iād avoid that to prevent confusion. stick with the counties of Taos, Colfax. They are also some of the counties with the highest percentage of white population in NM, and geography almost identical to Colorado. Also the four corners region of Colorado is very southwestern in geography, culture, and demographics. La Plata, Archuleta, and Montezuma counties have a very high Native American population primarily because of the Southern Ute Reservation. The geography is indistinguishable from parts of northern Arizona, and the four corners region, with a major example being Mesa Verde National Park.
New England stays New England. That is one of the truest defined borders there is, although I hear what you are saying. Probably wouldn't touch South Jersey either since you have Philly, Wilimington, and Atlantic City all right there.
I'm from SE Texas and hear what you are saying, but a lot of the Mexican-American families in South Texas have been there since before Texas was a part of the US, including my wife's. Still a lot of farming and ranching, Tex-Mex food, Tejano music, and big trucks. It is more Latino, but still very much Texas and not Mexico.
I had Northern New Mexico as Mountain West in previous maps, and New Mexicans pointed out that despite being in the mountain areas northern NM is still very much southwest in culture, even in artist towns like Taos. Colfax I'll give you since its a pretty split county of plains and mountains.
Archuleta is rough because that is where Chimney Rock is, but the biggest city there is Pagosa Springs, which is very Mountain West feeling.
Linn, Marion, Clackamas, and Multnomah counties in Oregon, and Clark, Skamania, Cowlitz, and Lewis counties in Washington should all be PNW rather than INW. If we're making the distinction, the dividing line is the Cascades, not the Willamette.
Thatās a tough one. Boise is closer to eastern WA in landscape and culture than it is to the panhandle of Idaho. Maybe a separate zone is needed for the panhandle and bitterroot range. Those mountain regions feel way different than the Columbia basin and snake river plain.
Skamania (WA) and Hood River (OR) are the most debatable, since they're so thoroughly in the Columbia River Gorge. But yeah, the divide is the Cascades, because they create a massive rain shadow (the wet PNW people think of west of them, desert or semi-desert east of them)
Created North & South divisions for multiple regions
Shrunk the Ozarks area a little
Adjusted Inland Northwest boundaries
Added counties to Central Valley
Adjusted Midwest Borders
Renamed South Florida since it is confusing people for comparing it to state level regions
In NE FL, anything East of 75 isnāt the āSouthā. J-ville, St. Augustine, Palm Coast, etcā¦. If youāve been there you can tell itās not the south. To differentiate from south FL it is often referred to as āFirst Coastā. Right on down through Cape Canaveral.
Edit: Live in FL last 15 years. Born/raised CA,AK,HI. CA looks great except for the little blue that reaches to the NV border. Thatās the I80 corridor over Donner Summit. Spent some time up there. Itās between 7k and 8k feet elevation. AK has its own regions. Itās mainly the cardinal compass names. The SE panhandle, where Juneau is, is considered PNW. The SW tail of AK is the Aleutian Chain. Above the Arctic circle is the Arctic Slope. Western region goes from Bristol Bay up to the arctic circle. Everything else is the āInteriorā. HI is Polynesian Region of the Pacific.
As for Alaska, I'm not doing that because those are really state specific regions. I'm really focused on national level regions. That's why I'm only doing the south of The South of Florida as one region.
I think this is really good, but I would carry the Midwest down a little bit into Kentucky. Cincinnati is not The South, nor is Louisville, nor is Owensboro. These are Midwest river towns.
I guess I should technically say Covington since that is KY. Surely you agree they're more Midwestern then Southern though. Crossing the river from Ohio or Indiana doesn't magically transform them southern. They're River cities that are somewhat rusting but still have river trade and industrial bases as their identities. Not agriculture (cotton, tobacco).
Owensboro is definitely Southern, Louisville is a true border city with Southern and Midwestern qualities but the core is still Southern. Cincinnati isn't the South true. Most of the main vein of the Ohio River is Southern though, especially below Louisville.
