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.
OK, some city sizes for cities of roughly 500,000 -600,000 people, going N to S and E to W (for lack of any better way to do it):
Milwaukee, WI: 96.1 sq mi
Minneapolis-St. Paul, MN (combined): 107.7
Denver: 153
Seattle: 83.9
Portland: 134.3
San Francisco (a bit larger): 46.7
I don't know how many cities include their airport in their sqare mileage; I know Denver does and it is about 1/3 of the area of the city.
Lol why does Denver need a 50 square mile airport? Is it secretly being built as a spaceport to handle intergalatic travelers? My entire town is only a little over 50 square miles!
Seriously I would guess they are building hotels and office parks around the airport. A nice tax boost for Denver?
Still - 50 square miles!
Last edited by LINative; 01-26-2009 at 08:56 PM..
Reason: spelling again
IMHO there is no perfectly legimate reason to hate a huge diverse area like the Midwest. You may prefer to live somewhere else (such as a warmer state) but the only reason I think someone might hate the Midwest is ignorance. They simply have a set stereotype and do not know much else.
And that is what part of the problem is. A common stereotype to the rest of the country is that all the midwest is flat farmland broken here and there by some decaying industrial factory cities. Somehow the word needs to get out, out beyond the Midwest, about the covered bridges of Indiana, the hill country of E. Ohio and S. Missouri, the lakes of Minnesota or the dramatic scenery of the W. Dakotas.
IMHO there is no perfectly legimate reason to hate a huge diverse area like the Midwest. You may prefer to live somewhere else (such as a warmer state) but the only reason I think someone might hate the Midwest is ignorance. They simply have a set stereotype and do not know much else.
And that is what part of the problem is. A common stereotype to the rest of the country is that all the midwest is flat farmland broken here and there by some decaying industrial factory cities. Somehow the word needs to get out, out beyond the Midwest, about the covered bridges of Indiana, the hill country of E. Ohio and S. Missouri, the lakes of Minnesota or the dramatic scenery of the W. Dakotas.
I would move to the Upper Midwest in an instant if a job in my career field opened up. I like the culture and the lakes of the Upper Midwest, and I seem to fit in fairly well due to the fact that I have 50% Norwegian heritage.
However, I really think a huge gulf exists between the Upper Midwest and Lower Midwest in terms of: culture, foods, outdoor activities, diversity, religion, etc.
I grew up in the Lower Midwest, but I just didn't like the general lack of progression and closed-mindedness of many people. Another issue I had with the area was that few people were willing to have intellectual discussions with me. I also hated the intense summer heat. I live in NH now and it seems like people here are quite a bit more intellectual and engaging.
I prefer to live in the relatively reserved, friendly, and generally safe areas of the Upper Midwest and Northern New England.
I would move to the Upper Midwest in an instant if a job in my career field opened up. I like the culture and the lakes of the Upper Midwest, and I seem to fit in fairly well due to the fact that I have 50% Norwegian heritage.
However, I really think a huge gulf exists between the Upper Midwest and Lower Midwest in terms of: culture, foods, outdoor activities, diversity, religion, etc.
I grew up in the Lower Midwest, but I just didn't like the general lack of progression and closed-mindedness of many people. Another issue I had with the area was that few people were willing to have intellectual discussions with me. I also hated the intense summer heat. I live in NH now and it seems like people here are quite a bit more intellectual and engaging. I prefer to live in the relatively reserved, friendly, and generally safe areas of the Upper Midwest and Northern New England.
Everything you said is an entirely acceptable opinion. Nothing wrong with prefering the North Country (Upper Midwest and Northern New England). To each his own and alot of people would agree with you!
But do you hate the Lower Midwest and Southern New England?
oh, well if we're including a northern city, may as well include Philly and NY, you know? just sayin!
I'm not interested in arguing about the boundaries of the South...other people's opinions on that subject really don't matter to me at all. Just for reference I got the information here: Southern United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Another issue I had with the area was that few people were willing to have intellectual discussions with me.
