U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Why do some people view the south as rural and the northeast as urban
Ignorance-They haven't traveled or studied enough to know otherwise. Plus, the media feeds them this belief. 35 71.43%
They've traveled enough, but they allow their prejudices to cloud reality. The media reinforces their prejudice. 14 28.57%
Voters: 49. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:16 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,153,902 times
Reputation: 7598

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post

@Htown the urban vs rural you posted are based on % of population residing in such setting not how large the area is. What that means living in CA are more likely to live among urbanized area than most other states, it has nothing to do with how much of the state is developed or not developed.
Exactly. Maine, Vermont, and West Virginia have the highest percentages of people living in the boonies
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:19 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,577,740 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Austin Contrarian: Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract


Basically what this table represnets is the average density in which people actually reside among the large metros (specifically among the UAs)

NYC 33K ppsm
Philly 8.5K ppsm
Boston 7.7K ppsm
Baltimore 7K ppsm
DC 6.8K ppsm
Miami 6.8K ppsm
DFW 4.6K ppsm
Houston 4.5K ppsm
Pittsburgh 3.7K ppsm
Atlanta 2.4K ppsm

Additionally before I hear the screams on the densification and 2000 data, the author also recalculated with more recent data for NYC, Houston and Atlanta and all have become less dense in the last ten years (meaning the addition of UA space is diminishing the average density ie we continue to sprawl in metros (Oh Portland and Seattle were also calculated and reduced on average as well))

Regardless what does it matter both have urban and rural space and offer different aspects that people chose because it works best for them.
Instead of addressing what I've stated, you put up arbitrary figures of ten year old out of date, inaccurate data that doesn't disprove what I've stated.

LOWER DENSITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL RURAL.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,138,839 times
Reputation: 7737
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
Instead of addressing what I've stated, you put up arbitrary figures of ten year old out of date, inaccurate data that doesn't disprove what I've stated.

LOWER DENSITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL RURAL.

No it does not but does demonstrate a distinctly different development pattern

Larger population (as in your original post) also doesnt equate to more developed etc.

So to answer your original question

The developed areas of the south feel more spread out and less developed on the whole. So the developed space feels less urban. The rural space is similar.

The South is more spread out, that is the biggest difference I see. In terms of your poll neither relate to an appropriate answer

Last edited by kidphilly; 12-19-2011 at 01:46 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:28 PM
 
40,092 posts, read 24,337,358 times
Reputation: 12616
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
Instead of addressing what I've stated, you put up arbitrary figures of ten year old out of date, inaccurate data that doesn't disprove what I've stated.

LOWER DENSITY DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL RURAL.
The South is more consistently rural than any other region of the country.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0029.xls
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 01:59 PM
 
Location: New York NY
4,263 posts, read 6,341,777 times
Reputation: 9056
One think I think makes many people think of the South as rural and the Northeast as more urban has nothing to do with density, but a lot to do with the prevelance of mass transit.

In many minds, extensive subway systems are one, if not THE, hallmark of a big city. The Northeast has NYC, Philly, Boston and Washington with these. The South has only Atlanta, and that one is sort of half-assed because although its relatively new, there has been a lot of pressure not to expand it. Subways area hallmark to many people of big-city living, and w/o them, it's very hard I think for a lot of people to wrap their heads around something called a "city" where you almost have to drive all the time.

You got that 20th century mindset you can picture a car-centric city -- Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, pretty easily. But you got that 19th-century mindset of narroiw streets laid out in big cities before cars were the norm, which is most of the Northeast, and THAT is what appears most city-like, despite big cities below the Mason-Dixon line and millions of acres of empty forests above it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 02:15 PM
 
Location: Denver
14,151 posts, read 19,745,723 times
Reputation: 8803
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101 View Post
One think I think makes many people think of the South as rural and the Northeast as more urban has nothing to do with density, but a lot to do with the prevelance of mass transit.

In many minds, extensive subway systems are one, if not THE, hallmark of a big city. The Northeast has NYC, Philly, Boston and Washington with these. The South has only Atlanta, and that one is sort of half-assed because although its relatively new, there has been a lot of pressure not to expand it. Subways area hallmark to many people of big-city living, and w/o them, it's very hard I think for a lot of people to wrap their heads around something called a "city" where you almost have to drive all the time.

