Why is the western half of the US not as populated like the eastern half of the US?
Posted by SignificantStyle4958@reddit | AskAnAmerican | View on Reddit | 159 comments
TheNinjaDC@reddit
Most of the western half is mountainous or deserts.
CubicleHermit@reddit
Let's not forget that the good parts of the west coast proper - around each of the big harbors - ARE pretty densely populated. You also do get some very big population nodes in the Southwest (Phoenix, especially), they're just really concentrated.
For the stuff in the middle, as other people have said, you've got mountains, high plateau, deserts, more mountains, really dry grassland, etc.
There's also some historical reason around agriculture: the farther west you go, the later white people got there in any numbers, and the more mechanization you had for agriculture and transportation. So farms were bigger, towns were smaller and farther apart, and then you get into ranch-heavy country which is even lower-density.
PugKraken@reddit
Desert ,mountain, time
Gabrovi@reddit
Water. History. Topography. Sheer size.
EpsilonAmber@reddit
because of early immigration or whatever. most early people moving to america went to the east coast. and then traveled by land to the west (which wasn't exactly easy).
Awdayshus@reddit
Because there's less water is the most basic reason.
turdferguson3891@reddit
Also lots of mountains.
the_short_viking@reddit
Also lots of desert.
YesterdaysMuffin@reddit
And chupacabras.
QuietObserver75@reddit
And alien abductions.
Ryan1869@reddit
And bears
incogspeedo@reddit
And Bigfoot!
Reduak@reddit
Yeah, he's up in Washington & Oregon
ExitingBear@reddit
Sasquatches aren't natural predators. They are shy though.
NoTime4YourBullshit@reddit
They can often be seen frolicking through dense fog or darting in front of out-of-focus cameras.
GothicHippie17@reddit
Can confirm, I live in the west this is like a weekly occurrence
Thefutureisbrightino@reddit
Mostly the Chupacabras!
justdisa@reddit
It's definitely the chupacabras.
Whybaby16154@reddit
Towns formed on Eastern US rivers first where mills for flour or saw mills could be built. Industry ran on WATER POWER. Not many rivers west of the Rockies in Western US
Awdayshus@reddit
Also far less navigable rivers west of the Mississippi and Missouri than to the east.
thewags05@reddit
It pretty much follows the Missouri /Mississippi River and includes east Texas.
https://d9-wret.s3.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/assets/palladium/production/s3fs-public/thumbnails/image/USPrecip.jpg
Prestigious-Comb4280@reddit
Lots of desert...
JacquesBlaireau13@reddit
The western portion of the US is more populated than the east. The Mississippi River has traditionally and historically been considered the frontier between east and west. Sometime in the 1970s the mean population center of the US crossed the Mississippi.
This is due to the rapid growth of California and Texas, as well as the general migration from the Rust Belt to the Sun Belt.
Spirited_Ingenuity89@reddit
Is the geographic center so far north because of Alaska?
sgtm7@reddit
How did you come up with that? Currently 80% of people live east of the Mississippi river, and 20% live west of it.
Negative-Arachnid-65@reddit
About 64% live east of the Mississippi.
JacquesBlaireau13@reddit
You are wrong. Texas and California alone account for 20% of the US population.
At least according to Google, which reported census statistics, and the link i had already provided.
jord839@reddit
The link you posted has the median population center in Missouri.
Like OK, technically west of the Mississippi River, but very much barely and nobody actually considers a state that still has borders on the Mississippi to be "The West" anymore than they consider Minnesota, Louisiana, Arkansas, or other similar states to be so.
Bulky_Luck5105@reddit
Much of the western half of the US is made up of mountain ranges and deserts. When Europeans arrived in the early 1600s, the eastern half was totally covered in forest. It was said that a squirrel could travel from the Atlantic Ocean to the Mississippi River through the trees and never have to touch the ground.
insertcaffeine@reddit
There’s not as much room to put people (lots of mountains) and not enough water to go around.
normiepitbullmom@reddit
It’s mostly rock 🏔️
shammy_dammy@reddit
Lack of water. Best suited to ranching/farming things that require a lot of land. Wyoming, for example, has a stocking rate of about 30+ acre per head (not counting calves)
T00luser@reddit
The massive Port of Wyoming was closed for remodeling for a while.