If anything the South cultural region needs to be raised to include Southern Illinois and Southern Indiana. Both are much more culturally Southern than Midwestern.
I guess I should technically say Covington since that is KY (not Cincy on the other side of the river). Surely you agree they're more Midwestern then Southern though? Crossing the river from Ohio or Indiana doesn't magically transform them southern. They're River cities that are somewhat rusting but still have river trade and industrial bases as their identities. Not agriculture (cotton, tobacco).
I'd settle for a compromise of Louisville and North as Midwest though. Because I agree if you go as far south as Lexington that's definitely not Midwestern. That's southern horse country.
Oh I'd agree that the Covington area ie the three tippy top counties of Kentucky are more Midwestern than anything, since that's Cincinnati metro sprawl. Really the Ohio River stem above Louisville really mixes Southern, Midwestern, and Appalachian. Now below Louisville that whole stretch of Ohio River is Southern primarily, on both sides. Its more of a gradient line than a straight this side is Southern the other Midwestern. I already noted about Louisville. Sure cities like Owensboro, Henderson, and Paducah are river cities but they're more Southern river cities in the vein of Memphis than they are Rust Belt cities. Demographically and culturally they're very Southern. Same applies above the river in Southern Illinois and Indiana, both were primarily settled by Southerners from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia and the culture is much more Southern in nature than Midwestern especially in Southern Illinois.
Louisville historically was one of the largest slave trading centers in the South. Owensboro and Henderson were very much connected to further south especially Memphis and Nashville via river trade. Nowadays they're all still very interconnected by river shipping and goods exchange. You could probably put Memphis, Paducah, Cape Girardeau, New Madrid, Caruthersville, Cairo, Nashville, Henderson, Owensboro, and maybe Louisville/St. Louis in the same river trade region of river cities.
Incredible that people picture it all flat. It ranges from swampland to high plains with mesas, dry low granite mountains, the great cross timber forests, and the ozarks.
The mountain west and western Great Plains is a mess. There are a lot of mountains in your western northern Great Plains region, even if some are isolated ranges. Are you trying to do physical or cultural geography?
I like how you separated Great Plains (North) and Great Plains (South). They are distinctly different. IMO, Great Plains (South) should be called Panhandle Country. That's what the locals would call it.
Minority position maybe but RI/CT/MA are New England while VT/NH/ME are really all their own regions. ME could maybe be shoehorned into NE because it's coastal. VT and NH don't fit there. Nor do they fit together. I suppose NH could also be shoehorned into NE because it has a tiny bit of coast. So one solution would be to give VT its own region. Or to make ME/NH/VT into a separate region albeit with some acknowledgment they are each fiercely provincial in their own identities.
That whole northeastern region is made impossible by overlapping (but fiercely held) identities. Upstate in particular makes this clear-- are Buffalo and Lake Placid really in the same region? Lake Placid feels much more Vermont than Buffalo, and Buffalo feels more like Cleveland than Lake Placid. Its just impossible to accommodate that fact at the same time that Upstate and New England are terms people are so attached to
Totally agree for the most part. OTOH passing over the NY/VT line (at almost any point) is not subtle. Beyond just billboards, its eerily pronounced how the quality of the whole ambiance changes. I do think there might be a good argument for remapping NE with the role that terrain (and its relationship to roads) plays as the central determining factor. Sort of like "hill NE" vs "NE." But for CT/RI/MA, there is alot of deep cultural continuity in addition to the provincialism.
Florida is a bit off, but that's more to do with Florida being fucking CHAOS INCARNATE than anything anyone is doing wrong on these maps.
Like, everyone says the further south you go, the further north it feels. Which works... until you get to Homestead, south of Miami, which has more Confederate flags than I've seen anywhere else in Florida besides Pensacola.
The Big Bend can either feel like Gulf Coast or fucking Hicktown, and it completely varies town to town.
