Garreau argues that North America can be divided into nine regions, or "nations", which have distinctive economic and cultural differences. He argues that conventional national and state borders are largely artificial and irrelevant, and that his "nations" provide a more accurate way of understanding the true nature of North American society. Paul Meartz of Mayville State University called it "a classic text on the current regionalization of North America".

According to this man, so called state and international borders are completely irrelevant due to the vast cultural and economic (trade) features. Which one has been the most influential/successful according to you? And do you agree with his breakdown?

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7484/90286643.png

I guess I live in the capital of the Foundary. Granted, I wouldn't necessarily call New York City a part of the "Foundary".

I read this book ages ago...and I found it fairly relevant. New York and DC I believe were considered exceptions...as they are distinct cultures of their own.
I do know that Seattle (where I live) has way more in common with Vancouver, Portland and SF, the say..Spokane which is the same state. And Vancouver I know has more in common with Seattle than Toronto, culturally speaking.
It's def. worth a read.

I read this book ages ago...and I found it fairly relevant. New York and DC I believe were considered exceptions...as they are distinct cultures of their own.
I do know that Seattle (where I live) has way more in common with Vancouver, Portland and SF, the say..Spokane which is the same state. And Vancouver I know has more in common with Seattle than Toronto, culturally speaking.
It's def. worth a read.

There are some exceptions to this philosophy:

Garreau also discussed several areas that he termed "aberrations":

* Washington, D.C. and its surrounding area, specifically referring to the area "inside the Beltway".
* Manhattan south of Harlem (he placed Harlem, and by extension the Manhattan neighborhoods to its north, clearly within The Foundry).
* Hawaii, which he considered an Asian aberration as much as a North American aberration.
* Northern Alaska, despite its categorization on the front cover as part of the Empty Quarter, was listed in the aberrations section of book.
* Although not included in the "Aberrations" chapter of his book, Southern West Virginia was named by Garreau as a region which had significant aspects of both Dixie (Appalachian geography and historical ties to Virginia) and The Foundry (coal-based and unionized economy closely tied to the fortunes of the Rust Belt), and could be placed in either nation. Garreau's conclusion about the region was "In good times, southeastern West Virginia can be considered an isolated part of the Foundry. In bad times, it is an isolated part of Dixie." Garreau placed the northern half of the state in The Foundry.

oops...i put mexamerica, but according 2 the map....im dixie...sorry

Meh, you could just as easily break some cities into 100+ city-states/micronations, like Los Angeles in Snow Crash.

...

I think a "Megalopolis" region would be more accurate...from Boston to Washington DC.

Southern New England is just too industrialized and dense to be considered in the same region as places like Maine or Labrador, and arguably our connections with the cities (NYC, etc) are much stronger than with the areas to the north...but I don't believe at the same time that we could be in the same region as the Great Lakes cities to the west of us.

I read this book back in the '80s. At the time it seemed like a fairly accurate cultural breakdown of North America. Since then North America has changed, culture has atomized and recongealed in new ways driven by immigration, emigration, economics, generational turnover and the way that technology has changed the impact of geography. It is probably much less relevant now than it was then.

Islands for me!

I think the urban/rural dichotomy in America is much more distinguishable than regions as a whole. The lines are not clear cut so clear cut. Cities tend to be vastly different from their hinterlands. That is certainly true for St. Louis at least.

If you think Alaska belongs to anyone other than Seattle, all I can say is keep dreamin. And not just Anchorage and Juneau. The crab ships are from Seattle, the oil fields are supplied with barges from Seattle, the airline routes are from Seattle, the cultural connections are from Seattle (heavy on 18-year-olds and retirees moving down). This year we even took over the lead in cruise passengers, vs. Vancouver. Some of this is "legacy" from the Klondike Gold Rush days, but it's still true.

I live in the capital of The Islands. :)

I would put most of Texas including Dallas and Houston with Mexamerica except for the panhandle which is righfully in the Breadbasket. This due in part to migration from Mexico that has occured over the last decades.

If the book was written in the 80's, I can imagine that the DC area aberration is probably a bit bigger than it used to be.

