Archived

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

Phizzy

Michigan fact - largest state east of the Mississippi River

Recommended Posts

Michigan, at 96,810 square miles, is by far the largest state state east of the Mississippi River. It is trailed by Florida (65,758 square miles), Wisconsin (65,503 square miles), and Georgia (59,441 square miles). Michigan is much larger than many states in the west, and ranks 11th overall. This is, I think, a little known fact, so much so that Georgia promotes itself (inaccurately) as the largest state east of the Mississippi River.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites


Yes, but 40% of that area is water. If you only account land area Michigan is about 1,100 sq. mi. smaller than Georgia, which makes it the second largest state east of the Mississippi. Another interesting fact is that Michigan has more square miles of water within its boundaries than the bottom 35 states combined.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but 40% of that area is water. If you only account land area Michigan is about 1,100 sq. mi. smaller than Georgia, which makes it the second largest state east of the Mississippi. Another interesting fact is that Michigan has more square miles of water within its boundaries than the bottom 35 states combined.

Yea, 40% is water, but it still resides within Michigan's boundaries. And, obviously, it is important to the state. I am sure that Georgia considers Lake Sidney Lanier, Clark Hill Lake, West Point Lake, and Lake Hartwell important areas of the state.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah if you take away the big lakes, Michigan is 23rd largest state in terms of land. It still remains one of the most populated states. It'll take GA a few more years to catch us there. It's funny because out here in AZ, people think that Phoenix is just so big, you'd laugh if you knew all the times i've told people that Michigan has literally twice as many people as AZ, they don't believe me until I get out the nerd books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is very important, and a fair point, to make the distinction between land and water, especially when water makes up and incredible amount of Michigan's area. And most of that is the Great Lakes, at that, with inland lakes making up a very small percentage of water area.

For instance, one could say that Miami is 55.27 square miles in area, but that's not the full picture. Of that 35.44% is water, which could be mountains for all I care. You can't build on water besides living on boats.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you should look at how important an area is based on if you can "build on it or not". The Rocky Mountains are VERY important to Colorado, even though you can't build much on them. I would take into account the Great Lakes water area in this equation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, but 40% of that area is water. If you only account land area Michigan is about 1,100 sq. mi. smaller than Georgia, which makes it the second largest state east of the Mississippi. Another interesting fact is that Michigan has more square miles of water within its boundaries than the bottom 35 states combined.

It is very important, and a fair point, to make the distinction between land and water, especially when water makes up and incredible amount of Michigan's area. And most of that is the Great Lakes, at that, with inland lakes making up a very small percentage of water area.

For instance, one could say that Miami is 55.27 square miles in area, but that's not the full picture. Of that 35.44% is water, which could be mountains for all I care. You can't build on water besides living on boats.

I'm not sure why it would matter, at all, whether the land is under water or not. Under these considerations, can we assume a state grows and shrinks in accordance with the weather? If, one summer day, Michigan is under sunny skies while Georgia is inundated with 5" of rain, does this mean Michigan would surpass Georgia in size (at least temporarily)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the point he's trying to make is that we have an unfair advantage because of the lakes when you talk about size. But if you look it up in an almanac, the distinction is made between total area, and land area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ right, but IMO total land is a better indicator otherwise it is possible that rhode island be larger than say kentucky if it would include more ocean water (although i think there is 2 mile limit to international water or something) you get my point. in this case Ga could also be correct promoting itself as the largest state east of the mississippi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^ right, but IMO total land is a better indicator otherwise it is possible that rhode island be larger than say kentucky if it would include more ocean water (although i think there is 2 mile limit to international water or something) you get my point.

Incorrect. Rhode Island only has 500 square miles of water area. Kentucky has 681.

in this case Ga could also be correct promoting itself as the largest state east of the mississippi

Georgia only has 1,519 square miles of water area, so, no, Georgia is not the largest state east of the Mississippi. Georgia has a small coastline, but even if it had a coastline as long as South Carolina or Maine, it would still be far smaller than Michigan.

