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 am starting to really believe that people don't actually read the links that are posted in the original post.
The person that created this wanted to get away from the old ways of determining boundaries by using natural, physical features like rivers and mountains or using lattitude and longitude coordinates, instead of population location and density.
"Pearcy states that many of the early surveys that drew up our boundaries were done while the areas were scarcely populated. Thus, it was convenient to determine boundaries by using the land's physical features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, or by using a simple system of latitude and longitude. Proof of this lies in the fact that the Mississippi River borders IO States. The practicality of old established State lines is questionable in light of America's ever-growing cities and the increasing mobility of its citizens. Metropolitan New York, for example, stretches into 2 adjacent States."
The lines themselves aren't necessarily just random squiggly lines like you think, they are lines that try to follow where the least amount of populations are between areas of larger population, as well as certain physical features (not many people live in mountain range tops or rivers for example). (It will have changed as this was made in 1973, and population has shifted in many areas). This will help with metro areas falling into different jurisdictions, and irregularities such as panhandles.
"When Pearcy realigned the U.S., he gave high priority to population density, location of cities, lines of transportation, land relief, and size and shape of individual States. Whenever possible lines are located in less populated areas. In the West, the desert, semidesert, or mountainous areas provided an easy method for division. In the East, however, where areas of scarce population are harder to determine, Pearcy drew lines "trying to avoid the thicker clusters of settlement."
"Although Pearcy's study contains many logical recommendations for the regrouping of the States, he admits that additional criteria should be considered and suggests "sources of water supply, location of exploitable resources, and composition of the population might well be worthwhile factors to analyze." Also, his study does not include a selection of capitals for his States. Location and size of cities which could adequately serve as State capitals need to be determined-politically as well as geographically."
You can agree with it or not, but there is some method to his madness. It's not just some random drawing.
I am starting to really believe that people don't actually read the links that are posted in the original post.
The person that created this wanted to get away from the old ways of determining boundaries by using natural, physical features like rivers and mountains or using lattitude and longitude coordinates, instead of population location and density.
"Pearcy states that many of the early surveys that drew up our boundaries were done while the areas were scarcely populated. Thus, it was convenient to determine boundaries by using the land's physical features, such as rivers and mountain ranges, or by using a simple system of latitude and longitude. Proof of this lies in the fact that the Mississippi River borders IO States. The practicality of old established State lines is questionable in light of America's ever-growing cities and the increasing mobility of its citizens. Metropolitan New York, for example, stretches into 2 adjacent States."
The lines themselves aren't necessarily just random squiggly lines like you think, they are lines that try to follow where the least amount of populations are between areas of larger population, as well as certain physical features (not many people live in mountain range tops or rivers for example). (It will have changed as this was made in 1973, and population has shifted in many areas). This will help with metro areas falling into different jurisdictions, and irregularities such as panhandles.
"When Pearcy realigned the U.S., he gave high priority to population density, location of cities, lines of transportation, land relief, and size and shape of individual States. Whenever possible lines are located in less populated areas. In the West, the desert, semidesert, or mountainous areas provided an easy method for division. In the East, however, where areas of scarce population are harder to determine, Pearcy drew lines "trying to avoid the thicker clusters of settlement."
"Although Pearcy's study contains many logical recommendations for the regrouping of the States, he admits that additional criteria should be considered and suggests "sources of water supply, location of exploitable resources, and composition of the population might well be worthwhile factors to analyze." Also, his study does not include a selection of capitals for his States. Location and size of cities which could adequately serve as State capitals need to be determined-politically as well as geographically."
You can agree with it or not, but there is some method to his madness. It's not just some random drawing.
Umm I feel like is partially if not totally directed at me and ya i get it. As I said the AREAS make sense, but the boundaries do not. They are random squiggles. He was grouping metro areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no logical boundaries. Okay, hmmmm how can I put it....
Whoever made this map clearly only looked at a map of the US and not of anything more close-up. He was like 'ehhhhhh NYC metro takes up about this area, Philly about this" etc. It is very very vauge. If you are going to make a map dividing the country up, even if it is just for fun, it is a lot better if you take every detail into account. Meaning the boundaries should be sensible. They easily could have kept metro areas together and still used physical features as boundaries. In fact, most metros have developed in this way because inhospitable areas form natural boundaries.
I understand what the map is trying to do. I think it's interesting. But what I like about the world's divisions is that they are historical and somewhat follow the boundaries god gave us. Physical features have determined political divisions not vis versa.
Umm I feel like is partially if not totally directed at me and ya i get it. As I said the AREAS make sense, but the boundaries do not. They are random squiggles. He was grouping metro areas, but that doesn't change the fact that there are no logical boundaries. Okay, hmmmm how can I put it....
Whoever made this map clearly only looked at a map of the US and not of anything more close-up. He was like 'ehhhhhh NYC metro takes up about this area, Philly about this" etc. It is very very vauge. If you are going to make a map dividing the country up, even if it is just for fun, it is a lot better if you take every detail into account. Meaning the boundaries should be sensible. They easily could have kept metro areas together and still used physical features as boundaries. In fact, most metros have developed in this way because inhospitable areas form natural boundaries.
I understand what the map is trying to do. I think it's interesting. But what I like about the world's divisions is that they are historical and somewhat follow the boundaries god gave us. Physical features have determined political divisions not vis versa.
Oh, nope, I wasn't directing that post to you, or anyone specifically.
I do agree about physical features are many times the best form of boundaries, but this person seemed to want to make our boundaries more from a social aspect than a geographic one.
It was stated that physical features was necessary in the past, but because of technology (cars, trains, airplanes) and better infrastructure, physical features are no longer necessary and many times cause inefficiencies. It's just so much more easier to cross a river or a mountain now than it has been in say, the 1800's.
For example, there are 10 states currently that border the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River was a convenient borderline in the past, but it also splits many metros/cities along the way, especially since cities and towns like to form around rivers.
St. Louis is located in Missouri, on the western shore of the Mississippi, but much of its metro area is also on the eastern shore in Illinois. This splits tax money from the metro into two states.
The boundary lines were made more from a population density standpoint more so than anything else.
Oh, nope, I wasn't directing that post to you, or anyone specifically.
I do agree about physical features are many times the best form of boundaries, but this person seemed to want to make our boundaries more from a social aspect than a geographic one.
It was stated that physical features was necessary in the past, but because of technology (cars, trains, airplanes) and better infrastructure, physical features are no longer necessary and many times cause inefficiencies. It's just so much more easier to cross a river or a mountain now than it has been in say, the 1800's.
For example, there are 10 states currently that border the Mississippi River. The Mississippi River was a convenient borderline in the past, but it also splits many metros/cities along the way, especially since cities and towns like to form around rivers.
St. Louis is located in Missouri, on the western shore of the Mississippi, but much of its metro area is also on the eastern shore in Illinois. This splits tax money from the metro into two states.
The boundary lines were made more from a population density standpoint more so than anything else.
In some regards, divisions like this would be much more practical, I just think it would be less interesting.
I just thought it was directed at me because so many of the points you made seemingly responded to my first short post
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.
