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.
Southern MI is not characterized by farms and rural living. I'm still mystified why people make this claim.
Michigan is a highly urbanized state, with the majority of the state population living in one metro area. The rural population is not particularly large, and Michigan is not a leading agricultural state, though there is obviously an agricultural presence (as in all large, non-arid states).
Just because a large portion of the population lives in one area doesn't exclude the rest of the state from having large rural areas. I grew up in west Mi and there are plenty of small farms and orchards, and 'urban' is not a word I'd use to describe most of the population outside the Detroit metro.
Just because a large portion of the population lives in one area doesn't exclude the rest of the state from having large rural areas.
Obviously everything that is not urban is rural. Is that the brilliant point you're trying to make?
What state is not rural, going by this definition? No state is all urban, so, using your definition, every state is rural. Even Hong Kong is rural, using your weird definition.
Just because a large portion of the population lives in one area doesn't exclude the rest of the state from having large rural areas. I grew up in west Mi and there are plenty of small farms and orchards, and 'urban' is not a word I'd use to describe most of the population outside the Detroit metro.
Of course you're right here, but this NOLA character, who grew up in suburban Detroit and left ASAP, knows less about the state of Michigan than a non-Michigander like myself. And certainly far less than someone, like you, who grew up in rural Michigan.
Also, "country" doesn't mean "farms," it means rural. Whether Michigan has a lot of farms or a lot of trees doesn't make a lick of difference. It's a state with a ton of rural lands/peoples, some of whom live on farms, and some of whom live in the forest.
Obviously everything that is not urban is rural. Is that the brilliant point you're trying to make?
Erm, you're the one trying to make the claim that MI is highly urbanized but other than the eastern area around Detroit I'm not sure what you base that on. How is southern MI not mostly rural in character, have you seen the satellite images of the area? Why are you mystified by those claims?
Southern MI is not characterized by farms and rural living. I'm still mystified why people make this claim.
Michigan is a highly urbanized state, with the majority of the state population living in one metro area. The rural population is not particularly large, and Michigan is not a leading agricultural state, though there is obviously an agricultural presence (as in all large, non-arid states).
Do you even attempt to know what you are talking about before you post?
Michigan ranks near the top for production in a bunch of farming categories.
#1 in blueberry production
#6 dairy state
#3 apple state
#1 tart cherry state
#2 celery state
#2 carrot producing state
#4 sugar beet state
#11 corn producing state
#13 soybean producing state
And there are more!
It is a farming state outside of Metro Detroit. Period.
Of course you're right here, but this NOLA character, who grew up in suburban Detroit and left ASAP, knows less about the state of Michigan than a non-Michigander like myself. And certainly far less than someone, like you, who grew up in rural Michigan.
You realize that population figures are easily found, right? You don't actually have to grow up somewhere to know a population figure. And I didn't even grow up in suburban Detroit, and have no idea what that even has to do with the question of whether or not Michigan is a rural state.
Population of Metro Detroit- 5.3 million
Population of Michigan- 9.9 million
Again, the solid majority of Michigan population is in Metro Detroit. And the #2 metro, Grand Rapids, has over a million residents. More than two-thirds of Michigan population is in two metros.
Overall, Michigan is not a particularly rural state. It's one of the more urbanized states.
Erm, you're the one trying to make the claim that MI is highly urbanized but other than the eastern area around Detroit I'm not sure what you base that on. How is southern MI not mostly rural in character, have you seen the satellite images of the area? Why are you mystified by those claims?
You don't even know what you're arguing.
The proportion of urbanization is based in the proportion of a state living in urban areas. It has nothing to do with characteristics of the geography.
Therefore, if a state's land area is "mostly rural in character" then obviously it's a highly urbanized state. Obviously if no one lives in most of the state, the population is highly urbanized, and not rural.
You completely switch the definition, and now define rural areas as those with the most people living in urban areas. So places like California, where the population is concentrated in a few urban centers, and most of the land is empty, would be very rural, according to you, while somewhere like Mississippi, where there is no dominant population center, and a large rural population, would be very urban, according to you.
Sorry, but no. California is a more urban state than Mississippi. It's population, not geography that obviously determines whether the state is urban or rural. Otherwise the definition is meaningless. and just a function of the state's relative size.
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.