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)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2016, 10:10 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,552 posts, read 3,633,260 times
Reputation: 3625

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jon3154 View Post
A. Isolated from large cities
B. Lack of a diversified economy
C. Wilderness and too far inland
D. No ports, no coastlines
A. Yes it's isolated from large cities, hence why I'm surprised a large logistics center for resources being extracted from the region never became to be historically. They are still quite a bit a ways from Denver and Salt Lake City.

B. Probably something to do with A.

C. Denver though is a lot further inland and managed to grow. So did places in the Plains. Phoenix is just as far inland as these states and look at Phoenix. So not C.

D. It's called rail and nowadays, trucks and airplanes. Again, see Denver, Phoenix, Plains cities, etc.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2016, 10:26 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,527 posts, read 3,679,293 times
Reputation: 4110
As others have mentioned, the lack of a port or near ocean access put them behind back when the country was developing in the west. Seattle, San Francisco, and to some extent, Portland, all had that advantage. And this still remains important today.

That said, Boise is an up and coming regional center. And the climate there is not all that bad. It is a modified continental climate, meaning it combines inland mountain climate features with some pacific influence. All in all, that makes Boise one of the milder climates in Idaho, similar to Lewiston, up north along the Washington border.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 11:55 PM
 
Location: Savannah GA
13,420 posts, read 16,946,928 times
Reputation: 9512
Somebody didn't pay attention in US History class ...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 09:03 AM
 
2,727 posts, read 5,144,969 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy View Post
Somebody didn't pay attention in US History class ...
Exactly. Several great answers have been provided, yet none seem to satisfy.

Here is a question, Why are New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and Delaware and Vermont so unpopulated? These states all have populations smaller than Idaho and they are near hugely populated areas.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 10:55 AM
 
Location: crafton pa
979 posts, read 355,979 times
Reputation: 1194
Quote:
Originally Posted by Syringaloid View Post
Exactly. Several great answers have been provided, yet none seem to satisfy.

Here is a question, Why are New Hampshire, Maine, Rhode Island and Delaware and Vermont so unpopulated? These states all have populations smaller than Idaho and they are near hugely populated areas.
Simple. Land area. Compare population densities and it's clear that the states you mentioned really aren't unpopulated at all, at least compared to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana:


State National Rank Population Density
Idaho 44 20.0
Montana 48 7.1
Wyoming 49 6.0
Maine 38 43.1
Vermont 31 67.9
New Hampshire 21 148.6
Delaware 6 485.3
Rhode Island 2 1021.6


Comparing your states to the OP's, the least densely populated of yours (Maine) is more than twice as densely populated as the most densely populated mentioned by the OP (Idaho). I would, based on density numbers, also include both Dakotas in the OP's question (Ranked SD 46th and ND 47th at 11.3 and 11.0 per sq mi respectively). Clearly Delaware and Rhode Island are among the MOST populated states and don't belong in any such comparison. The states not mentioned that could be logically compared are New Mexico (rank 45, 17.2/sq mi), Nebraska (43rd, 24.7), Nevada (42nd, 26.3), and maybe Kansas (41st, 35.6) and Utah (40th 36.5). All other states except Alaska have more than twice the population density of Idaho. (Alaska, of course has the lowest at 1.3, but that's not really too surprising).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 10:57 AM
 
2,727 posts, read 5,144,969 times
Reputation: 1938
Quote:
Originally Posted by stremba View Post
Simple. Land area. Compare population densities and it's clear that the states you mentioned really aren't unpopulated at all, at least compared to Wyoming, Idaho and Montana:


State National Rank Population Density
Idaho 44 20.0
Montana 48 7.1
Wyoming 49 6.0
Maine 38 43.1
Vermont 31 67.9
New Hampshire 21 148.6
Delaware 6 485.3
Rhode Island 2 1021.6


Comparing your states to the OP's, the least densely populated of yours (Maine) is more than twice as densely populated as the most densely populated mentioned by the OP (Idaho). I would, based on density numbers, also include both Dakotas in the OP's question (Ranked SD 46th and ND 47th at 11.3 and 11.0 per sq mi respectively). Clearly Delaware and Rhode Island are among the MOST populated states and don't belong in any such comparison. The states not mentioned that could be logically compared are New Mexico (rank 45, 17.2/sq mi), Nebraska (43rd, 24.7), Nevada (42nd, 26.3), and maybe Kansas (41st, 35.6) and Utah (40th 36.5). All other states except Alaska have more than twice the population density of Idaho. (Alaska, of course has the lowest at 1.3, but that's not really too surprising).

