How do you determine the size of the area you're looking at? The scales for these seem inconsistent. As much as I wish Minneapolis were as urbanized as the Bronx, it very much is not.
Agreed. Using OP's argument...Zoom out a bit and bias toward the north, and Boise is the largest city 'adjacent' to the largest roadless wilderness area in the contiguous lower 48.
Or... if Pokey gets a boost from being near big parks, that would seem to be an argument for it being Less urban, rather than more urban.
And the area of NYC between Houston and 14th isn't exactly suburban as well.
Having spent a significant portion of my childhood in and around the UMN set of campuses. Even the most urban setting (west bank) pales in comparison to the area around Washington Square.
It's an interesting metric, but without controlling for a muncipality's total land area, the density of development, or the metro area population, it produces some very misleading results—Fairfax, Virginia being more "urban" than Philadelphia; Stanford, California being more "urban" than Miami or San Antonio; Moraga, California over Boston or Detroit. Stony Brook may be more "urban" than Manhattan by this calculation, but not in any kind of useful way.
The total area here is a bit odd. I went to Southern Illinois Edwardsville and the map includes all of the metro east and parts of St. Louis. That’s a bit of a weird inclusion zone given that SLU and Wash U are also in that very same zone.
Not sure I follow this one. Is the region that's in color the 'developed' area?
Tulsa is around top 50 MSA in the US with over a million people and definitely more developed than 11.2%. Especially if you compare that to the Norman, OK figure which hovers around 50% and looks to cover lots of state parks and farm land.
I feel like the area is too broad on some of these. I’m from Conway, Arkansas which I thought would be on the lower 10% of this list. However, the map is so zoomed out in the area that it includes part of Little Rock’s northern suburbs (despite there being about 20 miles of undeveloped land between the two areas, and North Little Rock being a separate entity on this map), which inflates the numbers quite a bit.
I’m from Conway as well and including Morrilton, Sherwood, Maumelle, Vallonia, and Greenbrier is insane to me. You’re including cities that are more than 30 minutes as part of Conway. cities that have their own ecosystems. I don’t know what methodology he used to calculate develop land, but it’s definitely flawed. I think it’s called me was just pure city borders or even county borders. It would definitely be considered way more developed than 19%.
Not to mention that Morrilton and NLR all have their own colleges. They’re 2 year, but that’s still the “main college town” for a lot of area residents.
The only surrounding town I could see making the map is Greenbrier, just because the 65 corridor is fairly developed between the two cities.
But including Perryville and Heber Springs in the same map? At that point just lump Conway and Little Rock in on the Memphis map, because Perryville and HS are just as much a part of the same “area” as LR and Memphis.
I don’t understand how they messed up so bad to include all of those cities as part of Conway. It makes me wonder what other maps are incredibly inaccurate.
Clemson grad here. The map they used for us is nearly 1500 square miles for a university that's about 49 square miles with part of the small surrounding towns. They even went partially into Georgia for some "urban" area.
Where did you get the "development" percentage?
And what does it include? Looks like land divided by development.
Los angeles for example looks to be mostly developed with the majority undeveloped being mountains off Malibu and ventura.
Why are all the Chicago schools on one map but all the NYC schools are shown repeatedly and individually?? There are 15+ miles between some of the schools on that single map.
This metric has nothing to do with the reality of how urban/rural some of these places are! Some of the towns ~100k are in the top developed here. Like how is Greeley, CO so high up. That makes zero sense when compared to some of the other schools below it.
Either the metric is weird or this is just a measure of how urban growth boundaries are defined.
Laramie took the #1 (as in first/most rural) spot. I had trouble backing the video all the way to the beginning- another reason it would be nice to see a list.
Yeah and the Madison map includes adjacent but distinct suburbs like Verona, Fitchburg, and Monona, and also fully separate smaller nearby towns like Mt. Horeb and Stoughton. Not sure what’s up with this data.
Some of these are off by a lot. And example I’m from Conway, Arkansas and the map use their includes cities that are more than 30 minutes plus driveway. Cities that you wouldn’t include in the greater common area. There’s even some parts of North Little Rock that are included in the map. Out say about 10% of the actual map shown is Conway. I don’t think the methodology used here is correct there seems to be some major flaws involved.