You got that 20th century mindset you can picture a car-centric city -- Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, pretty easily. But you got that 19th-century mindset of narroiw streets laid out in big cities before cars were the norm, which is most of the Northeast, and THAT is what appears most city-like, despite big cities below the Mason-Dixon line and millions of acres of empty forests above it.
What?!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 02:22 PM
 
Location: New York NY
4,263 posts, read 6,341,777 times
Reputation: 9056
What's s hard to get? Many people think that subways are a hallmark of big cities. I didn't say it was right or worng. I said that that is a PERCEPTION many people have of what it takes to be a big city. Perceptions -- which were the subject of the original post -- are what are at issue here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 02:30 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,577,740 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
The South is more consistently rural than any other region of the country.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/stat...es/12s0029.xls
The thing with arguing that a state is more rural and identifying populations as rural verses urban/suburban is that it doesn't take into context the fact that the south's rural landscape is much more settled than other regions of the country.

The west's rural areas are practically uninhabited. Hence, you're going to have more people and a greater percentage of the population who live in urban areas. Places like western states, such as California, are over ninety percent urban because the government owns most undeveloped land, and because much of it is nearly uninhabitable (such as the Mojave). As a result, people live where they can, which is near the urban centers. It is the few parcels available for private developers to develop.

In the northeast, the small size of the region, relative the south, along with the megalopolis and other more isolated cities, coupled with larger county sizes, means that a larger share of the region's population will be considered "urban", even if a lot of the people classified as "urban" live in rural areas themselves.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 02:40 PM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,577,740 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by citylove101 View Post
One think I think makes many people think of the South as rural and the Northeast as more urban has nothing to do with density, but a lot to do with the prevelance of mass transit.
I don't think that has much to do with it at all. Most metro areas don't have transit systems on the order of NYC. L.A.'s rail system isn't larger than Atlanta's.

Quote:
In many minds, extensive subway systems are one, if not THE, hallmark of a big city.
It's a correlation, but it doesn't mean that it makes a big city.

Quote:
The Northeast has NYC, Philly, Boston and Washington with these. The South has only Atlanta, and that one is sort of half-assed because although its relatively new, there has been a lot of pressure not to expand it.
Atlanta's and Washington D.C.'s systems are relatively the same age. Atlanta's system is not new. The first stations opened in the late 70s. Relative to NYC, it's new, but in general it's not.

Quote:
Subways area hallmark to many people of big-city living, and w/o them, it's very hard I think for a lot of people to wrap their heads around something called a "city" where you almost have to drive all the time.
Most suburban areas, even in the northeast, do not have access to a subway station. Some have access to commuter rail. Many do not. Atlanta had commuter rail fifty to sixty years ago. We weren't really a big city then by today's standards. Hence, rail service doesn't really define a big city.

Quote:
You got that 20th century mindset you can picture a car-centric city -- Houston, Atlanta, Los Angeles, Phoenix, pretty easily. But you got that 19th-century mindset of narroiw streets laid out in big cities before cars were the norm, which is most of the Northeast, and THAT is what appears most city-like, despite big cities below the Mason-Dixon line and millions of acres of empty forests above it.
Here's the problem with your view, all American metropolitan areas, by and large, are car-centric. Travel throughout Long Island, or the Merritt Parkway in southern Connecticut. How about head out along the suburbs of Boston, or zoom around places in the suburbs of Pittsburgh, such as McKeesport. It's car-centric.

Secondly, the south is heavily forested for a region. Yes, the rural areas are relatively populated for rural areas. Yet, Georgia has more forest acreage than any state outside of Alaska and Oregon.
Moderator cut: link removed, linking to competitor sites is not allowed

Third, you can't tell me that you view Boston as larger than L.A., Atlanta, Houston, or Phoenix, developmentally wise. That's absurd. The urbanized span (mostly suburban, yes), goes on for miles and miles, much more than what you find in a place like Boston or Pittsburgh.

Last edited by Yac; 12-28-2011 at 06:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-19-2011, 02:41 PM
 
Location: The Greatest city on Earth: City of Atlanta Proper
7,909 posts, read 12,161,481 times
Reputation: 5697
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
This is deceiving. Atlanta city proper is smaller in population and density than Charlotte, but this is because Charlotte has annexed many suburban areas. The Atlanta city limits are a lot smaller in area than those of Charlotte. Hence, the smaller population. The lower density of Atlanta city proper compared to the Charlotte city proper has to do with the fact that over one-third of the city's land area is within the western areas of Buckhead, an area of the city known for large, multi-acre lots and mansions. When you take into account the inner suburbs, or the attributable comparable land area that the Charlotte city proper takes up, inner Atlanta is by far more populated and more dense.
The bolded part is actually incorrect. While it is true that Charlotte has a larger population than Atlanta city proper (and larger than DC, Miami, Boston) it is not denser than Atlanta. Never has been, never will be.

You do make a good point (that conviently gets glossed over on C-D) that prior to the 1952 annexation that included Buckhead, the city of Atlanta had a density of 9000 ppsm and in that same area the population density remains about the same.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top