Great answer, you hit the nail on the head! Now can you answer the OP's question? There are wilderness areas in Idaho larger than some New England states in land size, and the state of Idaho is larger than all of New England in size, so the population density in Idaho is spread out.

I'm not sure if the OP is interested in density or just over all population.

Last edited by Syringaloid; 12-08-2016 at 11:09 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 12:51 PM
 
15,401 posts, read 7,868,802 times
Reputation: 7988
Quote:
Originally Posted by PerseusVeil View Post
Out of curiosity, has Montana focused on a lot of big cities when it comes to tourism, or has Chicago been the state's primary target? They've been plastering ads on the CTA on and off for several years now. I'm talking about even putting moose statues above entrances.


Source: Bison, moose and bears, oh my: Hybrid campaign takes the big sky to the big city | Digital Signage Today

Granted Montana isn't the only place to do this in Chicago. Over the summer NYC had Mutant Ninja Turtle ads asking Chicagoans to visit NYC at so many bus stops it was unreal.
Had to say this is hilarious!!! The big -ole moose!!

We get a lot of ads in Ohio for Michigan, which is right up the street from me and from Alabama and Florida, but NOTHING like this!

On the OP, all those states IMO are known for wilderness and small homesteads and just places people live who want to be self sufficient and enjoy beautiful scenery.

I'm a city-gal and wouldn't want to live in either Montana or Wyoming. I honestly cannot even think of a city off the top of my head for Wyoming.

Now Idaho has Boise and I have a friend who lives there and I like Boise and wouldn't mind living there. It is a beautiful city surrounded by beautiful scenery.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 03:49 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,552 posts, read 3,633,260 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by fayettemiss. View Post
Think not being anywhere near the coast or lots of water and like inconvenience has a lot to do with it...

Might even been a harsh place to inhabit..
OK explain Denver and Tucson to me then. Why these far inland areas and not anywhere in Mt WY or ID?

Tucson: logistics center and mining town (before Phoenix usurped everything around the roaring 20s and Great Depression)

Denver: logistics and also mining

How are these areas convenient (especially the dry and hot desert where I live) but not these three states? No one has proved that to me. Stop repeating the same sentence without providing any support. No one has proved why a place like Tucson which is in one of the most arid counties in Arizona (surface water) was able to facilitate and sort of headstart Arizona into creating a behemoth city and being a heavily populated state. Arizona has about as much electoral votes as Washington yet Washington has this fancy port and coast of which you speak. Phoenix is the same size as Seattle (close anyway).

And it's not climate because without water the heat will kill you. Enough jackets and clothing created by killing animals will keep you warm in a place that is cold. But if you can't get to any water, you will die here. Please tell me how Tucson and likewise Phoenix are more open, less harsh, and were able to grow into a huge state without this fancy coast and all that H2O. Remember Phoenix is about just as far inland as these states.

So answer me this question since I'm so wrong here (all of you replying so far): Why Arizona and not any of these three states? If Colorado and Arizona could do it, why not Idaho or Montana or Wyoming?

Again it's not water problems (my state alone dismantles that). If Arizona could create a behemoth city in the 20th century why didn't these three states?