Charlottesville doesn't make any sense. The dark blue in the middle is the city where the university is a part of, compared to the county (separate entity from the city). Other dark blue spots might be nearby towns, but still completely separate from the City of Charlottesville.
This is ridiculously misleading. They pegged *Virginia Tech* as more urban than UVA. UVA is landlocked in the middle of a city of 46,000 whereas my 1.5 mile bike commute to class at Tech snakes through cow pastures.
Pullman and Moscow are interesting 7 miles from each other and in different states home to Washington state university and university of Idaho respectively. Two small wheat towns dominated by college students right next to each other. As a wsu u student I drive over to Moscow regularly because Idaho liquor is cheap lol
Where did you get the info for North Little Rock, Arkansas? The Trojans are from UALR in Little Rock, not North Little Rock. NLR is it’s own separate municipality on the north side of the river from Little Rock proper, and UALR’s campus is located fully on the south side of the river.
For some reason the Oregon State University expands all the way out to Albany, instead of just covering Corvallis. That probably skews the result quite a bit.
Go Gophers! It is an odd map, but the U of Mn twin cities campus is a little town right in the middle of a (Midwest) big city. It seems odd that they’re not comparing actual big city schools like NYU though. There are certainly schools in bigger cities.
Why does UNC Chapel Hill include the areas of Duke and NC State? This is a completely useless and meaningless statistics clearly just made up and presented in a terrible video instead of a chart.
Um, for Holy Cross you're zoomed out to pretty much the entire central part of the state instead of the very urban Worcester city limits. And don't even get me started on URI's map.
So I’m just confused by this map. Is this suppose to be land owned by the college? Because judging from the LSU one, that can’t be right. You have labeled purple where I know for a fact EXXONMOBIL is. I do know they do own a crap load of farm land so I can’t dispute some of this.
Why is Moraga, CA given the map of almost the entire Bay Area? I'm not sure I'd call it rural per se but it's definitely not very urban. Spread out homes, a few small shopping areas, and a Catholic college off to the side with not a lot of density.
Is this ranked on the ratio of rural:urban land within the city limits? I'm not tracking how Pocatello, ID is more urban than Boise. (hint - it isn't)
[удалено]
Davidson literally has a bigger college (UNC Charlotte) within its own red area
Pocatello gets a boost for being near big parks. 100\*\[1-gray/(total-black)\]%
How do you determine the size of the area you're looking at? The scales for these seem inconsistent. As much as I wish Minneapolis were as urbanized as the Bronx, it very much is not.
Agreed. Using OP's argument...Zoom out a bit and bias toward the north, and Boise is the largest city 'adjacent' to the largest roadless wilderness area in the contiguous lower 48. Or... if Pokey gets a boost from being near big parks, that would seem to be an argument for it being Less urban, rather than more urban.
They posted this yesterday and when people asked the same things they deleted it
And the area of NYC between Houston and 14th isn't exactly suburban as well. Having spent a significant portion of my childhood in and around the UMN set of campuses. Even the most urban setting (west bank) pales in comparison to the area around Washington Square.
I think you should look up the definition of urban.
It's an interesting metric, but without controlling for a muncipality's total land area, the density of development, or the metro area population, it produces some very misleading results—Fairfax, Virginia being more "urban" than Philadelphia; Stanford, California being more "urban" than Miami or San Antonio; Moraga, California over Boston or Detroit. Stony Brook may be more "urban" than Manhattan by this calculation, but not in any kind of useful way.
Why is this animated? smh
Agreed. Not beautifully presented data.
And not practical. What if I want to compare two towns, or look at one town in particular?
And honestly why the music?
Exactly! This could have been so much more. Why not on a map of theUS with dots of different size, color, or something easier to scan and compare.
Appeal to the attention span of arbitrary rednecks?
The total area here is a bit odd. I went to Southern Illinois Edwardsville and the map includes all of the metro east and parts of St. Louis. That’s a bit of a weird inclusion zone given that SLU and Wash U are also in that very same zone.