Source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're right, Michigan is the Largest state east of the Mississippi, in total area. However Georgia is the Largest state east of the Mississippi in terms of Land Area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've heard reports that Florida is bigger than Michigan by like a few inches as well. (land area).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It would nice if someone could lay out a ranking of the top ten or so by land area, and then by total area.

Land:

1 Alaska 571,951 square miles

2 Texas 261,797

3 California 155,959

4 Montana 145,552

5 New Mexico 121,356

6 Arizona 113,635

7 Nevada 109,826

8 Colorado 103,718

9 Wyoming 97,100

10 Oregon 95,997

11 Idaho 82,747

12 Utah 82,144

13 Kansas 81,815

14 Minnesota 79,610

15 Nebraska 76,872

16 South Dakota 75,885

17 North Dakota 68,976

18 Missouri 68,886

19 Oklahoma 68,667

20 Washington 66,544

21 Georgia 57,906

22 Michigan 56,804

23 Iowa 55,869

24 Illinois 55,584

25 Wisconsin 54,310

Water:

1 Alaska 91,316 square miles

2 Michigan 39,912

3 Florida 11,828

4 Wisconsin 11,188

5 Louisiana 8,278

6 California 7,736

7 New York 7,342

8 Minnesota 7,329

9 Texas 6,784

10 North Carolina 5,108

11 Washington 4,756

12 Maine 4,523

13 Hawaii 4,508

14 Ohio 3,877

15 Virginia 3,180

16 Utah 2,755

17 Massachusetts 2,715

18 Maryland 2,633

19 Oregon 2,384

20 Illinois 2,331

21 South Carolina 1,911

22 North Dakota 1,724

23 Alabama 1,675

24 Mississippi 1,523

25 Georgia 1,519

Total:

1 Alaska 663,266

2 Texas 268,581

3 California 163,696

4 Montana 147,042

5 New Mexico 121,589

6 Arizona 113,998

7 Nevada 110,561

8 Colorado 104,094

9 Oregon 98,381

10 Wyoming 97,814

11 Michigan 96,716

12 Minnesota 86,939

13 Utah 84,899

14 Idaho 83,570

15 Kansas 82,277

16 Nebraska 77,354

17 South Dakota 77,116

18 Washington 71,300

19 North Dakota 70,700

20 Oklahoma 69,898

21 Missouri 69,704

22 Florida 65,755

23 Wisconsin 65,498

24 Georgia 59,425

25 Illinois 57,914

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50states.com lists Florida at #26 and 53,997 sq miles.

" " Michigan 56,809 sq miles.

" " Georgia 57,919 sq miles.

I thought Florida was larger than IA, IL, and WI.

What takes me by surprise is that Kansas is larger than Minnesota.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What takes me by surprise is that Kansas is larger than Minnesota.

Minnesota (86,939 square miles) is bigger than Kansas (82,277) in total area.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Actually, even if you don't include the upper peninsula, Michigan is still bigger than Georgia. Michigan's lower peninsula is 60,575 square miles, bigger than Georgia's 59,425 square miles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison reminds me of how much of a sprawling mess Atlanta is. lol Detroit is good by no means, but when stacked up the sunbelt sprawlers it almost looks tame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The comparison reminds me of how much of a sprawling mess Atlanta is. lol Detroit is good by no means, but when stacked up the sunbelt sprawlers it almost looks tame.

No kidding, that was the first thing I saw in the comparison.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sprawl is bad in all the fast growing parts of the country, can you name one area that's having explosive growth, that doesn't have atrocious sprawl. I give you the city of Phoenix. Sprawl doesn't exist just in the suburbs. The entire city itself is sprawl, and it's downtown is akin to a Southfield or a Troy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, I was just trying to make the point that many other's have it worst. Sometimes, we think we have it worse than anyone else in the nation, and that's not true.

BTW, I was in downtown Phoenix on a weekday afternoon just a few years ago, and I swear the place felt maybe just a bit larger than downtown Grand Rapids. The inner-city (inner 100 square miles or so), I would guess, only has a population of 500,000-600,000.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can attest to that Lmich, The cities that have knocked Detroit out of the top ten in population, all have land areas that are in some cases 3times the size of Detroit. Detroit may be losing people, but it's still much more densly populated than alot of those other cities out there!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.