So far people have put up logistics problems which I don't really understand but I guess it's a plausible answer (maybe couldn't build rail, this has nothing to do with boats).. Some have mentioned a lack of resources which is also plausible. Some have mentioned just little desire overall in the area, which is plausible. But no coast and harsh winters (or any other climate issue) is entirely false. I am living proof alone that no coast and harsh weather is not an issue of creating a large city. So stop saying this.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 04:19 PM
 
Location: Washington State desert
5,527 posts, read 3,679,293 times
Reputation: 4110
Quote:
Originally Posted by Prickly Pear View Post
OK explain Denver and Tucson to me then. Why these far inland areas and not anywhere in Mt WY or ID?

Tucson: logistics center and mining town (before Phoenix usurped everything around the roaring 20s and Great Depression)

Denver: logistics and also mining

How are these areas convenient (especially the dry and hot desert where I live) but not these three states? No one has proved that to me. Stop repeating the same sentence without providing any support. No one has proved why a place like Tucson which is in one of the most arid counties in Arizona (surface water) was able to facilitate and sort of headstart Arizona into creating a behemoth city and being a heavily populated state. Arizona has about as much electoral votes as Washington yet Washington has this fancy port and coast of which you speak. Phoenix is the same size as Seattle (close anyway).

And it's not climate because without water the heat will kill you. Enough jackets and clothing created by killing animals will keep you warm in a place that is cold. But if you can't get to any water, you will die here. Please tell me how Tucson and likewise Phoenix are more open, less harsh, and were able to grow into a huge state without this fancy coast and all that H2O. Remember Phoenix is about just as far inland as these states.

So answer me this question since I'm so wrong here (all of you replying so far): Why Arizona and not any of these three states? If Colorado and Arizona could do it, why not Idaho or Montana or Wyoming?

Again it's not water problems (my state alone dismantles that). If Arizona could create a behemoth city in the 20th century why didn't these three states?

So far people have put up logistics problems which I don't really understand but I guess it's a plausible answer (maybe couldn't build rail, this has nothing to do with boats).. Some have mentioned a lack of resources which is also plausible. Some have mentioned just little desire overall in the area, which is plausible. But no coast and harsh winters (or any other climate issue) is entirely false. I am living proof alone that no coast and harsh weather is not an issue of creating a large city. So stop saying this.
The OP specifically asked "why didn't these areas boom earlier". I assume the OP was talking about the growth in the form of a historical perspective. While I agree, mining and railroads had a lot to do with it in places like Denver, the harbor access was just as important. Almost 100 years ago, in 1920, the biggest cities in the west by population were:

1. Los Angeles (577,00)
2. San Francisco (507,000)
3. Seattle (315,000)
4. Portland (258,000)
5. Denver (256,000)

Boise and Tucson were only about 21,000. Phoenix was around 29,000 in 1920, but showed 300+ percent growth in the 1960's. Both Tucson and Phoenix can thank the advent of AC for their rapid growth, among other reasons.

Last edited by pnwguy2; 12-08-2016 at 04:48 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-08-2016, 04:49 PM
 
Location: Tempe, AZ
4,552 posts, read 3,633,260 times
Reputation: 3625
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnwguy2 View Post
The OP specifically asked "why didn't these areas boom earlier". I assume the OP was talking about the growth in the from of a historical perspective. While I agree, mining and railroads had a lot to do with it in places like Denver, the harbor access was just as important. Almost 100 years ago, in 1920, the biggest cities in the west by population were:

1. Los Angeles (577,00)
2. San Francisco (507,000)
3. Seattle (315,000)
4. Portland (258,000)
5. Denver (256,000)

Boise and Tucson were only about 21,000. Phoenix was around 29,000 in 1920, but showed 300+ percent growth in the 1960's. Both Tucson and Phoenix can thank the advent of AC for their rapid growth, among other reasons.
I am the OP.

Yes but Seattle and Phoenix are the same size today. Phoenix usurped Denver in population. And I agree the AC helped a ton 100%. But there's also something known as heaters. If Tucson and Phoenix were near identical to Boise back in the day, then why didn't Boise get a population boom (by a significant amount) until recently? Denver and Phoenix are proof that harbor access isn't too much of a factor, especially given Phoenix's size I think.

So it's got to be something with resources I think.
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