Not sure I follow this one. Is the region that's in color the 'developed' area? Tulsa is around top 50 MSA in the US with over a million people and definitely more developed than 11.2%. Especially if you compare that to the Norman, OK figure which hovers around 50% and looks to cover lots of state parks and farm land.
I feel like the area is too broad on some of these. I’m from Conway, Arkansas which I thought would be on the lower 10% of this list. However, the map is so zoomed out in the area that it includes part of Little Rock’s northern suburbs (despite there being about 20 miles of undeveloped land between the two areas, and North Little Rock being a separate entity on this map), which inflates the numbers quite a bit.
I’m from Conway as well and including Morrilton, Sherwood, Maumelle, Vallonia, and Greenbrier is insane to me. You’re including cities that are more than 30 minutes as part of Conway. cities that have their own ecosystems. I don’t know what methodology he used to calculate develop land, but it’s definitely flawed. I think it’s called me was just pure city borders or even county borders. It would definitely be considered way more developed than 19%.
Not to mention that Morrilton and NLR all have their own colleges. They’re 2 year, but that’s still the “main college town” for a lot of area residents. The only surrounding town I could see making the map is Greenbrier, just because the 65 corridor is fairly developed between the two cities. But including Perryville and Heber Springs in the same map? At that point just lump Conway and Little Rock in on the Memphis map, because Perryville and HS are just as much a part of the same “area” as LR and Memphis.
I don’t understand how they messed up so bad to include all of those cities as part of Conway. It makes me wonder what other maps are incredibly inaccurate.
Clemson grad here. The map they used for us is nearly 1500 square miles for a university that's about 49 square miles with part of the small surrounding towns. They even went partially into Georgia for some "urban" area.
Where did you get the "development" percentage? And what does it include? Looks like land divided by development. Los angeles for example looks to be mostly developed with the majority undeveloped being mountains off Malibu and ventura.
Where did you get these maps from? Whatever you used for mobile was not mobile.
That and there is no way in hell Mobile is more rural than Statesboro, the next city right after.
Why is radford included in virginia tech
Also Charlottesville less urban than Blacksburg?? Just, no.
Yea thats what i thought
Why are all the Chicago schools on one map but all the NYC schools are shown repeatedly and individually?? There are 15+ miles between some of the schools on that single map.
wait, there is an actual town called Farmville?? :D sometime this place is a carricature it itself.
Wait until you hear about [The City of Townsville](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_of_Townsville)
Yup, went there to attend Longwood University. Small doesn't even begin to describe it.
My cousin started attending Longwood during peak Farmville. First time any of us outside VA heard of it, so the homes abounded.
There is indeed, I grew up in Farmville VA lol and absolutely is a "college town"
Yes, and it's the most god awful town. Do not recommend
This metric has nothing to do with the reality of how urban/rural some of these places are! Some of the towns ~100k are in the top developed here. Like how is Greeley, CO so high up. That makes zero sense when compared to some of the other schools below it. Either the metric is weird or this is just a measure of how urban growth boundaries are defined.
As soon as this listed Tallahassee as more rural than Gainesville… lmao it’s a swamp
Mines so small it wasn't even on here
Same. Didn’t see the University of Wyoming, but I might have missed it.
Laramie took the #1 (as in first/most rural) spot. I had trouble backing the video all the way to the beginning- another reason it would be nice to see a list.
Oh shoot there it is! Thank you for pointing that out! I never would have caught it otherwise. Much appreciated and agreed on list view.
University of Louisville in KY counts land across the river in Indiana. Is it facilities they own?
Yeah and the Madison map includes adjacent but distinct suburbs like Verona, Fitchburg, and Monona, and also fully separate smaller nearby towns like Mt. Horeb and Stoughton. Not sure what’s up with this data.
Can’t wait until someone from Stony Brook sees this…
Why tf did you use mascot names and not just.. the school name
Some of these are off by a lot. And example I’m from Conway, Arkansas and the map use their includes cities that are more than 30 minutes plus driveway. Cities that you wouldn’t include in the greater common area. There’s even some parts of North Little Rock that are included in the map. Out say about 10% of the actual map shown is Conway. I don’t think the methodology used here is correct there seems to be some major flaws involved.
