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

[Razor]

^ Interesting...Good insight!

[Razor]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

actually, the way that the boundaries of the sub-territories of the old Northwest Territory were originally drawn, the land that chicago now sits on would have been part of the territory that eventually became wisconsin. the territory that became illinois originally had no great lakes access, the northern boundary falling just short of the southern tip of lake michigan. when illinois applied for statehood in 1818 an illinois delegate named Nathaniel Pope successfully spear headed a bill that moved illinois' northen border ~50 miles north, giving the state great lakes access and also the land that would eventually become home to the biggest city in the interior of the country.

had Nathaniel Pope not been such a visionary to go for the big land grab, the land that chicago sits on would now be in wisconsin, and with two states bickering over funding, the I&M canal might have never been dug (the canal that connected lake michigan to the illinois river), and without the I&M canal, the railroads might not have all centralized on chicago, and without becoming the rail hub of the nation, chicago might have only grown into a midsize metro, similar to milwaukee or indianapolis, and st. louis might have instead become the central rail hub of the nation and grown into the alpha city of the midwest.

it's fun to play the what-ifs of history based on a small tweak of a territorial border 2 centuries ago.

Yes it is...Interesting read on that historical factoid and take on the "what if's".

[McBane]

They don't call it Pennsyltucky for nothing. Sure, the Philly area is the largest metro and Pittsburgh is there, too, but PA still has a very large rural/small town population. It's definitely held us back in many ways. For one, it's difficult for any Philadelphia politician to get elected to a state-wide office. Second, we're constantly WAY behind our smaller, more urban and progressive neighbors in the Northeast - marijuana policy, abortion, gay marriage, transit funding, to name a few.

Philadelphia is large enough to make an impact on the direction of our state, but not enough to dominate it, like say Chicago/IL and NY/NY.

[chris08876]

Originally Posted by McBane

They don't call it Pennsyltucky for nothing. Sure, the Philly area is the largest metro and Pittsburgh is there, too, but PA still has a very large rural/small town population. It's definitely held us back in many ways. For one, it's difficult for any Philadelphia politician to get elected to a state-wide office. Second, we're constantly WAY behind our smaller, more urban and progressive neighbors in the Northeast - marijuana policy, abortion, gay marriage, transit funding, to name a few.

I think its like that for a lot of the nation as well. Outside of the major metros, its tea people land.

FREEDOM and Jesus!

[10023]

Considering the administrative subdivision that I'm in is Greater London, I would say that yes there is one dominant urban area. Though not technically one dominant "city", as the cities of London and Westminster aren't actually that big.

[hauntedheadnc]

Originally Posted by enoch-emery

Yes, in the US I feel like North Carolina and Ohio would top the list. (Besides maybe the really small states.) Balance has its benefits, but as a consequence both states lack the really big city they deserve.

North Carolina does have the big city, although whether it deserves it is up for debate. Charlotte stands head and shoulders above the Triangle and Triad because its million-plus people are all in or near the single City of Charlotte. The Triangle and Triad are dispersed among three main cities and all their attendant sprawl.

[Altauria]

In the US I've never seen a more dichotomic relationship than that of Illinois and Chicago. This extends well beyond population balance. While the political imbalance is probably clear to even those who lack interest in the subject, the economical imbalance is quite shocking. Almost without exception as soon as you leave Chicagoland, the rest of the state appears incredibly forlorn. There's this cultural imbalance amongst numerous, dilapidated, towns that dot the landscape, occasionally saved and preserved by a university (Urbana); but often not (Normal).

Perhaps it's the open plains and less dense nature that superficially creates this sense of depression, when compared to its cousins in the East and South. For example, a heavily forested, densely populated town in upstate New York may appear more economically successful than a town surrounded by fields, simply because it's more esthetically pleasing (to some).

[Xelebes]

Alberta is relatively even. Population is something 4 million. Two cities with 1.2-1.3 million, three cities hugging around 100 000, two cities in the next tier of 50-70 000, and a whole bunch of cities and towns in the 5 000 to 25 000 range.

[MolsonExport]

The Canadian province of Manitoba is extremely lopsided.

City proper populations (city, pops for 2011, 2006)

Winnipeg 663,617 633,451
Brandon 46,061 41,511 (look at the steep drop off)
Steinbach 13,524 11,066
Portage la Prairie 12,996 12,728
Thompson 12,829 13,446
Winkler 10,670 9,106
Selkirk 9,834 9,515
Dauphin 8,251 7,906
Morden 7,812 6,571

At the 2011 census, Manitoba had a population of 1,208,268, more than half of which is in the Winnipeg Capital Region; Winnipeg is Canada's eighth-largest Census Metropolitan Area, with a population of 730,018

Wikipedia

Whitehorse and environs contains something like 90% of Yukon (territory) population.

[MolsonExport]

powerpoint presentation on "primate city and rank size rule" http://www.slideshare.net/PlanningTh...rank-size-rule

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

powerpoint presentation on "primate city and rank size rule" http://www.slideshare.net/PlanningTh...rank-size-rule

I just got back from Peru, and Lima is so far above the next cities in the country to be almost ridiculous. Metro Lima is closing on ten million (woot).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of..._areas_of_Peru

[Evergrey]

Newfoundland and Labrador seems to have the most unbalanced population distribution.

