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 12-20-2011, 09:41 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,583,596 times
Reputation: 1266

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by DC at the Ridge View Post
I'm aware of how they calculate those figures. As long as the standard is applied consistently, I don't see any problem. You either think the standard shouldn't be applied consistently, or that there is something wrong with the standard. But just because you argue that the South is more urban and the Northeast more rural, doesn't make it so. ANY standard measurement of urban lifestyles is going to find that the Northeast is more urban than the South, as long as that standard is consistently applied.
You're not hearing me correctly.

The south is less urban than the northeast, as a whole.

My point is that the south is not a rural region, relative to most regions, and that the northeast outside of the megalopolis isn't any more non-rural, realistically, than most places in the south.

The South has a high population. While it is true that part of that is due to the region's large size. It is also true that there are regions of the south that are relatively high populated such as: 1) Piedmont (from Raleigh to Atlanta); 2) Florida (across I-4 corridor of central Florida, and southeast and soutwest coastlines; 3) Gulf Coast (Pensacola to Baton Rouge); 4) Texas Triangle.

There are also many other more large isolated cities.

The south has a higher density than the midwest and west, and it has the largest population of all regions. Thus, it isn't a case of being a rural, agrarian region by and large, like some people like to paint it as. If the South's rural, then much of the rest of the country is "back-country" or "uninhabited".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-20-2011, 09:49 AM
 
Location: Underneath the Pecan Tree
15,989 posts, read 30,712,804 times
Reputation: 7282
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
I think what is more likely is that they have never been to a rural area.

If they would they would not call the rural area a town.
A mix of that and the superiority complex many urban dwellers tend to suffer from.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 10:41 AM
 
40,168 posts, read 24,404,342 times
Reputation: 12666
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
You're not hearing me correctly.

The south is less urban than the northeast, as a whole.

My point is that the south is not a rural region, relative to most regions, and that the northeast outside of the megalopolis isn't any more non-rural, realistically, than most places in the south.

The South has a high population. While it is true that part of that is due to the region's large size. It is also true that there are regions of the south that are relatively high populated such as: 1) Piedmont (from Raleigh to Atlanta); 2) Florida (across I-4 corridor of central Florida, and southeast and soutwest coastlines; 3) Gulf Coast (Pensacola to Baton Rouge); 4) Texas Triangle.

There are also many other more large isolated cities.

The south has a higher density than the midwest and west, and it has the largest population of all regions. Thus, it isn't a case of being a rural, agrarian region by and large, like some people like to paint it as. If the South's rural, then much of the rest of the country is "back-country" or "uninhabited".
I understand you perfectly. You entitle the thread to compare the Northeast and the South. Then when your assertion regarding those two regions fails, you insert the West (except not the Coast, but rather the Mountainous regions) and Midwest (and really not the Midwest, but the far west Midwest), to make a point. But your point doesn't really convey anything substantive. The Mountainous regions of our country and the Plains areas ARE more rural because they face more transportation challenges. And urban areas tend to be located where transportation is easy. Hence, the Mississippi River, whether in the North or South, spawns cities. Hence, the Western and Eastern Coasts have denser, more urban populations because they are on the COAST. And areas that are not on waterways, that don't have easy in-and-out access have less dense, more rural populations. And in any statistical model you would care to employ, the Northeast will have a more urban population, and the South a less urban population. Even with cities in the South such as Memphis, Mobile, New Orleans, Atlanta, Savannah, and with a state such as Florida (all coast) being included. Are their pockets of urbanization in the South? Yes, and those urban areas are growing. Are their pockets of rural areas in New England? Surely, and in the sense that more and more of the population in this country is moving to more urban areas and away from rural areas, the rural areas are growing bigger as their population grows smaller. Things are changing, but not enough to make you assertions true, yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 11:30 AM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCityDreamer View Post
It's just that in modern times, underground rail is widely considered to be the "holy grail" of public transit for cities across the world. Walkability would be the better measure though.
it is really the most convenient form of PT but are places without them rural without it???

some clearly don't know what rural is
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 11:33 AM
 
Location: Washington D.C. By way of Texas
18,656 posts, read 27,102,729 times
Reputation: 9591
People are looking too hard into this. The spread out nature and low density atmosphere that the Southern cities brings gives you a perception that the South is more rural compared to the Northeast. That's the bottom line. The only open land you're going to see in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, Hartford, Providence are parks. In the South, you will see open land as parks and just simply land that is not developed yet.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 11:52 AM
 
Location: Somewhere extremely awesome
3,038 posts, read 2,469,257 times
Reputation: 2322
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
You're not hearing me correctly.

The south is less urban than the northeast, as a whole.

My point is that the south is not a rural region, relative to most regions, and that the northeast outside of the megalopolis isn't any more non-rural, realistically, than most places in the south.

The South has a high population. While it is true that part of that is due to the region's large size. It is also true that there are regions of the south that are relatively high populated such as: 1) Piedmont (from Raleigh to Atlanta); 2) Florida (across I-4 corridor of central Florida, and southeast and soutwest coastlines; 3) Gulf Coast (Pensacola to Baton Rouge); 4) Texas Triangle.

There are also many other more large isolated cities.

The south has a higher density than the midwest and west, and it has the largest population of all regions. Thus, it isn't a case of being a rural, agrarian region by and large, like some people like to paint it as. If the South's rural, then much of the rest of the country is "back-country" or "uninhabited".
Population density generally decreases as you move from east to west in the U.S. regardless of how far north or south you are. Obviously certain areas in California and Hawaii are exceptions.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 01:24 PM
 
Location: Up on the moon laughing down on you
18,509 posts, read 28,201,873 times
Reputation: 7599
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spade View Post
People are looking too hard into this. The spread out nature and low density atmosphere that the Southern cities brings gives you a perception that the South is more rural compared to the Northeast. That's the bottom line. The only open land you're going to see in DC, Baltimore, Philly, NYC, Boston, Hartford, Providence are parks. In the South, you will see open land as parks and just simply land that is not developed yet.
Suburban =/= Rural

lower density =/= Rural.

Rural = Rural
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 01:25 PM
 
Location: Jefferson City 4 days a week, St. Louis 3 days a week
2,709 posts, read 4,234,855 times
Reputation: 998
Because up until the latter half of the 20th century, that was pretty much how it was.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 01:28 PM
 
Location: The City
22,341 posts, read 32,208,951 times
Reputation: 7749
Quote:
Originally Posted by HtownLove View Post
Suburban =/= Rural

lower density =/= Rural.

Rural = Rural

But the point is the urban versus rural by the true definition also provide a context where the South by and large whether one compares metros or states or whatever has more of a percentage among the rural setting

Additionaly the spread (area between cities) is far greater and they are developed with greater space within the cities; all these create both an objective truth and a subjective feel on difference when comparing the two.

So again what is the point of this thread? and the poll questions.

Which is the uneducated premis is my question
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-20-2011, 01:55 PM
 
Location: Blankity-blank!
11,449 posts, read 14,327,210 times
Reputation: 6904
There is no reason why Podunk Junction can't increase in size and population, but it's still Podunk Junction.
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