Skyscraper City Forum banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Interesting little map on what the Census beareau considers coastal counties.
I don't know how some of these counties made the list.

The five areas labeled with names and black boxes are a few of the populated coastal areas most threatened by a Katrina scale hurricane.




http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18943252/
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
546 Posts
17.8% for the the Great Lakes that's not too dense.
I wonder how that figure would change when factoring in the less populated Canadian side?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
I always found it kind of odd how sparsely Michigan coastline is considering how much it has. Most of the major cities of the state lie inland, and on non-navigatable rivers, at that.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
The map is only 'wrong' on one level (if wrong at all), and it's that it includes some historically-connected counties connected to coastal counties that don't happen to be on the coast. It seems that their criteria seems to include inland counties that can be effected severly effected by water-born storms, but that still wouldn't count for all of the inland counties included, which is why I think this may have to do something with either close proximity to these coasts, or historical ties to the coasts.

It really would be great if they told us exactly what "near the coast" means. One can only assume it must be a certain amount of miles from the coasts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,116 Posts
That map(given the context of the article in which it was from(The next Katrina) is ridiculous. There are very few areas that are subject to a profound inundation(which was what Katrina was about anyways..vast majority of damage(and deaths) due to salt water flooding) like New Orleans. sure very low lying coastal cities like parts of Houston, parts of Florida(Key West, Tampa Bay) even parts of New York ..but really..in the scope of that article to include the West Coast(no hurricanes but tsunami threat..and the Great Lakes States for God sake? and places like interior Connecticut and Maine?

Also I think that the greater Tampa Area should be on that map-much more populated and overdue for a major storm(lucked out with Charley)

Katrina was only a "Katrina scale disaster" because of the salt water flooding, not wind damage or fresh water flooding. If you are going to use Katrina as the benchmark, then the coastal areas most lowlying(under 25 feet above sea level), most subject to severe hurricanes(Gulf Coast and lower Atlantic) and most difficult to evacuate(Key West, Outer Banks) or most populated (Tampa, Miami, greater Houston,) would be the key areas..not huge inland areas well above sea level. I would think the Tampa area and the Virginia Beach/Norfolk area should be on that map as well.

"The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that around 35 million people — 12 percent of the population — live in the coastal counties most threatened by Atlantic hurricanes."-from the article.

*Sorry to get off point but once I saw the tie in with Katrina with the 'black spots on the map" and then looked at the article..could not help myself..*
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
I wonder what the map would look like if they included the Mississippi River and all the other major rivers running into it in this map. I only say that because if they are going to include the Great Lakes which opens through the St Lawrence River to the rest of the world (yeah, you can ship stuff on a national basis or to canada and not leave the great lakes, but we can ship stuff on a river on a national basis too) they should include other major river systems too.

I bet it would take the cake in this contest, it would be interesting to see what the actual population figures are though.
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
That map(given the context of the article in which it was from(The next Katrina) is ridiculous. There are very few areas that are subject to a profound inundation(which was what Katrina was about anyways..vast majority of damage(and deaths) due to salt water flooding) like New Orleans. sure very low lying coastal cities like parts of Houston, parts of Florida(Key West, Tampa Bay) even parts of New York ..but really..in the scope of that article to include the West Coast(no hurricanes but tsunami threat..and the Great Lakes States for God sake? and places like interior Connecticut and Maine?

Also I think that the greater Tampa Area should be on that map-much more populated and overdue for a major storm(lucked out with Charley)

Katrina was only a "Katrina scale disaster" because of the salt water flooding, not wind damage or fresh water flooding. If you are going to use Katrina as the benchmark, then the coastal areas most lowlying(under 25 feet above sea level), most subject to severe hurricanes(Gulf Coast and lower Atlantic) and most difficult to evacuate(Key West, Outer Banks) or most populated (Tampa, Miami, greater Houston,) would be the key areas..not huge inland areas well above sea level. I would think the Tampa area and the Virginia Beach/Norfolk area should be on that map as well.

"The U.S. Census Bureau estimates that around 35 million people — 12 percent of the population — live in the coastal counties most threatened by Atlantic hurricanes."-from the article.

*Sorry to get off point but once I saw the tie in with Katrina with the 'black spots on the map" and then looked at the article..could not help myself..*
Wind damage and flash flooding caused by hurricanes do a significant amount of damage, inland, and even on the coasts. In fact, Hurricane Hazel killed 81 people in Toronto, which started out in the Carribean from flooding and wind. BTW, up until the breach of the levies, the worst damage in NO was wind related. It's really not ridiculous to include some inland counties if you're going to do it by hurricanes as hurricanes have shown time and time again that they can incur millions of dollars of damage inland.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,158 Posts
The Great lakes would be a larger percentage of population if you included collar counties like they did in the south east. Look at South Carolina or Georgia as an example.


The Chicago area is under represented IMO. There are millions of people less than 30 miles from Lake Michigan in Illinois only from what I can see. Cal has counties included that are not on the bourder of the P ocean. Texas too.


Illinois is only one county deep, why?
 

·
King of Flyover Country
Joined
·
1,085 Posts
Regarding the California counties, many are at sea level (as shown by the whale story out of Sacramento), thus they are "coastal" counties. Ditto with counties along the Hudson in New York.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,687 Posts
I think these are referring to counties where the land is at or near sealevel or in the case of the Great Lakes the level of the lakes. That means that more of Georgia is at or near sea level while much of Illinois is higher than the Great Lakes.
 

