Hacker News Reader

Comment by mindcrime | Hacker News Reader

Jokes aside, it's odd that OP is lumping Cleveland in with other 'mid-west' cities.

As an outsider (I'm from NC) I have always thought of Cleveland as a "rust belt" city first and foremost. I tend to assume Cleveland has more in common with, say, Pittsburgh, Charleston WV, Detroit, etc., than what I think of as a more stereotypical "mid-west" city like Kansas City, St. Louis, or even Chicago.

But of those, Chicago is the only one I've spent any significant time in, so I may be way off. Anybody from one of those areas care to comment? Is the "rust belt" identify meme a strong factor to locals? More or less so than being considered "mid western"?

View on HN

Been to Chicago a few times and it's much different than Cleveland(Lived there for 4 years). Cleveland is more similar to Pittsburgh than Chicago. People in Cleveland associate with both the rust belt identity and the Midwest identity.

> Is the "rust belt" identify meme a strong factor to locals? More or less so than being considered "mid western"? reply

I imagine the "rust belt" moniker is something people identify with - or reject as being derogatory, which always struck me as funny - more than the "midwestern" label, which people in Cleveland probably regard more as a mere geographical distinction. That's just a guess, though.

I don't think it's odd that the OP was lumping Cleveland in with other midwestern cities, though. I would say that Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Milwaukee, Pittsburgh (and why leave out Detroit? or even Buffalo?) all share some DNA in the same way Boston, Philadelphia, New York, and Baltimore do.

I really see nothing in common with Chicago and Cleveland. Especially not down to their 'DNA'. Chicago is a globally recognized metropolitan city...that's their DNA.

Cleveland is a blue collar town with its roots in industrial manufacturing and oil.

Chicago has always been a diverse metro area focussed on finance, technology, academia.

It's ironic that if you were going to pick nits with my "common DNA" comment that you'd balk at the comparison between Chicago and Cleveland in particular. One thing that struck me when walking through Graceland Cemetery was how many of the earliest settlers [0] of Chicago were from Northeast Ohio, so there is literally DNA in common there. Of course, it's obvious that that sort of thing has continued throughout the cities history, if you think of how migrants entered the country in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and moved westward.

[0] http://www.atlasobscura.com/places/eternal-silence

> I really see nothing in common with Chicago and Cleveland.

I assume you haven't spent much time in both. (edited down a longer comment since, really, who cares...)

I've spent a lot of time in Chicago and a little time in cleveland. I have no clue how anyone can think they're similar cities. I think most Chicagoans would be offended if you said 'oh chicago and cleveland are so similar!'

> I have no clue how anyone can think they're similar cities.

They're midwestern American cities on the Great Lakes with the same climate and roughly the same geography and ethnic makeup. It's not like you're comparing Florence and Reykjavik, for heaven's sake. I'm fascinated by your reaction to this comparison.

(If you're interested in a less information-free exchange on the topic: my reaction the first time I visited Chicago years ago was roughly "so this is how Cleveland might have ended up if they'd had their shit together 100 years ago." It's not really accurate - there are some economic reasons why Cleveland's decline was predestined - but feel free to explain to me why it's a completely crazy reaction.)

> I think most Chicagoans would be offended if you said 'oh chicago and cleveland are so similar!'

That's not exactly what I said... although, seriously, most of my friends in Chicago aren't quite so easily offended.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com