[enoch-emery]

Originally Posted by hauntedheadnc

North Carolina does have the big city, although whether it deserves it is up for debate. Charlotte stands head and shoulders above the Triangle and Triad because its million-plus people are all in or near the single City of Charlotte. The Triangle and Triad are dispersed among three main cities and all their attendant sprawl.

I suppose you are right. I actually live in Charlotte. It's nice, I'm just a little jealous of Atlanta. It seems like many people even in the US have never even heard of Charlotte.

The sprawl in central NC is terrible. I drove down I-85 the other day and noticed from Durham to Greensboro there is a continuous stretch of strip malls and restaurants along the entire way.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by Razor

Maybe Ohio would do better in this department if say Cleveland had 5.0 million, and Columbus and Cinci had 1.5 each (interchangeable of course swapping Cleveland for Columbus etc.).

Well, the Ohio portion of Metro Cinci is closer to 1.5 million... as a big chunk of the metro is across the river in Northern Kentucky.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by memph

Budapest is about 10x the size of the second, with Hungary having a similar population to Ohio, but it's no bigger than Cleveland. I think in many European countries it's much more common to have a big chunk of the population living in small cities and towns. For Hungary, that's mostly <200,000 cities and towns.

How is Budapest no bigger than Cleveland? Cleveland MSA has little over 2 million on >10,000 km2. Budapest Commuter Area has 3.3 million on 7,600 km2.

For a city (ie S Florida) to have 30% of the population would be a lot. You look at countries with similar populations to Florida like Poland, Netherlands or Romania, or even smaller countries like Serbia, Austria, Czech Republic, Belgium and there's no city with 30% of the population. Only Greece has that setup with Portugal coming close.

Serbia, Austria and the Czech Republic most definately have primate cities whose metropolitan areas comprise 25-30% of the national population. Belgium too really, but like the Netherlands and some areas in Poland (Silesia, Tri City) cities have formed vast conurbations. Also Poland has TWICE the population of Florida!

If you look at Europe (excluding Russia) the population is bigger than the US but the two biggest cities are smaller than Chicago and LA and the third biggest is well behind Chicago.

This is completely wrong!

How are London and Paris smaller than Chicago?! How is London smaller than LA? (even Paris probably isn't in a like for like comparison). I'm ignoring Istanbul here, also larger than any US city except New York in every possible way.
And third biggest what? Berlin is bigger than the City of Chicago. So are Madrid and Rome. And by metropolitan area Milan and Randstad are not well behind Chicago at all, Rhein Ruhr being significantly bigger even!

BTW I don't really see the Rhine-Ruhr or Randstad as a city. Even in polycentric metros like LA you still have a centre in terms of density patterns, and ammenities. There's nothing in OC that rivals the role of DTLA-Mid-Wilshire like Rotterdam rivals Amsterdam or Dusseldorf rivals Cologne.

I guess the Bay Area is not a city then either. Neither is "South Florida". In fact, no US CSA is and most MSAs aren't either. This is just another case of hyperinflating US cities using MSA/CSA and comparing against faulty data about European "cities". You're reference to "mostly <200,000 cities and towns" in Europe says enough. Using US definitions on these cities (or even less inclusive local definitions) makes a lot of them (including my own) >500,000.

[SHiRO]

Originally Posted by 10023

Considering the administrative subdivision that I'm in is Greater London, I would say that yes there is one dominant urban area. Though not technically one dominant "city", as the cities of London and Westminster aren't actually that big.

Obviously your "state" would be the UK or England.

[pdxtex]

portland and the willamette valley make up 60 percent of the oregon state population so outside of that cooridor, its yeeeeeehaw! it really is the wild west on the other side of the cascades. when the zombie apocolypse happens, thats where im heading.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Newfoundland and Labrador seems to have the most unbalanced population distribution.

Most Canadian provinces have an empty north... even though for example southern Ontario and southern Quebec are decently balanced, if you don't ignore the norths and are looking at the entire provinces on a map, they kinda look like Illinois upside down for population distribution.

[lio45]

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.

Last I checked Coos County was the only county actually losing population, so, the imbalance is getting "worse" as time passes. Not that it matters IMO... I would consider denser areas + pristine wilderness is generally superior to an uniform population distribution over the same area. (Could anyone with a straight face say that they'd rather have all of NYC evenly spread over all the beautiful countryside of Upstate NY instead, for the same population overall? Woot woot for seeing the countryside get populated, I suppose?)

[MolsonExport]

Originally Posted by lio45

Last I checked Coos County was the only county actually losing population, so, the imbalance is getting "worse" as time passes. Not that it matters IMO... I would consider denser areas + pristine wilderness is generally superior to an uniform population distribution over the same area. (Could anyone with a straight face say that they'd rather have all of NYC evenly spread over all the beautiful countryside of Upstate NY instead, for the same population overall? Woot woot for seeing the countryside get populated, I suppose?)

hear, hear. who needs woots anyhow?