·
born again cyclist
Joined
·
3,671 Posts
I think these are referring to counties where the land is at or near sealevel or in the case of the Great Lakes the level of the lakes. That means that more of Georgia is at or near sea level while much of Illinois is higher than the Great Lakes.
that doesn't make sense though as most of illinois is not higher than the great lakes. illinois is probably the second flattest state after florida. this place is F-L-A-T. take a drive from chicago to st. louis sometimes and you'll drive through one of the most consistenly flat landscapes in the nation, 5 hours without so much as even a small hill.

lake michigan's average elevation above sea level is 577'. illinois' average elevation above sea level is 600', and illinois' average elevation doesn't come from really high highs and really low lows, this state is literally pancake flat for the most part, except the mississippi river valley and parts in the far southern region
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
946 Posts
(yeah, you can ship stuff on a national basis or to canada and not leave the great lakes, but we can ship stuff on a river on a national basis too) they should include other major river systems too.

Great Lakes ship all over the world. Until a large ship can navigate 1600 miles of the Mississippi River, then no. The Detroit River (actually a deep water strait) is much more navigable in its short 30-mile length than any part of the Mississippi. Great Lakes use large freighters. Rivers use barges.

There's not a damn thing coastal about a river system, except where it empties into a large body of water. There's just no comparison between the Mississippi and Great Lakes. That's one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while. How wide is the Mississppi? How wide are the Great Lakes? Hell, the St. Lawrence River is much more coastal than the Mississippi, because it's much wider and deeper. The Mississippi in New Orleans looks the same as the Maumee in Toledo. It's coastal near the mouth, but that's about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
254 Posts
(yeah, you can ship stuff on a national basis or to canada and not leave the great lakes, but we can ship stuff on a river on a national basis too) they should include other major river systems too.

Great Lakes ship all over the world. Until a large ship can navigate 1600 miles of the Mississippi River, then no. The Detroit River (actually a deep water strait) is much more navigable in its short 30-mile length than any part of the Mississippi. Great Lakes use large freighters. Rivers use barges.

There's not a damn thing coastal about a river system, except where it empties into a large body of water. There's just no comparison between the Mississippi and Great Lakes. That's one of the most absurd things I've seen in a while. How wide is the Mississppi? How wide are the Great Lakes? Hell, the St. Lawrence River is much more coastal than the Mississippi, because it's much wider and deeper. The Mississippi in New Orleans looks the same as the Maumee in Toledo. It's coastal near the mouth, but that's about it.
Dude, calm down. First, I never said a river was an Ocean the way you are implying. Maybe read my post more carefully next time. The Great Lakes do not make up a significant portion of international trade in comparison to coasts that actually border an ocean (like I said, read what i wrote, I never said they didn't do international trade). However, trade is not relevent to this thread at all. Did you read the article that was linked in the first post? The post that started the thread? It was about population distributions and that the majority of the population lives on coasts. What is a coast? An easy answer would be someplace where a body of water meets land to create a shoreline of some sort. Is a river a body of water? If not then I don't know why people are spending premium dollars to get a view of them.

The point I was attempting to make...which is why I asked if you read my post...was that I was wondering what the population distribution would look like if the Mississippi river system was included. Yeah, the Great Lakes do a lot of international trade, it might just be a poor assumption on my part but I don't think it is nearly as significant as you claim (in size). However, I was originally using trade as an example that trade can easily occur on a river such as the Mississippi river system but obviously I was attacked from making a valid point. Why were canals built in the northeast if moving goods on water systems wasn't significant? In fact most rivers are wider and deeper than canals. Yeah, your not gonna find someone sending pace makers made from Medtronic down the Mississippi to send to Europe just because they were made in Minneapolis. That is probably true, but that doesn't mean trade doesn't exist on it.

That isn't even the damn point of the thread. The point of the thread is population figures, and danger to those areas to national disasters such as Katrina. I was merely wondering what it would look like if the river system was included on the population portion of the graph (rivers flood you know, which can displace large numbers of people...i'm not saying a flood is any where near as bad as a hurricane but a flood is still considered a natural disaster). What is so wrong and so "absurd" as you put it about that?
 

·
Moderator
Joined
·
6,477 Posts
Because, quite a few Midwest cities have coastlines, this is very relevant for this forum, and could be posted in multiple forums.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
408 Posts
Discussion Starter · #19 ·
Dude, calm down. First, I never said a river was an Ocean the way you are implying. Maybe read my post more carefully next time. The Great Lakes do not make up a significant portion of international trade in comparison to coasts that actually border an ocean (like I said, read what i wrote, I never said they didn't do international trade). However, trade is not relevent to this thread at all. Did you read the article that was linked in the first post? The post that started the thread? It was about population distributions and that the majority of the population lives on coasts. What is a coast? An easy answer would be someplace where a body of water meets land to create a shoreline of some sort. Is a river a body of water? If not then I don't know why people are spending premium dollars to get a view of them.
Not to interupt you two, but I think we had this discussion in the "The US' fifth coast" thread. I think it was agreed that a coast is where you can't see the other side, and anything else (River) is either a shore or bank.

Rivers are bodies of water, and condos with views of them should be worth a premium in my opinion.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
535 Posts
Give me a map of all the counties that would be threatened by transplants if the "coastals" had to move in-land. That would be kind of funny. Not for them, but whatever. I'm a transplant myself, so... Ha! (but not from any coast)
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top