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 12-22-2011, 09:42 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,166,272 times
Reputation: 7738

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
The southern states are rural? Really?

So Florida is rural but Wisconsin is not?

So Georgia is rural, but Minnesota is not?

So North Carolina is rural, but Michigan is not?

So Texas is rural, but Maine is not?

So Tennessee is rural, but Vermont is not?

So Virginia is rural, but Indiana is not?

So Louisiana is rural, but Iowa is not?

So Georgia is rural, but Pennslvania is not?


What about the west that has so much uninhabited land?

What about much of the western midwest that is far more rural than the South, and the rest of the midwest, outside a few areas, which is typical of the South?

What about upper New England.

When it comes down to it, it seems like you're saying that the South is rural because it doesn't match up to the northeast Megalopolis, but couldn't you say the same for the rest of the country, including non-megalopolis northeast? It's also a bit of a crazy comparison. The megalopolis is a very small area. It's like taking the Piedmont Atlantic area of the South and using it as a measuring stick against the midwest, claiming that most of the midwest is rural, despite the fact that it has numerous populated areas.
Actually the Midwest is more cohesively developed with a higher concentration of cities.

But again what is the point of this thread?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:42 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,580,217 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by busterkeaton View Post
My question is: what's so wrong with rural?
Nothing.

However, it's highly incorrect to paint the south as an agricultural region or rural region these days and other regions as not.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:45 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,112,335 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
So why do they do this?
because it is largely true.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:45 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,166,272 times
Reputation: 7738

File:MapofEmergingUSMegaregions.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:46 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,112,335 times
Reputation: 1532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
The southern states are rural? Really?

So Florida is rural but Wisconsin is not?

So Georgia is rural, but Minnesota is not?

So North Carolina is rural, but Michigan is not?

So Texas is rural, but Maine is not?

So Tennessee is rural, but Vermont is not?

So Virginia is rural, but Indiana is not?

So Louisiana is rural, but Iowa is not?

So Georgia is rural, but Pennslvania is not?

Since when are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana considered the "Northeast" ?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 09:57 AM
 
3,458 posts, read 3,112,335 times
Reputation: 1532
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB89/EIB89.pdf

page 10 is what you're looking for.

I've formatted by % of urban land use:


Northeast 11.2
Lake States 3.5
Corn Belt 4.9
Northern Plains 0.5
Appalachian 5.4
Southeast 7.2
Delta States 2.5
Southern Plains 2.5
Mountain 0.7
Pacific 3.6
48 States 3.2
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:01 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,580,217 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
Since when are Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan, Iowa, and Indiana considered the "Northeast" ?
They're northern states, and they never seem to get the bum rap of being called "rural". Well, Iowa does, but just replace rural with cornfields. The other three, however, are rarely called "rural".

Also address the Maine, New Hampshire, Vermont, upstate New York and Pennsylvania, a majority of the northeast, and if you think it is more urban than the South?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:03 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,580,217 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cletus Awreetus-Awrightus View Post
http://www.ers.usda.gov/Publications/EIB89/EIB89.pdf

page 10 is what you're looking for.

I've formatted by % of urban land use:


Northeast 11.2
Lake States 3.5
Corn Belt 4.9
Northern Plains 0.5
Appalachian 5.4
Southeast 7.2
Delta States 2.5
Southern Plains 2.5
Mountain 0.7
Pacific 3.6
48 States 3.2
So the south is second? My point made. Without the megalopolis, the northeast likely falls below the south.

How can the South be called "rural" but not the Pacific, mountain, lake states or "corn belt"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:05 AM
 
Location: The City
22,331 posts, read 32,166,272 times
Reputation: 7738
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stars&StripesForever View Post
So the south is second? My point made. Without the megalopolis, the northeast likely falls below the south.

How can the South be called "rural" but not the Pacific, mountain, lake states or "corn belt"?

Ok and without Atlanta...

The fact is the corrider does in fact exist

Both have rural and urban places

The urban in NE is more urban and cohesive

It isnt an either or
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-22-2011, 10:07 AM
 
2,402 posts, read 3,580,217 times
Reputation: 1266
Quote:
Originally Posted by kidphilly View Post
Actually the Midwest is more cohesively developed with a higher concentration of cities.

But again what is the point of this thread?
It is more cohesively developed? So I suppose North Dakota, South Dakota, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, northern areas of Michigan, most of Illinois, Indiana, Wisconsin, Ohio, and Missouri are developed?
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