Everyone went to NY instead.
RhymenoserousRex@reddit
Population centers tend to swarm around water. Water is needed for agriculture and is a great way to transport stuff. The basic reason is that the east coast has more waterways for humanity to utilize.
Antioch666@reddit
Less water, initial trade was mostly from the east and most people came from east and populated westward.
amc365@reddit
Because it’s huge and mostly desert
Glum-Welder1704@reddit
Less water. Humans go where the water is.
TheYeast1@reddit
Because the eastern half is older and more developed + dense. Started being developed as a colony in the 1600s while we only we expanded westward permanently in the 1800s
turdferguson3891@reddit
True although the Spanish were colonizing it in the 1700s but the settlements were just missions and military outposts, not highly populated.
TheYeast1@reddit
That’s true, and the French had quite a few settlements past the Mississippi in their territory aswell. Plus permanent Native American settlements established across the West Coast and impressive cities in New Mexico and Arizona dating to atleast 1100-1144 A.D. but everyone forgets them anyways sadly.
charcoal_kestrel@reddit
13th century cliff cities are very impressive but are absolutely tiny compared to Mississippian culture mound cities. The biggest one we know of was Cliff Palace in Colorado and it would have held about 100 people. In contrast Cahokia, near St Louis, had over 10,000 people.
Pre-Columbian population density in the southwest was way lower than in the east for the same reason as subsequent white population density was -- there's not much water.
Spicyboi981@reddit
If you’re counting pre-columbian “metro areas”, modern-day Phoenix was bigger than Cahokia
kaik1914@reddit
French had missions along the Great Lakes and established trading posts from Duluth, MN to Ohio valley. The majority of the missions decayed during the French-Indian wars and their language French Muskrat disappeared century later. The climate and borderland civilisation was harsh on establishing significant French population. Quebec benefitted with European trade and influences.
Acceptable_Tea3608@reddit
But the Spanish weren't necessarily coming from the east. They were coming up through Mexico & the Gulf.
SaltyEngineer45@reddit
Drive through it. You will quickly understand. It’s mostly desert.
albertnormandy@reddit
Because it’s drier and there are a lot more mountains.
Oploplou@reddit
Those things are connected.
Frosty_Employment171@reddit
BC it's bigger. BC it's newer. BC there's little or no water.
Possible-Cicada-9662@reddit
Less water, more harsh terrain, and the East had almost 200-300 more years to develop populations. Plus majority of trading happened in the Alantic until the Suez Cannal was made
anonsharksfan@reddit
Looking at a satellite view should give you a pretty good idea
TillikumWasFramed@reddit
Most of the West is a whole buncha nothin'.
daKile57@reddit
Because your mom isn’t out there.
Tommy_Wisseau_burner@reddit
History and water
Separate_Lab9766@reddit
Boston was founded in 1630.
Seattle was founded in 1851.
In other words, the delay between Boston and Seattle (221 years) is about the same as the time between the Declaration of Independence and now (250 years).
Put another way, Boston is 400 years old. Seattle is 175.
Upper_Extreme9461@reddit
Job opportunities I suspect. There's just a lot more going on the East Coast. Also they're intensely Christian in the Midwest. There's nothing wrong with religious people of course, but it's not everyone's dream to grow up in that environment.
visitor987@reddit
Lack of water and the Rocky mountains
Swimming-Book-1296@reddit
Its mostly federal land. Its literally illegal to live on.
TweeksTurbos@reddit
The banks of the yough was as far west as we wanted.
goblin_hipster@reddit
It's all deserts and mountains, bud.
LongOrganization7838@reddit
Far less hospitable and until the advent of air conditioning it was largely a desolate wasteland
Hammer_of_Shawn@reddit
California, the western-most state in the Country, is the highest populated state in the US, sooooo..... what!?
jcstan05@reddit
California is not the westernmost— not by a long shot. Also, OP was asking about the western half of the country, not a single state.
mfigroid@reddit
Hell, Reno, Nevada is further west than Los Angeles, California.
turdferguson3891@reddit
Because of how the coast line is shaped. San Fancisco and Sacamento are west of Reno. The state as a whole is west of Nevada
eyetracker@reddit
More than half the population is east of the border though (SoCal minus Santa Barbara and SLO)
turdferguson3891@reddit
Yeah but if you drive west from Nevada wherever you are, you still end up in California. You could also drive south but that could end you up in Arizona depending on where you are. The coast line isn't a straight line, it curves. Once you get down to the bottom of Baja you're roughly in line with Tucson.
mfigroid@reddit
It was a joke.