I would put most of Texas including Dallas and Houston with Mexamerica except for the panhandle which is righfully in the Breadbasket. This due in part to migration from Mexico that has occured over the last decades.

I agree, that is why i put mexamerica. but outside these MSA's or even CSA's i would agree its dixie.

According to this man, so called state and international borders are completely irrelevant due to the vast cultural and economic (trade) features. Which one has been the most influential/successful according to you? And do you agree with his breakdown?

http://img21.imageshack.us/img21/7484/90286643.png


Yea, Gareau's book was one of the more interesting books about North American regions as they were in the 1980s.

More interesting IMO than than Edge City, Gareau's follow-up book

Many of the regional breakdowns still make a lot of sense today.

But the foundries are mostly gone, replaced by rustbelt (Detroit, Cleveland, Pittsburgh, Buffalo, etc.) or resurgent cities (Chicago, Toronto, Minneapolis, Columbus, etc.)

I agree, that is why i put mexamerica. but outside these MSA's or even CSA's i would agree its dixie.

I think Dixie goes to far into Texas. It should stop as soon as you pass Beaumont in South Texas and Tyler in Northeast Texas. Houston is not in anyway part of Dixie. Neither is NOVA in Virginia.

Also, I would put the 'Foundry' a bit farther west in Michigan's upper peninsula (to include the iron mines) and shift the rest of Da YuPee, far northern Wisconsin (north of about WI 64), nordern Minnesota, southeast Manitoba and those parts of Ontario shown as 'Breadbasket' from 'Breadbasket' to 'Empty Quarter'. Those areas are almost entirely forested with relatively little food-growing agriculture.

Mike

NOVA is as Dixie as any other ugly subburd in the south.

Interesting thesis, but it has holes.

- The main problem I have with this is that there are also national cultural differences that cross the US/Canadian/Mexican borders. I'd say both concepts are valid, but you can't entirely count either one out.

- I think Chicago should be in the breadbasket. I would not count Detroit as the dominant city in the foundry, but I wouldn't replace it either. NYC is an aberration (forget splitting up Manhattan... the whole metro area is it's own force, that gravitates to Manhattan... correct me if I'm wrong). I would also include Toronto as an aberration, as it's economy rose above the manufacturing ties that bind the foundry decades ago. Even within Ontario Toronto has it's own separate identity.

- Any part of Northern Ontario has no relation to the word 'breadbasket'; the fact that this included makes me think this guys talking out of his ass.

- The 'Empty Quarter'? Maybe for alot of the north, but he's got his lines all wrong. At least in Canada, our breadbasket goes from Manitoba to the Rockies, and Alberta is anything but 'empty', in terms of politics and economy.

- How does LA dominate Mexico? I see obvious connections, but Mexico City takes that role. I'd make California it's own entity, or include it with the entire west coast, and toss New Mexico and Arizona with Texas? Perhaps Nevada is an aberration on it's own.

- I'd possibly nominate Montreal as an aberration as well... it's certainly politically different than the rest of Quebec.

For NYC, I'd keep Westchester a part of the aberration area, but outside of that, Putnam and Rockland Counties, I'd put in the foundry pretty easily.

According to this map, I live in the "foundry", but I would prefer the classification "breadbasket" instead.

According to this map, I live in the "foundry", but I would prefer the classification "breadbasket" instead.

yes.

meh, Phoenix has more "Breadbasket" and "Foundry" people than anything else. Hell, our mayor is from Chicago. This whole setup lacks the "Mountain West" which includes parts of the "Empty Quarter" and "Mexamerica". Also, Minneapolis straddles the line between Breadbasket and Foundry. It was a very industrial town, but it's industry largely stemmed from agriculture. Like New York, LA is kind of it's own thing. Eastern Colorado, E. Wyoming, and E. Montana are as Breadbasket as the western parts of the states they border.

Other than that, I have no gripes :lol:

I think Dixie goes to far into Texas. It should stop as soon as you pass Beaumont in South Texas and Tyler in Northeast Texas. Houston is not in anyway part of Dixie. Neither is NOVA in Virginia.

disagree. for most of its history, houston was your typical southern city (social norms, bible belt, racial dynamics, politics) but with an added texas flair. it's perhaps during the last 20 or so years, the city has evolved into something different but there is still a lot of "old south" here.

