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.
The problem with density is that is skews in favor of small states with few square miles, if those areas happen to be in major metropolitan areas. After all, the megapolopolis takes up all of Rhode Island, most of Massachusetts, most of Connecticut, all of New Jersey, etc. Those, given their small size and being located in an urban area, are going to be dense. On the other hand, large states with comparable populations or built-up areas, but of which happen to have more rural land by issue of simply being larger, are going to be "less dense".
New York's numbers of skewed because of New York City. It is why a larger sized state is able to make the list. Florida is able to make the list given its larger population. Pennsylvania and Ohio barely make the list of top ten, and that's because Ohio's not really as large as it looks, plus it has three major cities. Pennsylvania is also not as large as it looks, given that it's right around the tiny states, and also that it has two major cities with a couple of small to mid-sized cities. Virginia, North Carolina, Georgia, and Tennessee fall within the 10-20 in density.
That said, density isn't the only measure to determine between rural and urban. Many suburban places clearly have lower population densities than highly urban areas, yet they're not rural.
Furthermore, what about the south having the largest population of the four primary regions?
What about the south having large numbers of metropolitan areas with over one million people?
I am not totally sure about the real premis of this thread but the Northeast has very urban and very rural areas, actually far more land is covered by rural areas.
You reference many metros over 1 million, well that may be the point, these such metros in the NE (of which there are many Providence, Hartford, Allentown, Harrisburg etc.) are small here and more satalites and not the core metros.
But the cities in the south are mostly far less developed, the smaller towns in either are similar as are the rural spaces. Even the largest Atlanta is the most sprawled and least dense of major cities with Charlotee or an RDU having a similar if even less densly developed space.
Regardless that is the contruct, not sure what it means anyway other that a topic that seems to you have personal frustration with. The areas are different and have their pluses and minuses, at the end of the day who cares other than those that make the decision in either or someplace else as that is their choice regardless of development style.
Last edited by kidphilly; 12-19-2011 at 12:48 PM..
I think it has to do with the exception of N.O. and central to south florida, that most of the big cities in the south themselves are very spread out with a lot of sprawl and tons of green space. Southern cities outside of there business districts do not resemble cities in any other region when it comes to density. There very spread out. A large portion, maybe even a majority of west atlanta resembles a giant rural small town.
Id be willing to bet that the majority of philly suburbs are more dense than the city of charlotte itself.
Last edited by FurbyThug; 12-19-2011 at 12:49 PM..
1. Vermont is the most rural state. 72% of its residents live in non urban or suburban areas.
2. main and New Hampshire come in next, 60% and 55% of their residents live in the boonies.
4. Montana and North Carolina come in next, they are each just over 50% rural.
In other parts of the NE, Massachusetts is 30% rural.
New York State is 22% Rural (right next to Texas on the scale which is 24% rural)
I am not totally sure about the real premis of this thread but the Northeast has very urban and very rural areas, actually far more land is covered by rural areas.
Exactly. Like all other regions, so why do some act like they're urban and the south is rural?
Quote:
You reference many metros over 1 million, well that may be the point, these such metros in the NE (of which there are many Providence, Hartford, Allentown, Harrisburg etc.) are small here and more satalitles and not the core metros.
I'm mentioned some of them, and I agree that they are there. My point was that a lot of the area outside the megalopolis is rural.
Quote:
But the cities in the south are mostly far less developed
Yes, if NYC is who southern cities are being compared to. On the other hand, Miami, New Orleans, and Charleston are fairly dense, as much or more than Boston or Philadelphia, and more than non-megalopolis northeastern cities.
That said, density doesn't exactly equate as being the only measure of urbanity, in terms of urbanized regions. Suburban areas are also urbanized, though of a lesser density.
Quote:
the smaller towsn in either are similar as are the rural spaces.
Agreed.
Quote:
Even the largest Atlanta is the most sprawled and least dense of major cities with Charlotee or an RDU having a similar if even less densly developed space.
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.
Even with all this said, when I've traveled throughout the country, I don't get the feeling that the South's metro areas are less dense than most. I see the same suburban development all over the metropolitan areas of all regions. If any region's development is truly dense, it is those of the west, particularly the southwest, where people live on very small lots relative to most of the United States. The northeastern lots are much bigger by comparison. Yet, no one calls the northeast "rural" because of so-called "big" lots. Thus, why do the same for the south, when it's fairly similar to what can be found throughout the northeast and midwest?
Exactly. Like all other regions, so why do some act like they're urban and the south is rural?
I'm mentioned some of them, and I agree that they are there. My point was that a lot of the area outside the megalopolis is rural.
Yes, if NYC is who southern cities are being compared to. On the other hand, Miami, New Orleans, and Charleston are fairly dense, as much or more than Boston or Philadelphia, and more than non-megalopolis northeastern cities.
That said, density doesn't exactly equate as being the only measure of urbanity, in terms of urbanized regions. Suburban areas are also urbanized, though of a lesser density.
Agreed.
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.
Even with all this said, when I've traveled throughout the country, I don't get the feeling that the South's metro areas are less dense than most. I see the same suburban development all over the metropolitan areas of all regions. If any region's development is truly dense, it is those of the west, particularly the southwest, where people live on very small lots relative to most of the United States. The northeastern lots are much bigger by comparison. Yet, no one calls the northeast "rural" because of so-called "big" lots. Thus, why do the same for the south, when it's fairly similar to what can be found throughout the northeast and midwest?
Read the Austin Contrarian it gives a good rational on the differences of perception and reality. Yes the NE burbs have sprawl, but the average person in these metros (and a much higher proportions) lives at a higher density, no density isnt everything at
One thing the South has is more vast expanse of rural areas though are really no different that rural areas anywhere
The cities are also far more spread out.
But again what is the point of this thread; hopefully not say Charlotte is more dense or comparable to Boston. Or that Charleston should be compared to Boston, Maybe Reading PA on development style and scale (Though I personally think Charleston is an absolute GEM)
Again what is the point of the rant. There are urban and ruralareas in both...
I think it has to do with the exception of N.O. and central to south florida, that most of the big cities in the south themselves are very spread out with a lot of sprawl and tons of green space. Southern cities outside of there business districts do not resemble cities in any other region when it comes to density. There very spread out. A large portion, maybe even a majority of west atlanta resembles a giant rural small town.
Id be willing to bet that the majority of philly suburbs are more dense than the city of charlotte itself.
Don't be ridiculous. Especially with the area I have emboldened. Please tell me where in west Atlanta does it look like a giant rural small town? This is beyond absurd. It makes you sound very untraveled and ignorant about these matters.
Secondly, you do realize that you're probably getting your idea about southern cities not looking like cities from aerial photos that you've probably seen which shows our dense canopy of trees. News to you, there's development completely under that canopy that contains a lot of dense areas. Even then, if you look close enough, you can generally see much of the development between the cracks, unless you're talking about the extremely wooded wealthy neighborhoods of Buckhead and NW Atlanta in which the canopy is even thicker.
Georgia is only 30 percent rural. I guess some do not know what rural is.
Other interesting facts.
The state with the lowest percentage rural residents is
California less than 6%
West Virginia is another one with a high Rural population
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.