Hammer_of_Shawn@reddit
Oh, you're mad I forgot about the state that is more Canada than US? Lol. No one cares about Alaska... and it is pretty obvious to see that there are a bunch of states bundled up next to each other while the west is more spread out. You give OP too much credit. This shit isn't rocket science.
turdferguson3891@reddit
There's another one you forgot about.
jcstan05@reddit
I’m not mad. You’re just wrong.
turdferguson3891@reddit
And California is still far less densely populated than the northeast. LA by itself accounts for a huge percentage of the population. There's a few large metro areas and then lots of agricultural, mountain and desert land in between. Driving on I-5 between LA and Northern California you go through a whole lot of nothing. It's only the most populated state because of how it's shaped. It could easily have been three states. Same with Texas. It has a few big metros but alot of it is empty.
DawaLhamo@reddit
Yeah, but mostly they live between the mountains and the coast where the weather is nice and the climate is good for food and people. And California is also *really* large in area. If you look at the density per square mile, the densest counties: SF and Orange county have about 17000 and 3800 people per square mile... Whereas NY county and Kings have 69,000 and 35,000 people per square mile. Not just New York state, but, say, Virginia - Alexandria County has over 9,300 people per square mile.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/County_statistics_of_the_United_States#Most_densely_populated
They really pack them in tight in the East.
turdferguson3891@reddit
Yeah SF is the only part of Califonia with east coast like population density. It's second only to Manhattan but it's also not really all that big of a city and the rest of the bay area isn't that tightly packed.
eyetracker@reddit
There's lots of cities in CA that are very dense on paper but it's mostly because the city limits are small. If you visit they seem just rather suburban and just blend in with the next lower density city.
Several near LA I don't think I know to comment on appearance. Up north Daly City and even more laughably Berkeley and San Pablo.
OldJames47@reddit
California is larger than Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and West Virginia combined.
Yet it only has 40 million people, while those 9 states are home to 66 million.
manokpsa@reddit
California is the state with the highest population, yes, but still, 80% of the US population lives east of the Mississippi River.
According to population density, California is number 11, and the first 10 are in the east. The next highest density states in the western Continental US are Washington and Texas, at #22 and #23, respectively.
LetterheadClassic306@reddit
i ran into this question before. it's mostly about terrain and water - the west has way more desert, mountains, and less rainfall than the east. also the east coast got settled much earlier so cities grew there first. when you add in factors like the rocky mountains making travel harder, it makes sense why fewer people spread out there.
darealogchris44@reddit
It's because of the Rocky Mountains and the dry deserts make the western half of the country not the most hospitable area to build and develop infrastructure. The eastern part has been developed and lived in for longer, has more access to water and the geography is less harsh which makes development easier.
bryku@reddit
Mountains and desert, plus colonization started east to west.
Crayshack@reddit
Much of that population gap is the Rocky Mountains. There's pockets of nice places to live, but it largely inhospitable alpine desert (and in the Southwest, lowland desert). If you look at a map of average rainfall, it mostly matches population.
Penguin_Life_Now@reddit
Because the European colonies in the eastern US had about a 250 year head start vs the western U.S. Then there is that whole thing about limited water availability in much of the west
4games1@reddit
So, Spain, not a European country? Sante Fe, not a European colony?
kaik1914@reddit
Eastern coast colonies were densely populated by the time of the American Revolution. The density farms and cities from Virginia to New Hampshire was much higher than Spanish northern regions. Sure, Santa Fe existed but it waa not as populated like Philadelphia, Alexandria, Baltimore, or New York.
4games1@reddit
Very true, but not because the Eastern colonies had a head start.
MHEmpire@reddit
Santa Fe may have been 1610, but it didn’t really flourish under Spanish rule. Constant native resistance and the harsh environment were constant issues (it was even entirely lost to the Pueblo Revolt for 12 years, from 1680 to 1692), so they efforts largely stalled out. The Spanish *did* start mapping out Alta California round the same time that Santa Fe was founded, but the first Spanish settlement there wasn’t until San Diego in *1769*, only a few years before the American Revolution.
