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.
By this, I don't necessarily mean racial/ethnic diversity. I'm talking about things such as architecture, build environment, climates, topography, etc. I really can't think of many places that have the same variation (Maybe China?). For example
Phoenix/Las Vegas- Hot and dry Desert cities with a suburban nature and mountainous desert surroundings
Seattle/Portland- Oceanic climate/temperate rain forest cities with compact centers and abundance of pine trees, mountains and water
Miami- Flat Tropical city with beautiful beaches, islands, and palm trees everywhere
Honolulu- Tropical city with mountains, beaches and secluded island location
New Orleans/Houston- Flat Subtropical swamp cities (One a little more historic, one a little more sprawling)
Atlanta/Charlotte- Humid Subtropical hilly cities with sprawl and heavy tree coverage
LA/San Diego/San Francisco- Mediterranean climates with mild/dry weather, beaches, and mountains
I didn't go into as much detail as I could've and there are a lot more examples of course, but I hope you can see what i'm trying to say.
I was looking around Brazil and Australia on Google maps, and although there are some clearly differences in their cities, they seem interchangeable for the most part (In the way they look). I don't feel like the same applies for many US cities. Seattle is completely different than Phoenix. Miami is completely different from LA. Etc.
So is there any other country you can think of with such vast differences from city to city? Does the USA have the most variation in it's cities?
Why are Atlanta and Charlotte the only two cities that get pinned with sprawl when EVERY US city is sitting in the middle of massive sprawl? I find this vexing. The main geographical characteristic of these two cities is that they're located in the Southern Piedmont, a geographic and cultural region that stretches in a narrow crescent between the Appalachians and the coastal plain from Northern Virginia to around Birmingham.
According to 2015 US Census Bureau estimates, the following 16 states contain ~51% of the US population, and none are even remotely in the northeast quadrant of the US: CA, TX, FL, GA, NC, SC, IA, MO, MN, CO, WA, AZ, AL, LA, OR, and OK. Therefore it cannot be true that the majority of the population of the US is in the northeast quadrant.
I haven't done a count, but it also seems unlikely that the majority of cities is in the NE. The NE is the most populous region, but neither the majority of the people or the majority of the cities is located there.
those are just random states, if you get the states of Missouri, Kentucky, Virginia, and everything north of them you get 139,372618 people or 43.3%, so yes not more than half, but still very close and you got a lot of major cities in there such as New York, Chicago, Washington, Philadelphia, Boston, Detroit, Minneapolis, St. Louis, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Kansas City, Cleveland, Columbus, Indianapolis etc.
But I guess it is more fair to look at the top ten cities/metro areas
from the top ten it does seem that the US look more diverse, though that is mainly because of Miami, Houston, and Washington, the rest look fairly similar. And I guess Russia looks also fairly similar too. Though Russia's answer to Miami would be Sochi, though much smaller https://www.google.com/maps/@43.5817...7i13312!8i6656
I don't necessarily question that the US has a large proportion of population in one region. However, the word "majority" has a clear meaning. If you state that the majority of the population lives in the NE quadrant of the US, that means that at least 50% of the population lives there. That is clearly untrue, as my list of 16 states (not random, BTW, but the 16 largest in population that are unquestionably outside of the NE quadrant), proves.
Why are Atlanta and Charlotte the only two cities that get pinned with sprawl when EVERY US city is sitting in the middle of massive sprawl? I find this vexing. The main geographical characteristic of these two cities is that they're located in the Southern Piedmont, a geographic and cultural region that stretches in a narrow crescent between the Appalachians and the coastal plain from Northern Virginia to around Birmingham.
I didn't mean it in that way! I know they aren't the only cities with a tone of sprawl. But in their case the sprawl is a bit different imo. Due to the heavy tree coverage they tend to be a bit more spread out. I don't find sprawl to be all that bad!
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.