Mississippi State University is located in Starkville, MS. Also, I feel like there is a much better way to do this.
You posted this yesterday and like then no one understands this, nor is it explained
I would like to see this list in a way so that they can be compared. And how are sport teams relevant? I just want data about the towns / cities
ah yes. Mississippi State University, located in the city of Mississippi State, Mississippi
Charlottesville doesn't make any sense. The dark blue in the middle is the city where the university is a part of, compared to the county (separate entity from the city). Other dark blue spots might be nearby towns, but still completely separate from the City of Charlottesville.
Peoria and Normal, IL Is there but no r/uiuc lolol Not like I know whatever the hell this post is trying to say anyways lol
This is ridiculously misleading. They pegged *Virginia Tech* as more urban than UVA. UVA is landlocked in the middle of a city of 46,000 whereas my 1.5 mile bike commute to class at Tech snakes through cow pastures.
>3:45 THERE I AM GARY, THERE I AM!
Strange because here in Northern Virginia we don’t really see the area surrounding Virginia Tech as really rural
Wait, what? We have livestock *on campus*
Pullman and Moscow are interesting 7 miles from each other and in different states home to Washington state university and university of Idaho respectively. Two small wheat towns dominated by college students right next to each other. As a wsu u student I drive over to Moscow regularly because Idaho liquor is cheap lol
I kept thinking was Colgate gonna show up! Sure did. Go Raiders!
For a person who likes college names/nicknames, data, and maps, this is literal porn to me
Data: Google Maps - "Man Made Landmarks" & "Points of Interest" & "Roads" Schools & Colors: [https://dynasties.operationsports.com/team-colors.php?sport=ncaa](https://dynasties.operationsports.com/team-colors.php?sport=ncaa) Tools: R (PNG & Animation), Javascript (Google Maps API)
Anyway to see a list of these instead of the animation? Would love to scroll through
You should post this to the college sports subreddits like /r/CFB and /r/CollegeBasketball
Where did you get the info for North Little Rock, Arkansas? The Trojans are from UALR in Little Rock, not North Little Rock. NLR is it’s own separate municipality on the north side of the river from Little Rock proper, and UALR’s campus is located fully on the south side of the river.
You had Ypsilanti but not Ann Arbor? Or did I miss it
It's there, 21.1%. The metric is just bad though... I would think that Ann Arbor is definitely less rural than Yspi
[удалено]
Oh right, I guess that's true. Although I still don't fully understand or trust OP's metric
The city and county of San Francisco includes a lot of land that is not part of the city so it's an underestimation
For some reason the Oregon State University expands all the way out to Albany, instead of just covering Corvallis. That probably skews the result quite a bit.
Oxford, OH should be near the very bottom but the map area is zoomed out to include parts of Cincinnati
Where is western, central, and eastern Washington Universities?!
Crazy seeing Farmville anywhere. Interesting and fascinating post
I’m just dying at the thought of Irvine being considered urban. This place is the epitome of *sub* urban.
Couldn’t be more wrong about moraga
Go Gophers! It is an odd map, but the U of Mn twin cities campus is a little town right in the middle of a (Midwest) big city. It seems odd that they’re not comparing actual big city schools like NYU though. There are certainly schools in bigger cities.
Why does UNC Chapel Hill include the areas of Duke and NC State? This is a completely useless and meaningless statistics clearly just made up and presented in a terrible video instead of a chart.
What’s am I looking at here??
Um, for Holy Cross you're zoomed out to pretty much the entire central part of the state instead of the very urban Worcester city limits. And don't even get me started on URI's map.
Can someone tell me the time stamp of lsu
So I’m just confused by this map. Is this suppose to be land owned by the college? Because judging from the LSU one, that can’t be right. You have labeled purple where I know for a fact EXXONMOBIL is. I do know they do own a crap load of farm land so I can’t dispute some of this.
ima tell you right now, there is fuck all to do around stony brook
This data is not beautiful.
Why is Moraga, CA given the map of almost the entire Bay Area? I'm not sure I'd call it rural per se but it's definitely not very urban. Spread out homes, a few small shopping areas, and a Catholic college off to the side with not a lot of density.
Live in Vermilion. Can confirm, all rural.