How Balanced Is The Urban Population Distribution In Your State, Province. Etc.

[Tuckerman]

[QUOTE=memph;6693546]I don't think water has much to do with the densities. City densities were mostly based on commuting speeds. People weren't commuting by water, they were commuting by foot, horse and buggy, bicycle, streetcar, interurbans, subways and automobiles (depending on the time period).

Sorry, I didn't mean to imply that water was the form of transportation of the residents.

I do disagree with you on the climate change impact. Of course this is still highly speculative as to the magnitude of sea level change - the doomsayers would have areas like Florida and the coastal regions completely underwater. If such a magnitude change occurs then we would see tremendous movement of population into the interior (Atlanta is around 1000 feet above sea level - if it gets that high, we are in real trouble). While it is true that cities like London, Amsterdam and Venice have prepared for and built tremendous sea barriers and continue to build more, most of these are still holding back only a few meters of rise. The cost of sea walls around all the major urban areas from Boston to Washington would be enormous. Fortunately the mainland USA has huge areas for further urban development. Fortunately, I doubt that many of us now reading SP will be around to see the consequences of these large scale changes in population.

[TimCity2000]

Alabama is relatively well-balanced.

Birmingham metro comprises about 25% of the state's population. Huntsville, Montgomery and Mobile metros each contain 10-15%.

Furthermore, the "Big Four" are spread out pretty evenly geographically with Huntsville in the far north, Mobile in the south (on the gulf), and Montgomery and Birmingham in between.

[10023]

nei makes a good point, if it's the one that he intends to make.

Is North America less densely populated than Europe? Of course.

Does this mean that much lower population density is the experience of all North Americans? No, because there are parts of the continent which are similar to Europe (and denser than some parts of Europe).

As when comparing metro area population densities, while factually correct I'm not sure it's relevant or meaningful to any individual person. No one lives "in North America". They live in Chicago, or Rhode Island, or northeast Ohio, or whatever other piece of it they call home and spend 90% of their time in.

[mrnyc]

no state is more evenly balanced than ohio. thats why its the most representative state. not to mention its heart-shaped and located in the heart area of the usa. case closed.

[nei]

Originally Posted by 10023

nei makes a good point, if it's the one that he intends to make.

Is North America less densely populated than Europe? Of course.

Does this mean that much lower population density is the experience of all North Americans? No, because there are parts of the continent which are similar to Europe (and denser than some parts of Europe).

As when comparing metro area population densities, while factually correct I'm not sure it's relevant or meaningful to any individual person. No one lives "in North America". They live in Chicago, or Rhode Island, or northeast Ohio, or whatever other piece of it they call home and spend 90% of their time in.

Thanks. That was the point I was trying to make. My perception of "normal" North America is rather different than a Midwesterner let alone the West. The feel of having lots of old towns between cities is rather normal to me as oopposed to the larger gaps found in much of the rest of the country. Anyway, England definitely does seem quite crowded to me. Particularly southern England. Felt like the Northeast Corridor — that didn't end in any direction. The stricter land use laws were only thing holding it back from feeling like non stop sprawl. I suspect France wouldn't feel that different from home, but it's more farmed relative to the Northeast rather forested. Even though the Northeast is relatively crowded, more of it feels like it's untouched. A lot of the Midwest, in an odd way, even though the density was lower than the interior Northeast, felt more human influenced due to the large scale farming everywhere. The wooded hillsides of the Northeast give the deceptive impression of a less settled place — I've posted photos on another forum and Europeans comment how empty the landscape it is, even though the overall density isn't much different than home! Of course my photos are a bit cherrypicked.

Anyhow going back to the topic, looking at the population distribution of England might be interesting. There's around 14 million people clustered in or near London, but excluding that is southern England obviously more populated than northern England? I think it still is, but I'd like to see for sure. Since I brought it up, maybe I should do a comparison of the Northeast vs France. I suspect the Northeast population is more skewed to one side (coast).

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Shawn

Metro Boston accounts for 4 out of 5 Massholes. In fact, the "West-a-Woostah" crowd don't like being called Massholes.

It's even more unbalanced in New Hampshire, where 8 out 10 people live within 20 minutes of the Mass border. Kind of like the US-Canada border. Only with fireworks and state-run liquor stores.

Yeah, NH is desolate outside the southern tier. Hanover/ Lebanon the oddballs up there