Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 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
GR8scott 153 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 does this include nautical miles? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
hudkina 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 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
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 5, 2006 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
MJLO 978 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 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
RustTown 60 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 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
GRDadof3 3930 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 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
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 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
MJLO 978 Report post Posted March 6, 2006 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
GR8scott 153 Report post Posted March 8, 2006 ^ 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
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2006 ^ 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
MJLO 978 Report post Posted March 8, 2006 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
Michi 0 Report post Posted March 8, 2006 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
RustTown 60 Report post Posted March 8, 2006 It would nice if someone could lay out a ranking of the top ten or so by land area, and then by total area. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
Michi 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 Here's a visual comparison. You can clearly see Michigan is bigger than Georgia. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Phizzy 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
RustTown 60 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
Ka3kab 0 Report post Posted March 9, 2006 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
MJLO 978 Report post Posted March 10, 2006 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
RustTown 60 Report post Posted March 11, 2006 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
MJLO 978 Report post Posted March 11, 2006 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
RustTown 60 Report post Posted March 11, 2006 To be fair, Tempe was pretty nice. It reminded me of a larger and Western-styled East Lansing (i.e. Mill Street and Grand River Avenue...) Share this post Link to post Share on other sites