Maps for urban percentage of population by state

[bagelman]

1800:

1810:

1820:

1830:

1840:

1850:

[Vosem]

Fascinating (surprising in the modern sense; not surprising when I remember the context of the time) that Louisiana was once among the most urbanized states of the union (can't quite tell -- was it the most urbanized in the 1810s?).

[bagelman]

1860:

1870:

NY is tied

1880:

1890:

1900:

[bagelman]

Fascinating (surprising in the modern sense; not surprising when I remember the context of the time) that Louisiana was once among the most urbanized states of the union (can't quite tell -- was it the most urbanized in the 1810s?).

LA ranked second behind RI in the 1810s, probably because of New Orleans.

Raw data is from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urbanization_in_the_United_States

[bagelman]

1910:



1920



1930



1940



1950

[bagelman]

1960



1970



Arkansas is tied

1980



1990



2000



2010

[Ban my account ffs!]

So Maine is the only state that was briefly over 50%, then went back under.  Interesting.

[Green Line]

So Maine is the only state that was briefly over 50%, then went back under.  Interesting.

What happened there?

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Fascinating (surprising in the modern sense; not surprising when I remember the context of the time) that Louisiana was once among the most urbanized states of the union (can't quite tell -- was it the most urbanized in the 1810s?).

Not too surprising when you consider how much of it would've been uninhabitable swampland before modern development.

[Vosem]

Oh, I'm totally aware that New Orleans was one of the most significant urban centers of early 19th-century America. Just looks weird in a modern-context, where Louisiana isn't thought of at all as a particularly urban state.

[Ban my account ffs!]

So Maine is the only state that was briefly over 50%, then went back under.  Interesting.

What happened there?

A weird thing happened int he 70s... All the baby boomers, being fairly antisocial and prone to violent crime, moved out to the countryside to "find themselves" so they wouldn't have to live in an oversized box on a small lot with a very high fence so they can avoid the neighbors.

But seriously, hyperbolic as that might seem, that's kinda what happened.  Part of it was driven by the resources boom after the oil embargo.  Alaska, western North Dakota, even the farm belt.. saw growth after decline during the 50s and 60s.  In contrast, the manufacturing areas and inner cities absolutely collapsed.  The list of major cities in the U.S> that grew in the 1970s is almost nil.  That resource extraction based growth mostly collapsed in the 80s... but there was a whole contingent of baby boomers who wanted to run a dairy farm in Vermont or what have you... and those people stuck around even if many of the oil people eventually settled in a 2nd ring suburb and started families.

The main point here (no pun intended) was that Maine likely saw a consistent migration from the rural areas to teh cities after WWII like everywhere else.  Some rural people moved out of Maine, others to the cities in Maine.  Then in the 70s, people moved in in large numbers... but not to the cities, and at the same time people already in the cities of Maine moved out of state.

[jimrtex]

So Maine is the only state that was briefly over 50%, then went back under.  Interesting.

What happened there?

Maine doesn't have a lot of cities. Based on population of urban areas:

Portland (includes much of Saco and Biddeford, but not Brunswick): 204K

Bangor (includes Orono): 61K
Lewiston (includes Auburn and Lisbon Falls): 59K

There are two NH-based urbanized areas that lap into Maine.

Portsmouth NH (includes Kittery and York Harbor): 88K, 17K in Maine.
Dover-Rochester NH: 88K, 8K in Maine.

Brunswick (includes Bath): 29K
Waterville: 26K
Augusta: 23K

then:

Sanford: 14K
Rockland: 9K
Kennebunk: 8K
Presque Isle: 6K (10th largest urban area based in Maine).

Between 2500-5000: Bar Harbor, Belfast, Calais, Camden, Ellsworth, Farmington, Houlton, Livermore Falls, Millinocket, Pittsfield, Rumford, Skowhegan, South Paris.

Between 2000 and 2010: Madawaska and Madison fell below the 2500 threshold, and Ellsworth increased above it. Bar Harbor, Calais, and Pittsfield are just above the threshold.

3 urban clusters were absorbed by nearby neighbors. But these don't indicate much urban growth since the population was already classified as urban.

York Harbor (8K) absorbed by Portsmouth.
North Windham (8K) absorbed by Portland.
Lisbon Falls (7K) absorbed by Lewiston.

The definition of "urban" was changed in 1950, and included areas that were not formally incorporated. This increased the urban population in Maine where cities were not necessarily "cities", and towns (townships) could function like a city, but not have be designated as such.

