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.
I guess that would depend on your definition of Middle America. Southern states may have large conservative and religious communities, but they also have a culture too unique to simply be thrown in with Kansas or Iowa.
Kansas and Iowa have incredibly unique cultures, every bit as unique as anything in the south.
That's because unlike Western cities, cities east of the Rockies tend to be compact; a tight compact dense urban area, giving way to rapid drop off to wilderness. Western cities don't have that kind of drop off.
I would say that the sprawl in the western states tends to be denser than in other regions of the US, with the west having far fewer residences in semi-rural areas. These semi-rural "exurbs" are not really the same as wilderness, as they have a significant population and the amenities and services to go along with this population. Much of the west has extensive public lands and natural barriers, along with water supply constraints, that result in their sprawl being circumscribed within a limited area more than further east.
Southeast Florida is a key exception in the eastern US, with generally dense sprawl due to the region being squeezed between the Everglades to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.
Kansas and Iowa have incredibly unique cultures, every bit as unique as anything in the south.
Well, no two places are exactly alike, but I'm thinking there's a reason most people likely couldn't tell you two things about either state. Do you honestly think that Kansas and Iowa are as culturally distinct from one another as Texas and Louisiana?
I know this, but in the eastern US, the sprawl tends to be "concentrated" in a central area, with rapid drop-off to country/wilderness outside the nexus. The Western sprawl is radiates from the central city more continuously, with the drop-offs not as defined.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jas75
I would say that the sprawl in the western states tends to be denser than in other regions of the US, with the west having far fewer residences in semi-rural areas. These semi-rural "exurbs" are not really the same as wilderness, as they have a significant population and the amenities and services to go along with this population. Much of the west has extensive public lands and natural barriers, along with water supply constraints, that result in their sprawl being circumscribed within a limited area more than further east.
Southeast Florida is a key exception in the eastern US, with generally dense sprawl due to the region being squeezed between the Everglades to the west and the Atlantic Ocean to the east.
That's also because the East was more settled than the West, with significant settlements in many areas by the time National Parks/public lands started being a concept. As a result, any "wild areas" not designated as State Parks and the like are found to be "privately owned," with trespass warnings.
That's because unlike Western cities, cities east of the Rockies tend to be compact; a tight compact dense urban area, giving way to rapid drop off to wilderness. Western cities don't have that kind of drop off.
Uh, no. You're thinking east of the Mississppi or something.
Dallas, Atlanta, Houston etc are not cities with dense urban areas.
Uh, no. You're thinking east of the Mississppi or something. Dallas, Atlanta, Houston etc are not cities with dense urban areas.
I say "dense" as in concentration of urban development. The development of all Eastern US cities are highly concentrated in specific areas; leave those areas, and you are in wilderness/country.
I say "dense" as in concentration of urban development. The development of all Eastern US cities are highly concentrated in specific areas; leave those areas, and you are in wilderness/country.
Maybe you should provide examples... I've not really noticed much of that.
In the west, once you're out of the suburbs, it's often wilderness. In the east, you only get pockets of wilderness except in a few upstates etc., because there's generally a series of small towns out to infinity, and each one has its own sprawl, particularly anything near a big city.
Once global climate change makes most of the US inhabitable to live in, everyone will come to appreciate the Midwest (esp. Upper Midwest). It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. I think many cities on the temperate coasts will be okay, but they'll be even more expensive (eg. Seattle....if it doesn't succumb to the subduction zone).
Once global climate change makes most of the US inhabitable to live in, everyone will come to appreciate the Midwest (esp. Upper Midwest). It's not a question of if, it's a question of when. I think many cities on the temperate coasts will be okay, but they'll be even more expensive (eg. Seattle....if it doesn't succumb to the subduction zone).
Only as long as the climate change eliminates winter freezes for the Midwest.
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.
