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.
Consider the size of the footprint. Some states have vast areas covered with low density sprawl that is classified as "urban", while others have vast areas that are rural with smaller, more compact areas that are classified as urban, but are much more highly developed and populated than those of other states. NY and PA, for example, have relatively small urban footprints compared to their rural footprints, while FL and GA have relatively large urban footprints compared to their rural footprints.
I live in Vermont which is considered a very rural state but even though many of the towns and cities have small populations and there is a lot of open space it still does not feel empty because of how sprawling development is. Just to inform you while in most places rural implies a small compact town surrounded by empty fields in New England at least it means that their is a compact populated place surrounded by a less densely populated area. If you are using google earth try zooming in very close and you will see that some areas that seem to have only trees actually have houses hidden by the trees. I think thats why it is seen as more urban and it is also overall more densely populated New England has an overall population of 220.66 people/ sq. mi the Southeastern United States density is 133.82 people/ sq. mi this shows that the Southern United States is slightly more rural than New England. The media also plays a role by avoiding showing southern cities and sprawl which is quite impressive.
The Northeast has historically been more densely populated with larger cities. Another reason is when you learn about the souths history you hear about farms and small cities. Another reason could be that the northeast has some of hte most influential cities in the country for example, Boston the birthplace of our nation, NYC the cultural capitol of the world according to National Geographic, and Philly the home of Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell. Whereas the Souths major cities while influential have gained most of their population in recent decades and as such do not have the same history. I do agree that they have sprawl. Another note even Vermont which according to one way of defining rural which is a town with less than 5000 residents can be ranked as more rural than Wisconscin can have a higher population density.
The South IS more rural than the Northeast, but that doesn't mean everywhere in the South is rural. Cheap land prices will tend to inhibit high density -- and last time I checked land in the South is still cheap (isn't that why so many Northerners moved there the last decade, among other reasons?).
So in order to make your point, you felt it necessary to insult the many urban areas in PA outside of the Philadelphia area by saying it's all rural?
And I think anybody who doesn't understand that every city is urban unless it's one that's built up by subdivisions and full of sprawl is not somebody who should be talking about anything. Of course the South isn't all rural; its cities are quite old.
So in order to make your point, you felt it necessary to insult the many urban areas in PA outside of the Philadelphia area by saying it's all rural?
And I think anybody who doesn't understand that every city is urban unless it's one that's built up by subdivisions and full of sprawl is not somebody who should be talking about anything. Of course the South isn't all rural; its cities are quite old.
Though PA has one one of the largest rural population in the US actually
It isnt an either or for either place. The biggest difference is the spread, thew cities in the NE are much closer than the South; making the urban feel more developed in the grand scheme. Both (NE and South) as a percentage are dominated by rural developed areas though
I have lived in the Northeast my entire life, and have been to most states in the South (all except the west south central states). The South does feel much more vast and rural in general. Even though it has several large metro areas, the rural distance between the metro areas is HUGE. This is not the case in the Northeast, unless you are in northern New England. And the states of NJ, CT, MA and RI are extremely dense and don't have vast rural areas. They feel like a gigantic suburbia with some rural counties here and there. I'm in CT and I would say that it's about 50% rural, 50% urban.
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.
How history has affected perceptions.
