Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Is this a metric worth paying attention to? The Northeast has the top seven slots, and I doubt that is ever going to change. But go down further and see population density by region. The South Atlantic is number 3, after the Mid-Atlantic and New England. Or, the South is number 2 after the Northeast.
This means a few different things, the way that I interpret this. The Midwest is no longer relevant as it once was, as it is trailing the South. Even if you look at it from the perspective of the East North Central, which is what we are generally talking about when we say the Midwest, The South Atlantic is ahead.
Virginia and North Carolina have already surpassed states like Georgia, Michigan, and Indiana.
The third I'll let the pundits on C-D postulate.
Clearly, if you want an urban experience, this is worth looking at. Even though one may be in a rather dense metropolitan area, if their state is sparsely populated, they're looking into an entirely different experience as soon as they leave the city limits. This is that huge chasm between the Northeast and the South we always talk about. On the other hand, if the Midwest trails the South, you might actually fare better in developing New South states like Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, etc. Because suburbia in those states, might not be dissimilar to the cities. That actually has not been my experience in this part of Virginia but Northern Virginia is a different animal.
Of course one could say that the only reason that Ohio is ahead of California, by that measure, is due to the fact of California's size, and the fact that state has a lot of land you can't develop on. And that is a valid interpretation of the results. But another way of looking at it is what a state like California could possibly due with the extra land that state has, if overpopulation pushes the population centers out further.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,934 times
Reputation: 2925
Interesting, though if you're going by the Census definitions, the Northeast only has the top four slots--Maryland and Delaware (and DC) are officially counted as South Atlantic, a subdivision of the South. Though their land area is negligible in the grand scheme of things, I wonder if their density rankings are enough to skew the "South" rankings as being denser than the Midwest.
Interesting, though if you're going by the Census definitions, the Northeast only has the top four slots--Maryland and Delaware (and DC) are officially counted as South Atlantic, a subdivision of the South. Though their land area is negligible in the grand scheme of things, I wonder if their density rankings are enough to skew the "South" rankings as being denser than the Midwest.
That is a distinct possibility. DC also factors into that equation as well. The real question, is if Delaware, DC, and Maryland are enough to put the South over, and where would the South be were it not for those three states. Quite possibly behind the Midwest. Ohio is the only state in the Midwest that is even in the top 10, and that is probably due to Cleveland.
California in general is highly urbanized. The fact that the state scores so high on a statewide density measure while having the huge amounts of wilderness that it does is impressive.
As a New Jersey native I can attest that we have ruined a significant portion of our otherwise pristine landscape with nondescript strip malls, ugly industry or unnecessary suburban sprawl. So yes, sometimes density can be good but there's also an ugly side to it.
As a New Jersey native I can attest that we have ruined a significant portion of our otherwise pristine landscape with nondescript strip malls, ugly industry or unnecessary suburban sprawl. So yes, sometimes density can be good but there's also an ugly side to it.
So when state density is high, urban density should be high too.
Actually even low-density states deserve to be protected from sprawl.
So when state density is high, urban density should be high too.
Actually even low-density states deserve to be protected from sprawl.
New Jersey does have an extremely dense/urban northeast corridor next to New York. However, where I lived in Central New Jersey what was once a rural area has seen extreme population growth (I'm talking my town tripling in population size from 1990 to mid 2000's). Rural areas being converted into bedroom communities/suburban sprawl accounts for an increase in density as well. Point being that not all increases in density are good and that it puts a lot of pressure on infrastructure and the environment in some cases.
I'm not surprised to see New Jersey at #1. Sometimes it feels like the whole state is composed of NYC Metro and Philly metro areas. I know that this is not the case, but even the parts that are not officially part of NYC or Philly MSA/CSA still kind of act like it sometimes. I think the far south (Cape May area) might be an exception.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