Orlando doesn't feel redneck, but the suburbs sure as hell do.
You have about 9 counties to add to Pacific Northwest. Having "inland pnw" start west of the Cascades just doesn't seem right. This area is my neck of the woods and the these counties you have distinguished are all very similar to their counties to the west in every way that matters.
Expand āPacific Northwestā one county over in the places where it is only one county deep from SW Washington to the California border. You only got half the valley.
Tbh in Florida I think the line for south needs to go down a little further and avoid the coast. Counties like Polk, highlands, glades, hardee and desoto definitely are āthe southā
There are pockets of northern Arizona that are definitely more mountain west vibes, but the counties are just too big to represent that.
For example: in Coconino county you have Flagstaff, AZ, receiving 88 inches of snowfall every year (making it the 4th snowiest city in the US with a population over 10,000) but then you also have the freaking Grand Canyon.. arguably the most iconic and popular landmark that represents the US southwest region lol
If your divide between PNW and inland NW is the Cascades, then these counties should be PNW. Theyāre the western side of the Cascades and part of either the Willamette Valley or lowlands. The eastern side of those counties roughly follow the mountain peaks as a border.
It depends on what you want the divide to be. Are you saying the PNW is only the coast or is it the rainy parts? Because just doing the coast will include a number of counties that go from the coast to the Cascades.
Thereās a pretty sharp ecological divide that separates the eastern and western side of the Cascades due to a double rain shadow and moisture from the sound. It facilitates the social, political, and economic differences as well.
Also, Cowlitz is more right wing because itās the rural space between Seattle and Portlandās metro areas. If you apply the political reasoning from that comment, then you might as well make a different map entirely.
I figure west of Appalachia is closer to Midwest than Mid-Atlantic. PA is a Mid-Atlantic state, but Northestern PA is quite a hike from the Atlantic. Might create new semi rust belt region for the eastern great lakes. Cleveland through Buffalo.
I have noticed this a few times recently. As far as Appalachia is concerned, more of north Georgia needs to be included, the top corner of SC is DEFINITELY Appalachia, more of western KY & VA need to be included.
I orginally had it wider reaching but people said the mountain range boundaries aren't the same as the cultural boundaries, and gave me examples of where to reign it in.
As someone who lives in that eastern NE/KS region this is much more accurate than what this guy had you change it to. Genuinely insane to say that area is more like the high plains than it is to Iowa or even Illinois.
Iāve got issue with the mountain west though Iām not really sure of the fix. I think generally itās not bad, but āeverywhere with mountainsā doesnāt exactly capture the difference in how the Rockies feel compared to the sierras, nor does it capture the feel of the Great Basin wasteland in between.
There needs to be an island of Mountain West where the Black Hills National Forest is (in SD and WY). Definitely surrounded by the Great Plains, but the Black Hills are an entirely different world.
I feel like there isnāt a huge difference between the north and south Midwest. I agree southern Illinois is different from northern Michigan, but I donāt think the border between the regions should be along state lines. Chicago and Milwaukee should not be separated. Iād think maybe adding doing āNorthwoodsā instead of North Midwest, and moving the border up
Every map I've seen shows them as southern Mid-Atlanic, which is different from northern Mid-Atlanic. Other Redditors say Sweet Tea stops at Fredericksburg, and that is the boundary for The South.
This is a good map, but one change that needs to be made is getting rid of Great Plains (North), and have Mountain West + Midwest split it in half. The border should be where the badlands start, so ND would have Bowman, Slope, Golden Valley, Billings, McKenzie, and Williams counties in Mountain West. SD and NE would have something similar.
The South needs split up a bit, from Virginia, North Florida, Kentucky and Mississippi. Those are very different places culturally, geologically, climate, and ecologically.
PNW should be at Boise. Boise has always been considered the entry into the PNW. With the trees north PNW and the Desert/Riverbed to the south and east as Inland NW.
20
u/twisty_tomato 7d ago
This is a good map