Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Sundodger

2000 Census "nighttime" map

Recommended Posts


A very interesting map indeed. I love seeing them, thanks for posting it.

On a side note, I'd like to point out how a majority of the dots are to the right of this red line. The reason I point this out is because it serves as an interesting divison between the east and west, a topic that has been brought up here before:

2000CensusMapUSAMod3.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's interesting to see that we haven't conquered all of the West. I didn't know we were that much of an eastern country.

I think some of the West will always remain "unconquered", seeing as there are so many natural obstacles such as the Rocky Mountains an deserts out there that not too many people would want to live in. Not to mention the fact that some of the land belongs to the government and various Indians.

But it still is interesting to see how much of it is left nonetheless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone made the case to me that there is no SanSan megalopolis because of the great empty space between the San Francisco and LA metros. I can see that on this map. And even in the Northeast's concentration of dots, the BosWash megalopolis, much of it is low-density exurbs connecting metros.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Southeast is forming a metropolis archipelago from Atlanta through Greenville, Charlotte, The Triad, and the Triangle. Could this become the southern counterpart to the Northeast's Megalopolis from DC to Boston?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Southeast is forming a metropolis archipelago from Atlanta through Greenville, Charlotte, The Triad, and the Triangle. Could this become the southern counterpart to the Northeast's Megalopolis from DC to Boston?

Yah, that line from Atlanta to Raleigh jumped out at me too.

Most of the area West of that red line (thanks ironchapman) is/was pretty uninhabitable up until this century. Huge plains (Kansas, Nebraska), dry desert areas (most of Nevada, Utah, Arizona, New Mexico, Eastern California), rugged mountains (Wyoming, Colorado, Montana, Dakotas, Idaho, ), and little water supply other than the Colorado River left it pretty hostile territory for early settlers, and many did not survive. And most U.S. cities were founded in the mid 1800's when the country was still being settled East to West, which was not that long ago (relatively speaking).

Just my take.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to see a night map of Tokyo. That urban are streches out for more than 100 miles and most of it is very urban. Would be neat to see it at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The way this country is going, pretty soon the entire eastern half will be one huge megasprawlopolis. Right now you could easily argue that even the traditional megalopolis really can extend through central New York all the way out along the Great Lakes to Wisconsin.

On another note, interesting little gap in the megalopolis in what looks like Eastern Connecticutt.

And another note, I want people in New York to look at this map and see that just because New England states are small doesn't mean nobody lives there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On another note, interesting little gap in the megalopolis in what looks like Eastern Connecticutt.

Yup, the media in CT oficially refers to that area as the "quiet corner". :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks like the Southeast is forming a metropolis archipelago from Atlanta through Greenville, Charlotte, The Triad, and the Triangle. Could this become the southern counterpart to the Northeast's Megalopolis from DC to Boston?

Counterpart? You've never heard the term Bolanta?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the larger population in the east be due to the British colonizing

that area first?

Well, yes and no. That area was colonized first, but the west has much more rugged terrain, so it is harder to settle. It is also much drier, so the cities that do exist in the west have to bring in their water from somewhere else, which may not always be the most effecient thing to do.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, yes and no. That area was colonized first, but the west has much more rugged terrain, so it is harder to settle. It is also much drier, so the cities that do exist in the west have to bring in their water from somewhere else, which may not always be the most effecient thing to do.

Exactly, that's not to say the east obviously didn't get a head start. Although some western cities like Santa Fe was established around 1609. But terrain and water, mostly the lack of, will keep the west from being settled like the east has been. You can certainly have big cities, but you won't have smaller cities popping up every so many miles that you do back east.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Could the larger population in the east be due to the British colonizing

that area first?

That has a bit to do with it, but the lack of water (desert) and the Rockies keeps alot of the West from being developed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.