The problem with this statement is that two people can have very different definitions of what comprises an important/intellectual conversation.
A conversation about how well the soybean crop is doing this year isn't necessarily any less "intellectual" than a conversation about the intricacies of the theory of evolution. I would much rather discuss something that is pertinent to my immediate community than some abstract idea that has little to no effect on my life.
I'm not interested in arguing about the boundaries of the South...other people's opinions on that subject really don't matter to me at all. Just for reference I got the information here: Southern United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I HATE it when people make assumptions about cities based on their regional location. All southern cities are not alike...all midwestern cities are not alike - some have large areas, some have smaller areas. Some southern cities haven't annexed any significant area for several decades...Atlanta, for example, last annexed Buckhead in 1952.
"Small" Midwestern Cities by Area:
Indianapolis - 372 sq. mi.
Kansas City - 313 sq. mi.
Chicago - 227 sq. mi.
Columbus - 210 sq. mi.
Fort Wayne - 204 sq. mi.
Denver - 153 sq. mi.
Detroit - 138 sq. mi.
Well you obviously have to take their population into account when you do this....
I was talking density, not just plain old square milage. There are obviously exceptions because of hundreds of years of unique history, but in general Midwestern are different from newer fast growth Southern ones.
"Small" Midwestern Cities by Area:
Indianapolis - 2,152 /sq. mi.
Kansas City - 1,406 /sq. mi.
Chicago - 12,649 /sq. mi.
Columbus - 3,556 sq. mi.
Fort Wayne - 2,605 sq. mi.
Denver - 3,838 sq. mi.
Detroit - 6,856 sq. mi.
Richmond, Orlando, Norfolk, Birmingham Fort Wayne....they're all well under 250,000 people. Orlando doesn't even have 200,000. Miami would be an excellent example of a southern city with a high density/population in a small area that's been built out. Just like San Fran and Seattle are on the west coast.
The Midwest cities are also a good example of cities in the midwest that people think of as more traditional sunbelt type growth areas. Their metros really boomed post WWII, and they all have larger city limits that they grew out after the mature cities of the Midwest were landlocked. Kansas City, Indianapolis, Columbus.
I'm talking more the traditional older/larger cities of the Midwest. The ones people always associate with "Midwest" or "Rustbelt". Those with declining populations that people always think are dying just because their central cities aren't growing.
As opposed to the big sunbelt cities we hear about all the time
Houston 3,828
Dallas 3,605
Atlanta 3,921
Phoenix 2,937
Las Vegas 4,154
San Diego 3,871
I'm not starting a fight here, I was just making an observation. The big successfull cities south/west TEND to have room to grow (I KNOW not all of them do, hence Atlanta). The cities people bring up immediately upon talking about the Midwest's ills TEND to have been penned in for 50 years now. I'm just saying that they might have lost population, but they still pack more people per square mile than most of the growing areas. They're far from abandoned, they just "fluffed out" into their suburbs when conditions in the city went downhill. Hopefully these cities can continue to rebuild themselves and do well. I don't think it's bad that they're not shooting back up to where they were 50 years ago with 15,000 people per square mile. They just need to sustain where they are and make life better for those who are there at this time.
I'm not starting a fight here, I was just making an observation. The big successfull cities south/west TEND to have room to grow (I KNOW not all of them do, hence Atlanta). The cities people bring up immediately upon talking about the Midwest's ills TEND to have been penned in for 50 years now. I'm just saying that they might have lost population, but they still pack more people per square mile than most of the growing areas. They're far from abandoned, they just "fluffed out" into their suburbs when conditions in the city went downhill. Hopefully these cities can continue to rebuild themselves and do well. I don't think it's bad that they're not shooting back up to where they were 50 years ago with 15,000 people per square mile. They just need to sustain where they are and make life better for those who are there at this time.
Great post.
I get sick of hearing the "rust belt" insults.
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.
Just for reference I got the information here: 