From the graph, the "empty quarter" seems to actually be truly empty! It's the only section with no votes...

I've been to Dixie, and I was raised in west central Indiana (the part in 'Dixie') and I can tell you, it isn't Dixie.
It may be more conservative than other parts, but it is very industrial.
Southern Indiana and Illinois maybe but the central states are highly industrial and unfortunately, rust belt.

I've been to Dixie, and I was raised in west central Indiana (the part in 'Dixie') and I can tell you, it isn't Dixie.
It may be more conservative than other parts, but it is very industrial.
Southern Indiana and Illinois maybe but the central states are highly industrial and unfortunately, rust belt.

I grew up in Western Indiana, and the lines blur there for a reason. Economically, it's foundry and breadbasket; culturally and politically it's Dixie and Foundry...the farther south you go, the more Dixie, in food, dialect, race and politics. The Ohio River definitely marks the hard edge of Dixie.

I also think that Southern Ohio is at least part Dixie. Certainly the people here in northern Ohio talk about SE Appalachian Ohio as if it's another country.

I devoured Garreau's books when they came out, but I think his 9 Nations are dated. The Empty Quarter has been Californicated, Mexamerica is moving north, and the Foundry is floundering at the moment. When he was doing his research in the early 80s, though, I would agree that NYC was mostly foundry.

I live in Mexamerica, but I identify more with Ecotopia.

The Empty Quarter. So far away from the other regions...

:cry:

I like this map very much. I always though Chicago had more in common with other great lakes cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, etc than with other Midwestern cities like St Louis, Kansas City, etc.

I like this map very much. I always though Chicago had more in common with other great lakes cities like Detroit, Cleveland, Toronto, etc than with other Midwestern cities like St Louis, Kansas City, etc.

^hmmm...keep in mind that St. Louis has A LOT more in common with cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit than it does with Kansas City. Just because the two share a state doesn't mean they are similar at all.

I guess I live in the capital of the Foundary. Granted, I wouldn't necessarily call New York City a part of the "Foundary".

Or DC either...the only smokestacks here are for the Congressional powerplant!

^hmmm...keep in mind that St. Louis has A LOT more in common with cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit than it does with Kansas City. Just because the two share a state doesn't mean they are similar at all.

It was just an example, but I would agree with you. STL shares similarities with industrial Great Lakes cities.

^hmmm...keep in mind that St. Louis has A LOT more in common with cities like Chicago, Cleveland and Detroit than it does with Kansas City. Just because the two share a state doesn't mean they are similar at all.

I agree...there is no way in hell that St. Louis is a cross between breadbasket and dixie. The problem with maps like these is that they are too plain, cut and dry.

I think the map should best have nine base colors that each blend into each other as you fade from one region to another - for example, I live in Roanoke, VA - a bit farther north from here, you start to change from Dixie to Foundry (although in this thread (http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?t=870052) there seems to be a reasonably clear-cut dividing line between the Dixie parts of Virginia, and those that seem to be more of a Northern frame of mind)

But now that I think of it, Roanoke City and Roanoke County are staunchly Democratic, while EVERY adjoining county (perhaps with the exception of Montgomery County, with its local liberal hub of VT) is very Republican... So I don't know exactly where the fade from Dixie to the North begins and ends, really.

According to this man, so called state and international borders are completely irrelevant due to the vast cultural and economic (trade) features. Which one has been the most influential/successful according to you? And do you agree with his breakdown?

He wrote this book in 1981...much has changed in 28 years, so I don't find this information at all relevant in 2009. I think that each state's boundary is much more relevant than these huge, diverse areas with some very arbitrary dividing lines - that's the reason they are still in existence.

I think Dixie goes to far into Texas. It should stop as soon as you pass Beaumont in South Texas and Tyler in Northeast Texas. Houston is not in anyway part of Dixie. Neither is NOVA in Virginia.

Then neither is New Orleans, Atlanta, Florida, or any other specific area that isn't exactly the stereotypical image of the old/slow/racist/backwards South. The fact is, they are all a part of the South - just with different styles and flavors.