Penguin_Life_Now@reddit
Santa Fe is a European colony, but if you know much about Spanish colonization north of central Mexico, you will know that the natives were generally hostile to colonization, and at one point Spain practically pulled out of the region, withdrawing the vast majority of their outposts and colonist for nearly a century.
4games1@reddit
The Pueblo Revolt of 1680, drove Spaniards out of New Mexico for over a decade. Sorry, but I am unfamiliar with anything that drove them out for longer than that? You know, other than the Mexican revolution.
Penguin_Life_Now@reddit
I am more familiar with the Texas history part of things, where Spain closed up most of their missions and withdrew colonist for I think about 85 years. From memory it was around the early 1700's. In this time period some of the more remote Texas missions went decades without official military contact with the Spanish capital in Mexico City.
amcjkelly@reddit
I live in a part of upstate New York where it rains often enough the farmers don't have to irrigate their corn crops. There are rivers everywhere, and easily navigable. And a few canals connected the Hudson, great lakes and the Mississippi. Made an industrial and agriculture very competitive as the country was becoming industrial.
The west is far dryer, and the rivers are not as navigable.
TheOwlMarble@reddit
less water, big mountains, and it was colonized more recently
mt97852@reddit
Water and history. It was pretty much untamed wilderness before the railroad.
CUBuffs1992@reddit
Dry as a fuck. The 100th Meridian is essentially a rain line. East of it, you get 20+ inches of rain per year. West you get less than that.
charcoal_kestrel@reddit
But I was told rain follows the plow. It follows the plow, right guys?
CUBuffs1992@reddit
Rain does follow the plow…
charcoal_kestrel@reddit
That's a relief. I was gonna give up the farm but I will order another McCormick reaper, a few hundred rifle shells, a gingham bonnet, and one of those tall blue bent sheet metal coffee pots from the Sears catalog in anticipation of paying for it all after we have a wet spring and a bountiful harvest.
LABELyourPHOTOS@reddit
Ports/transportation is so important.
England and Europe were huge trading partners AND the founders of the US started in the east so it make sense to be densely populated over there.
Boopa0011@reddit
Important to remember that the Mississippi, Ohio, and other rivers were (and still are) major thoroughfares at the time for shipping and transit, so it was relatively easy to get yourself and your goods alllllll over the middle and eastern parts of the country.
Once you get past, like, the western border of Texas/Kansas/the Dakotas, there is no easy way to transport people and goods other than a wagon train, and it ain't an easy trip.
Littleboypurple@reddit
Longer history in the East, alot more trade ports, the west has a drier and hot climate, there is a lot of nothing, and also mountains.
OkQuantity4011@reddit
Dust bowl
Zwolfer@reddit
No water, lots of mountains, and the east coast has a couple hundred year head start
kmoonster@reddit
The west is very dry.
Moisture flows in from the south, off the Gulf of Mexico. And east, from the Great Lakes and Atlantic. The eastern half of the country gets a lot of humidity and a lot of precipitation. And when it's not a "lot" it's still a decent amount that supports massive forests, farmland, and lakes / ponds / wetlands.
But by the time you get to the mountain west, you're outside of both those influences. Some moisture-heavy air does come in off the Pacific but it tends to be scraped dry as the air traverses the mountains. The result is a lot of desert and borderline desert geography in the western half of the US.
And settlement patterns tend to follow water. More water, more people. Less water, fewer people. Not just in the US but anywhere around the world at any point in history.
This is a rainfall map of the US, red / orange is less rainfall, greener and yellower is more rainfall: US-Precipitation-Map-Feature.jpg (800×549)
And if you like video format: https://youtu.be/wwJABxjcvUc?si=sVejU_vcm8Ssk0Fy
Ok_Salamander6797@reddit
Impassable trail
bassjam1@reddit
Most huge cities became so because of trade. And to move a lot of goods you need navigable water. The Eastern half of the country has a lot of slow moving waters where boats can go both up and down and a huge network mostly connected to the Mississippi or the Great lakes.
The western half has far less of these so cities popped up mostly along the coast.
diffidentblockhead@reddit
Dry west of 100°
shoresy99@reddit
Where the great plains begin.