1950: 472K Urban, 441K Rural
1960: 497K Urban, 472K Rural
1970: 504K Urban, 488K Rural
1980: 534K Urban, 590K Rural
1990: 547K Urban, 680K Rural
1990: 523K Urban, 704K Rural (density-based definition)
2000: 513K Urban, 762K Rural
2010: 514K Urban, 814K Rural

Between 1970 and 1990 there was considerable growth in the rural population, including many areas that had lost their farming population. Maine only has about 8000 farmers, with more than half having some other primary occupation. The top products are potatoes, milk, blueberries, and hay.

[RINO Tom]

So there are only four states in the US that are majority rural, and two voted for Clinton and two voted for Trump?  Obviously the GOP cleans up in the rural areas, but I believe this confirms my theory that they couldn't win a single state without a very large suburban base.  Actual GOP coalitions in the states that they win likely involve doing all of the following (remember, the counties aren't an electoral college of their own ... you just have to win the popular vote in the state):

- 70% in the rural counties (not even close to winning yet)
- 60%+ in the exurban counties (I'd argue this is the most essential to GOP victories)
- 40-60% in more urban suburban counties (don't need to win them, though they do win a lot still, just need to get enough votes)
- 20-30% in cities (this likely pushes them over the top)

When you think about it, while the GOP obviously NEEDS rural voters, it is incredibly dumb to draw a clean urban/suburban vs. rural divide for the Democrats vs. the GOP ... Republicans would lose almost every state.

[jimrtex]

So there are only four states in the US that are majority rural, and two voted for Clinton and two voted for Trump?  Obviously the GOP cleans up in the rural areas, but I believe this confirms my theory that they couldn't win a single state without a very large suburban base.  Actual GOP coalitions in the states that they win likely involve doing all of the following (remember, the counties aren't an electoral college of their own ... you just have to win the popular vote in the state):

- 70% in the rural counties (not even close to winning yet)
- 60%+ in the exurban counties (I'd argue this is the most essential to GOP victories)
- 40-60% in more urban suburban counties (don't need to win them, though they do win a lot still, just need to get enough votes)
- 20-30% in cities (this likely pushes them over the top)

When you think about it, while the GOP obviously NEEDS rural voters, it is incredibly dumb to draw a clean urban/suburban vs. rural divide for the Democrats vs. the GOP ... Republicans would lose almost every state.

Back at the time of the One Man, One Vote decisions, commentators were certain that equal population districts would benefit Democrats. But they would ignore facts such as counties like DuPage being more underrepresented than Cook, or that the more Republican areas in the South were the cities.

[Averroës Nix]

When you think about it, while the GOP obviously NEEDS rural voters, it is incredibly dumb to draw a clean urban/suburban vs. rural divide for the Democrats vs. the GOP ... Republicans would lose almost every state.

There has been such a large percentage of voters living in suburban areas since the 1950s that it is a struggle for either party to win without at least making it close among them. Democrats rely more heavily on higher density suburbs, suburbs with more minorities, and suburbs with high percentages of voters with graduate degrees or in public employment.

There’s also a much smaller share of voters living in rural and small town settings than there are in cities, and even in 2016 Republicans did not win those voters by the same margin as Democrats win non-suburban urban voters. (Although a rural advantage is pretty obviously very helpful in terms of drawing legislative favorable districts and winning Senate seats.)

I think we on the forum tend to get a little misled by our interest in maps and, even more, our interest in place. Suburbs are not quite as drab, uniform, and lacking in character as it’s tempting to think but it’s undoubtedly true that there’s more history, cultural variation, and economic geography to get into when we think about voting patterns in cities, villages, and rural areas.

Suburbs are also frequently more difficult to map. Precincts take strange shapes and can vary wildly in size and population. Some of them shift frequently to accommodate new development. And the character of suburban development in most of the US makes it difficult to build mental maps of these places. We usually don’t have the same landmarks to use as reference points as we do when working at the county or urban neighborhood.

The result of this is that we collectively have a better understanding of voting patterns by neighborhood in a city like Boston, or by county in a rural state like Montana, than we do of voting patterns in suburban Orlando even though the latter is more populous.

[Averroës Nix]

Another mistaken assumption that you frequently catch - not on this forum, but from certain types IRL - is that most rural areas in the US are something like Appalachia.

We tend to have a better appreciation for rural diversity here and an understanding that Democrats are not just competitive but dominant in certain rural areas, both non-white (e.g. the Delta, the Black Belt, Indian reservations, northern New Mexico, the Rio Grande Valley) and white (e.g. the Berkshires, the Iron Mountains).