Then neither is New Orleans, Atlanta, Florida, or any other specific area that isn't exactly the stereotypical image of the old/slow/racist/backwards South. The fact is, they are all a part of the South - just with different styles and flavors.

Well I agree that they are all different. But most residents in Texas even including East Texas does not consider themselves Dixie. It's Texas or American before anything. At least I never ran into that. Same with Florida or even in Northern Virginia. I always thought Dixie was made up of a couple of states. Doesn't mean the rest of the South is not Southern. But that's my observation.

I live in Mexamerica, but I identify more with Ecotopia.
I think much of modern-day California is the cultural confluence of both.

Garreau's "9 nations" is complete rubbish.

While there certainly are -undoubtedly- cultural regions, calling them "nations" that are somehow "divided by artificial borders" is a stretch. These are not "nations", but rather cultural regions within a nation. Every country has them; this is nothing new. Ironically, judging by this map alone, Garreau leaves out true ethnocultural divisions (aside from "Mexamerica" and Québec), by ignoring Inuit northern Canada, Cajun southern Louisiana, and Mormon Utah, and while he divides the predominantly Anglo areas of USA/Canada into several "nations", he fails to do so for Mexico, which is just as regionally diverse as -if not more so than- the United States. This reflects an anglocentrism on his part.

The borders of these "regions" are also questionable. Assigning Alberta to this so-called "Empty Quarter" -rather than breadbasket- is perhaps the biggest oddity of this entire map. Alberta isn't exactly "empty"; the province contains Canada's most densely populated area outside the Windsor-Québec City corridor, including two fairly large cities (Calgary and Edmonton), and this was as much the case in 1980 is it is today. "Interior western Canada" would be far more fitting for Alberta, IMO.

Additionally, northern New Brunswick, which is predominantly French-speaking, could fall into Québec's region, or perhaps even form a region of its own, as the French-speaking Acadians are technically culturally distinct from québecois. Northeast Ontario is an area where French-speaking Canada overlaps with English-speaking Canada. And northern Québec should be part of Inuit northern Canada, culturally.

Another oddity is his inclusion of west-central Illinois and the St Louis area into "breadbasket" rather than "foundry"...St Louis, as someone mentioned earlier, as well as Peoria, these cities characterize the industrial Eastern Midwest/Great Lakes region, along with Chicago, Milwaukee, Detroit, Pittsburg, Cleveland, Green Bay, Columbus, and Buffalo. (Contrary to how someone earlier also characterized Chicago as "breadbasket"..clearly this person has never visited Chicago).

Southern California is a cultural entity of its own, IMO, as is Oklahoma/Texas. Interior California belongs to the interior West, and the coast north of Santa Barbara would fall into a coastal West cultural entity, IMO.

New York City belongs to the Northeast, which can be subdivided into Mid-Atlantic (everything from Connecticut, south to and including northern Virginia, and east of the Appalachians), and New England. In fact, I would group the Mid-Atlantic, New England, and the Eastern Midwest/Great Lakes Region (everything east of the Mississippi, -including St Louis and Minneapolis- and north of the Ohio River Valley -so excluding Evansville and Cincinatti) into a macroregion characterized by 1) northern dialects of American English 2) heavy industrialization and urbanization and 3) left-leaning [by American standards] political affiliation.

I would put most of Texas including Dallas and Houston with Mexamerica except for the panhandle which is righfully in the Breadbasket. This due in part to migration from Mexico that has occured over the last decades.

Not sure I'd agree with that. Houston has a very Southern feel. Dallas is more clean and Midwestern (but still Southern, IMO). San Antonio and (presumably El Paso, which I haven't been to) are more Southwestern/Mexican.

I'm definitely in the 'Alabama' of Mexamerica!

Mexamerica according to this map... LOL

This "Garreau" thread sounds like pure fantasy! I hope no-one sends him money or "follows" him to a "sanctuary" waiting for a comet... :lol:

The way the Upper Midwest and central Canada are split up on this map is ridiculously silly.