Tasty_Plantain5948@reddit
The wheat stands shoulder high.
Acceptable_Tea3608@reddit
As high as an elephants eye
_WillCAD_@reddit
That area is much more barren than the east coast.
Danibear285@reddit
Why is the barren wasteland part of YuhCountry not filled with people???
Acceptable-Bullfrog1@reddit
Rugged terrain
PrimusDCE@reddit
Europeans settled the east coast first. Also water.
DivaJanelle@reddit
Lots of open farmland. While the plains states in the middle are great farmland its dry and hard living.
Then you have mountains
DGlen@reddit
Mountains
GodsLittleAlien@reddit
It was settled last
SurpriseEcstatic1761@reddit
And no water when you do
Illustrious-Jump-398@reddit
Rain
_badwithcomputer@reddit
Well settlers obviously started on the east coast and moved west, up until about the mississippi the climate and terrain is pretty easy to settle. As you move further west you have plains with some hostile weather for settlements, then the massive rocky mountain range all pose some problems for infrastructure and settling.
Also, as the country expanded and states started forming out west the US keps more massive tracts of land as federal property which is more or less off limits to settlements. That is not so much the case on the eastern half of the country.
All that being said, since the mid 20th century the rocky mountain region has been expanding pretty rapidly, as well as the area around Yellowstone so it is quickly gaining population (unfortunately in some cases)
CosyBeluga@reddit
The eastern US was lush forest and lots of water.
SnowblindAlbino@reddit
The American West is the most urbanized part of the United States, actually, with a higher percentage of residents living in cities than any other region. That's because there's simply not enough water in most of it to support large populations, and that was certainly true prior to the Newlands Act in 1904, which led to the major dams and other water projects that made it possible to live in Phoenix, Vegas, etc.
hail_to_the_beef@reddit
Harsher environment and younger settlements
Quartia@reddit
The East Coast was settled first so it's where all the old established cities are.
tetrasodium@reddit
Appalachian mountains forced the US to densify wayu back before the 1776 revolutionary war. It wasn't really until manifest destiny started up in the 1800s and the railroad that it made serious growth to the west and hell on wheels is kinda sorta a semi fictional dramatization of building the railroad out.
HairyDadBear@reddit
Load up a map and turn on satellite view. A lot of mountains and desert, not a lot of water.
Main_Understanding14@reddit
This is why: Mountains and desert
https://frank-ramspott.pixels.com/featured/usa-3d-render-topographic-map-border-frank-ramspott.html
MyUsername2459@reddit
It has a lot of deserts and mountains, and a lot less water.
Also, it was settled much later. The higher population cities mostly grew up around the east coast where the country was first settled and they had a lot more fresh water and access to international sea routes.
78723@reddit
Why
DeadMemesNowPlease@reddit
More and taller mountains making it more difficult for large cities to develop not on the coast, also a lot of desert land from the rain shadows of the mountains. Once air conditioning was invented they did a better job of making cities in deserts. But still not the greatest at building cities in mountains.
Also the immigration process saw many come from various parts of Europe (by choice or otherwise) from various parts of Africa (in shackles) and end up on the east coast as that is the closest place to end up. The migration west and decimation of the local population was only a fraction of the people there. There were already cities before manifest destiny was foolishly embarked on. There was just as much a coordinated effort to not allow people from various parts of Asia to the USA as there was to try and wipe out other populations. So fewer people from Asia ended up on the west coast, until rather recently.
the_real_JFK_killer@reddit
2 things.
Firstly, the east was settled first. This gave it a massive boost.
Second, with the exception of the pacific coast itself, theres generally less resources, less rain, less fertile soil, and less natural river transports in the west than the east.
freddbare@reddit
We found the east first and have been slowing moving west
Altruistic_Error_832@reddit
Colonists started on the East Coast and pushed westward later, so the western half of the country was developed significantly later, and the way it was settled was largely by portioning out lands to farmers and ranchers, which continues to this day.
Also, a pretty sizeable chunk of the western half of the country has significant issues when it comes to water access because of the rain shadow from the Rocky Mountains.
spiritualspatula@reddit
The west was settled later and is generally more barren/less hospitable, despite the lies that were spread at the time. There is a whole lot less water, so adding sizable populations quickly becomes difficult.
