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.
Texas does pretty good considering its size. If the state was just confined to the Texas Triangle; we'd be at number 9.
True, true. The triangle does a good job with it's big cities, and still has it's natural beauty. With the Texas Triangle, you can have your cake and eat it.
I didn't know Ohio was more densely populated than California, but it makes sense. Everyone here lives in a city, and the state isn't that big geographically, but still holds 11 and a half million people. California is huge, and has many areas where the environment's to harsh for people to live, like in the desert.
Maine, Mississippi, Vermont and West Virginia are the only states east of the Mississippi River that have less population density than the United States as a whole.
California, Hawaii, Louisiana, Texas and Washington are the only states west of the Mississippi River that have more population density than the United States as a whole.
Missouri most closely matches the population density of the United States as a whole, although it is slightly less dense than the United States by decimal points.
Ohio and Pennsylvania are the only states among the 10 most densely-populated that do not touch the Atlantic Ocean.
Alaska is the only state among the 10 least densely-populated that touches an ocean. Oregon is the least densely-populated state in the contiguous United States that touches an ocean.
New York is the most densely-populated state that touches the Great Lakes. Minnesota is the least densely-populated state that touches the Great Lakes.
Illinois is the most densely-populated state that touches the Mississippi River. Iowa is the least densely-populated state that touches the Mississippi River.
Florida is the most densely-populated state that touches the Gulf of Mexico. Mississippi is the least densely-populated state that touches the Gulf of Mexico.
New York is the most densely-populated state that has a land border with Canada. Alaska is the least densely-populated state that has a land border with Canada. Montana is the least densely-populated state in the contiguous United States that has a land border with Canada.
California is the most densely-populated state that borders Mexico. New Mexico is the least densely-populated state that borders Mexico.
Last edited by Craziaskowboi; 11-03-2011 at 03:46 PM..
Reason: Error correction
California, Louisiana, Texas and Washington are the only states west of the Mississippi River that have more population density than the United States as a whole.
Aside from a purely curiosity standpoint the population density of states have little meaning. Cities create population density and not states. To those who say "I prefer to live in low density states" you do realize that even in the high density states there are probably plenty of areas (in fact probably most of any state's land area) that could be as low or lower density than where you live or prefer to live.
Aside from a purely curiosity standpoint the population density of states have little meaning. Cities create population density and not states. To those who say "I prefer to live in low density states" you do realize that even in the high density states there are probably plenty of areas (in fact probably most of any state's land area) that could be as low or lower density than where you live or prefer to live.
This is true. For example, the high population densities of the northeast states are almost entirely due to the BosWash metropolitan areas. In the U.S., most people live in metropolitan areas.
This is true. For example, the high population densities of the northeast states are almost entirely due to the BosWash metropolitan areas. In the U.S., most people live in metropolitan areas.
Even the most populous state, 1,196 people per square mile New Jersey, is quite low. 1,196 per square mile is about the density of an exurban subdivision with McMansions on one acre lots and only two people per household. There are 640 acres per square mile and two people per acre is 1,280 per square mile, still more dense than New Jersey; every man, woman and child would have over half an acre to themselves if land was divided evenly. Considering in a state like New Jersey and most states are concentrated in cities then the rural areas of that state are far less dense than average density.
Aside from a purely curiosity standpoint the population density of states have little meaning. Cities create population density and not states. To those who say "I prefer to live in low density states" you do realize that even in the high density states there are probably plenty of areas (in fact probably most of any state's land area) that could be as low or lower density than where you live or prefer to live.
I didn't say anything about living, just that I prefer low density states. Picking favorite states is always an exercise of curiosity, nothing more. I 'prefer' Idaho to Ohio overall. That doesn't mean I couldn't be quite happy living in Ohio.
The point of my comment was that low-density states generally appeal to me overall, and that this is not surprising. There are other traits correlated with low density (climate, geography, culture, etc.) that explain this.
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.
