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.
If one defines "most urban" by the ratio of urban to rural residents, and limits it to the Southern states offered as voting options, then according to this table from the U.S. Census Bureau and released in 1995 (the latest available), the most urban state in the South would be Florida, followed by Texas.
A lot has changed in all states in the last 20 years. All you can say is almost every southern state has increased its urban populations dramatically, but now who has the highest % is anyones guess now (save FL probably is still #1).
A lot has changed in all states in the last 20 years. All you can say is almost every southern state has increased its urban populations dramatically, but now who has the highest % is anyones guess now (save FL probably is still #1).
Based solely on population density Texas would lose to North Carolina, South Carolina, Louisiana and Alabama. Texas is definitely more urban than those other states. Now compared to Florida? I think Florida wins, but population density can't be the sole measure.
The only other objective statistic you can use is the one TexasReb pointed out, but it is fairly old. Anything else you "compare" to is highly subjective.
Example: You could look at the "Texas Triangle" but then someone could say well then "compare it to the Piedmont Triangle." However the question is "state" so we have to stick with that one.
Some states may have huge urban centers, but they take up less then a couple percent of the total land area, so while it is more urban "in this small section" the rest just being "ignored" isn't really looking at the whole state now is it?
Texas: Dallas-Ft. Worth
Austin
San Antonio
Houston
El Paso Oklahoma: Oklahoma City
Tulsa Arkansas: Little Rock Lousiana: Shreveport
Baton Rouge
New Orleans Mississippi: Jackson Tennessee: Memphis
Nashville
Chattanooga
Knoxville Alabama: Huntsville
Birmingham
Montgomery
Mobile Kentucky: Louisville
Lexington Georgia: Atlanta
Columbus
Augusta Florida: Tallahassee
Jacksonville
Orlando
Tampa/St. Petersburg
Miami/Ft. Lauderdale South Carolina: Columbia North Carolina: Charlotte
Fayetteville
Winston-Salem/Greenboro
Raleigh/Durham Virginia: Richmond
Norfolk/Hampton Roads
Alexandria/Arlington West Virginia: Charleston
My apologies for any omissions. This list is still highly subjective.
And 77.456% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
While TX most likely has a very high %, what I am saying that EVERY state has had dramatic changes and you may find that some other states are higher then that now. A lot has changed in 20 years.
You are being subjective (usually to your own experience) in comparisons when you don't have concrete data, remember that.
If I were to guess, and I am not sure what the definition of "urban" is on the census link, it would go something like FL, VA, TX, NC, GA. With TX, NC, and GA possibly having insignificant deviations to be concretely ordered in that way.
The only other objective statistic you can use is the one TexasReb pointed out, but it is fairly old. Anything else you "compare" to is highly subjective.
Example: You could look at the "Texas Triangle" but then someone could say well then "compare it to the Piedmont Triangle." However the question is "state" so we have to stick with that one.
Some states may have huge urban centers, but they take up less then a couple percent of the total land area, so while it is more urban "in this small section" the rest just being "ignored" isn't really looking at the whole state now is it?
That is of course the problem I was trying to get at. Texas has a lower population density than Alabama, but I don't think anyone would argue that Alabama is more urbanized than Texas. I don't think anyone here is really ignoring the huge amount of land in Texas which is defined as rural. Which is why many people have said Florida over Texas even though Texas arguably has more major metro areas and cities.
Maybe just wait for the new census data and use TexasReb's idea
And 77.456% of all statistics are made up on the spot.
While TX most likely has a very high %, what I am saying that EVERY state has had dramatic changes and you may find that some other states are higher then that now. A lot has changed in 20 years.
You are being subjective (usually to your own experience) in comparisons when you don't have concrete data, remember that.
If I were to guess, and I am not sure what the definition of "urban" is on the census link, it would go something like FL, VA, TX, NC, GA. With TX, NC, and GA possibly having insignificant deviations to be concretely ordered in that way.
I got my information from statistics:
"An estimated 86 percent of the 23 million people living in Texas in 2005 resided in urban areas, while an estimated 14 percent lived in rural areas"
I very much did consider land size and that is why Florida was my first pick. However, the Texas Triangle which is about 60,000 sq. miles contains about 17 million people. That alone accounts for 75% of Texas's population.
The only reason I picked Florida over Texas is land mass.
If they were the same size I'd probably go with Texas...just population wise.
Texas also has a lot more wide open spaces than Florida.
You just can't base it on population alone.
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.