PghSubie@reddit
Lots of remote terrain, mountains, desserts, etc. it's far from the early settlements on the East Coast
blipsman@reddit
People reached east coast 500 years ago, trains only made it feasible to travel west 150-180 year ago; minimal resources like water and timber; far from transportation lines for goods until past 100 years; hard to traverse mountains
elderly_millenial@reddit
It’s not just less populated, most of it is still owned by the federal government.
Historically the land was settled and claimed by people that could live off the land, but a lot of the western United States couldn’t be settled using traditional farming like the rest of the country, so people mostly avoided it
Intelligent_Ad7497@reddit
There are a lot of reasons why, but two of them are as follows:
The country started in the east, so it makes sense that the eastern part of the country is going to remain more populated than the west as it has had a longer time to get bigger and have a higher population.
Outside of the west coast, most of the western us has a geography that is harder to live in, especially in amounts like the eastern US. Most of the western us is mountains and deserts, and that just doesn't support the same amount of life as out east.
mason123z@reddit
Two reasons:
1) western civilization has been in the east longer. Before the railroad people had to walk/ride horses everywhere and people were more uniformly distributed as population grew. While people always went west for a new life, people also stayed and built more dense cities over time.
2) The geography of the western US is much more tough/rugged/mountainous than the east. Even now with all of our technology, there’s just less easy land to build on out west.
With economic growth more confined to urban areas today, there’s less incentive to expand the population outward. Those older cities can draw in new/keep existing people in, and there’s simply more of them in the east. With air conditioning it’s also easier for more people to tolerate the heat, which is why regardless of the east/west split the southern half of the country is growing faster.
DisastrousBeautyyy@reddit
The terrain.
Odd-End-1405@reddit
I think we need more clarification. In what context?
Both halves of the country have large cities with concentrated populations, most on the coasts or on/near transportation pathways.
There are, of course, huge variations outside cities. Many of these can be attributed to climate, topography, and natural resources.
Please clarify if you would be so kind.
Sweet_Cinnabonn@reddit
It's BIG.
It is so spread out.
But much of the land isn't that livable, no good water sources nearby. But. Big. Big area.
cmiller4642@reddit
There’s a vast sprawl of plains, a large north to south mountain chain, and a big desert that separate the 2 sides of the country so it took months for people from the eastern US to go west before the transcontinental railroad was finished.
Roar-Lions-Roar@reddit
Mountain
Desert
Wunktacular@reddit
The eastern half was inhabited for five hundred years by colonists. The western half has only been modernized in the past 200 years, roughly, and was previously undeveloped land roamed by hunter gatherers.
Vachic09@reddit
The country was mostly settled from east to west.
Most of the rainfall is in the eastern half of the country.
Adorable-Award-2975@reddit
Very simple answer is it was settled from East to West so just a large head start. Also less expansive geography in the East.
jessek@reddit
A lot of the Western US is less populated for a reason. Desert and mountains.
__plankton__@reddit
settled more recently. less water. more mountainous terrain.
ATLien_3000@reddit
Because fewer people live there.
ReignyRainyReign@reddit
🤯
Lovebeingadad54321@reddit
Because much of it is desert, or at least semi arid.
HuaHuzi6666@reddit
It’s lots of mountains and desert. Hard to settle there in big numbers.
Electrical-Ad1288@reddit
Government controls much of the land and it was settled later
funktion666@reddit
Less water. More extreme climates. Not suitable for settling.
baalroo@reddit
The U.S. started on the East Coast in more traditional densely packed, pre-automobile horse and buggy accommodating cities.
We spread out to the west during the expansion of railroads and then automobiles, so the newer settlements could more easily be spread out and prioritize space over close proximity.
StarfleetStarbuck@reddit
It was settled more recently and so it’s still not as densely urbanized. There’s a lot more empty space.
stoolprimeminister@reddit
in addition to historical factors, a lot of the western US has mountains and a lot of the eastern is flat.
Uhhh_what555476384@reddit
Lack of water, and big tall mountains.
ComprehensiveEar6001@reddit
Numerous reasons, but one of the big ones is that it's a lot drier in the western half.
notthegoatseguy@reddit
A lot of it is desert and mountains.
YesterdaysMuffin@reddit
Desert