The northern halves of Minnesota, Wisconsin, the Upper Peninsula of Michigan as well as all of northern Quebec, Ontario, and eastern Manitoba should all be in one big "North Woods" grouping. These areas are nothing but Canadian Shield boreal forest and are hardly conducive for farming of any sort.

Why would NJ be grouped with OH, MI, Northern IL, etc.?

NJ has a lot more in common with Maryland, Eastern PA, Downstate NY, and Connecticut than it does with OH.

I feel like whoever made this is using the same tired ass strereotype that NJ is all factories.

And the fact that Detroit is supposed to be the "Capital" of this is retarded. Detroit and the state of NJ have very little in common.

That's all true, but the Foundry area , on the whole, has more industrial development than any other of the nine "nations." This dates back to the Industrial Revolution in the late 1800s.

NOVA is as Dixie as any other ugly subburd in the south.

kewl

BTW, I live in a typical Southern suburb. My neighbors are white, black, Vietnamese, Congolese, Puerto Rican, Egyptian, Ecuadoran, Cuban, old, young, monied, scraping by, Republican, Democratic and anarchist.

In short, tons more diverse and interesting than your typical urban neighborhood.

NoVa is not as "Dixie" as any other southern suburb. That's ridiculous. Spencer114 is from Richmond and has some kind of weird complex going on. He gets offended when NoVa is described as being anything other than true dixie or anything different, I guess. How is NoVa, from a suburb perspective, all that much different than a lot of regions? What is "Dixie" or not has more to culture rather than mcmansions and malls which exist in Georgia, North Carolina, New Jersey, Michigan, California, etc. In the real NoVa, which includes basically half a dozen or so jurisdictions, not Front Royal and not Fredericksburg, there is more of a federal culture, w/ the presence of the gov't and military, and a mid-atlantic vibe. It's not some made up way to distance itself from the South, which is what the neo-CSA types think. Technically, you can call it the south if you want, historically it is, but like South Florida, functionally it operates independently.

Even geographically and from a meteorological perspective it is different. A person in Northern Virginia can get to Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, New York, Baltimore, and a bunch of other sizable towns faster than they can to any sizable southern town outside of Virginia.

I'm not sure that there is a "Federal" feel to be felt but OK.

As for geography, Richmond is closer to Baltimore than it is to Raleigh, closer to Philadelphia than it is to Charlotte, closer to NYC and within 4 miles of being as close to Boston than it is to Atlanta, its closer to Toronto than it is to Dallas...fact is the urban areas down South are fewer and further between. The Northeast is small in land area and full of sizable cities. Its no wonder that at the top of the South one is closer to more NE cities than Southern ones. That doesn't make NOVA not Southern, just makes it closer to the Northeast. The street names, school names, housing and shopping development names are identical to those in other parts of Virginia. The home building styles are as Virginia as they come (mix of Richmond Federal and Tidewater Colonial) and look more like the homes in Atlanta than in Philadelphia even though Philadelphia is much closer geographically because NOVA is closer culturally to it’s Southern neighbors than to the Northern ones. Every Southern city has a large military presence, every large city has a large Federal presence (The Federal Government is also one of Richmond‘s top employers). NOVA is no more urban, diverse or forward thinking than Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Austin, Miami etc... Dixie isn’t what it used to be but that doesn’t stop it from being Dixie. Those of us that accept that Dixie (I word that I hardly ever use) has grown to be as diverse as any other region of the country aren’t the ones still fighting the Civil War. It is those that chose to carve out all of the progressive areas to claim them as something else that are.

First of all, I said *outside* of Virginia. Nobody said that Northern Virginia isn't Virginia, just like no one would say Miami isn't Florida. And geography does matter, while Richmond is "Dixie", it's a hell of a lot more urban and and dense than most other southern cities that developed only in the past century or so. Some of the neighborhoods and architecture you find in Richmond resembles something you'd find in DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia more than any area of the Deep South.

Northern Virginia is a suburban area that is part of the Washington DC Metropolitan region; the local culture and vibe revolves around DC and what it represents. When you think Northern Virginia, think DC area. If you don't understand this, than you really won't come to an accurate idea of what Northern Virginia is about. If you think Montgomery or Prince Georges County are so much different in the scheme of things, than you're wrong. Don't compare suburban Northern Virginia to urban cities like Atlanta and Houston. For an apples to apples comparison, compare Northern Virginia to other suburbs, like you did when you said it's "ugly". Suburban areas of many states have colonial-style McMansions.

Street names in the area, subdivision names, and architecture; they are rooted in the local history, much of which dates back to the revolutionary war and of course, the Civil War. It is history that is unique to Virginia and the mid-atlantic, not all are "Dixie". There are plenty of historical memorials and reminders of the Civil War. At the end of the day, this stuff has less to do with people's every day lives though. Virginia has unique history that is pre-Civil War and that is what is marketed the most.

And your comment on "federal culture" almost discredits everything you say. Anyone who has spent time in the DC Metro area knows that the federal gov't "culture" is on an entirely different level here than other large cities, even ones that have a lot of federal jobs. There are a lot of places with lots of military jobs but not many that have military jobs, federal employees, gov't contractors and other people associated with the federal gov't, and probably none on the level of that in the DC area. Everything here revolves around the gov't.

What gets me is that people who want The South to be known as a dynamic region, refuse to acknowledge that differences between Northern VA and the rest of the state and region and that maybe it shares less in common with "Dixie" than it does with its own local culture. If you want to call areas like Northern VA and South Florida "The South", by all means do it if it makes you feel better but don't get mad that people would rather take pride in the culture that they're more familiar with rather than one that is foreign to them, based on something that's static and almost ancient history to most people.

First of all, I said *outside* of Virginia. Nobody said that Northern Virginia isn't Virginia, just like no one would say Miami isn't Florida. And geography does matter, while Richmond is "Dixie", it's a hell of a lot more urban and and dense than most other southern cities that developed only in the past century or so. Some of the neighborhoods and architecture you find in Richmond resembles something you'd find in DC, Baltimore and Philadelphia more than any area of the Deep South.

Northern Virginia is a suburban area that is part of the Washington DC Metropolitan region; the local culture and vibe revolves around DC and what it represents. When you think Northern Virginia, think DC area. If you don't understand this, than you really won't come to an accurate idea of what Northern Virginia is about. If you think Montgomery or Prince Georges County are so much different in the scheme of things, than you're wrong. Don't compare suburban Northern Virginia to urban cities like Atlanta and Houston. For an apples to apples comparison, compare Northern Virginia to other suburbs, like you did when you said it's "ugly". Suburban areas of many states have colonial-style McMansions.

Street names in the area, subdivision names, and architecture; they are rooted in the local history, much of which dates back to the revolutionary war and of course, the Civil War. It is history that is unique to Virginia and the mid-atlantic, not all are "Dixie". There are plenty of historical memorials and reminders of the Civil War. At the end of the day, this stuff has less to do with people's every day lives though. Virginia has unique history that is pre-Civil War and that is what is marketed the most.

And your comment on "federal culture" almost discredits everything you say. Anyone who has spent time in the DC Metro area knows that the federal gov't "culture" is on an entirely different level here than other large cities, even ones that have a lot of federal jobs. There are a lot of places with lots of military jobs but not many that have military jobs, federal employees, gov't contractors and other people associated with the federal gov't, and probably none on the level of that in the DC area. Everything here revolves around the gov't.

What gets me is that people who want The South to be known as a dynamic region, refuse to acknowledge that differences between Northern VA and the rest of the state and region and that maybe it shares less in common with "Dixie" than it does with its own local culture. If you want to call areas like Northern VA and South Florida "The South", by all means do it if it makes you feel better but don't get mad that people would rather take pride in the culture that they're more familiar with rather than one that is foreign to them, based on something that's static and almost ancient history to most people.

I can only speak for myself, when I lived in Raleigh, NC, I used to go to Washington, DC area all the time...5 hour drive from Raleigh, and to me, it did not feel "Southern" at all, not even Northern Virginia...the minute I got out of the Washington,DC/Northern VA area, I could definately start seeing/feeling the southern charm of the south. Same to where I live now...Southern Florida does not seem, to me and to a lot of people the visit here, "southern" at all.