Which feels most newly settled?

[MolsonExport]

another thread, replete with Pedestrianisms. 24/7

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

another thread, replete with Pedestrianisms. 24/7

the title opened up that can of worms from the starting blocks. feels.

nevada has all of this crazy 19th (and 20th) century wreckage scattered around and left behind that makes it feel wizened at times. busted silver towns, rusted model t skeletons, atomic age wrecks, military boneyards to the horizon.

alberta feels pristine to me in comparison.

[MonkeyRonin]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

None of the above.

Canada's most rural areas--not Alberta but the far north and Yukon--are clearly the least settled if that equates to "most recently settled".

The far north is sparsely inhabited, but those who do live there are mostly indigenous - for whom their ancestors have been living there for thousands of years. So, I wouldn't call those "recently settled", even if the modern dwellings they live in are mostly on the newer side.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

alberta feels pristine to me in comparison.

I've heard the weather's good there in the fall.

[toddguy]

Arizona should be listed as well. Phoenix had 106,000 in 1950, Tucson had about 50,000...and look at them now.

Maricopa county had 186,000 in 1940, and now is at nearly 4.25 million.

Given that it is not listed, I choose Nevada (very similar).

[Centropolis]

arizona feels even older than nevada to me, and still more people than alberta in 1900 and now.


www.flagstaff365.com

[jd3189]

Both Florida and Texas were Spanish before becoming American and had cities in the 1800s. Although they grew the most in the 20th century.

[sopas ej]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

nevada has all of this crazy 19th (and 20th) century wreckage scattered around and left behind that makes it feel wizened at times. busted silver towns, rusted model t skeletons, atomic age wrecks, military boneyards to the horizon.

I was gonna say something along those lines but you beat me to it.

Of the places listed on the poll (and I didn't participate in the poll), I've only been to Nevada. The Las Vegas metro area most definitely feels most newly settled, but I wouldn't say the same for the whole state of Nevada.

Has anyone ever been to Winnemucca, Nevada? I've only been there once, and it was back in maybe 2004 or 2005, but MAN, that little town felt like a place that time forgot. Hehe my partner and I decided to go up there out of the blue because we had heard about a Basque festival that they have there and we wanted to go, but we ended up missing it because we underestimated how long it would take to drive there, and by the time we got there, the festival was over, and we encountered really "earthy" people when we got there, but they were very nice, but it was somehow a strange experience... hehe I don't wanna get into the details but I think it would make for a funny story for a short film or something.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by jd3189

Both Florida and Texas were Spanish before becoming American and had cities in the 1800s. Although they grew the most in the 20th century.

And most of the entire west.
Florida = florid-flowery
Nevada = snowy
Montana = mountain
Colorado = red

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Nevada is not settled.

Probably 85-90% of the entire population of the 7th largest state in land area is located in 2 spots along the western/southern borders.

They're not really in Nevada, the populated areas across the border of California are just colonies of Califonia.

[toddguy]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

arizona feels even older than nevada to me, and still more people than alberta in 1900 and now.


www.flagstaff365.com

To me, "newly settled" means post World War Two growth (just my take on it).

Alberta was at about 940,00 in 1951, about 4 million now.

Arizona was at about 750,000 in 1950, and is at about 7 million now.

Arizona has much more post war growth, numerically and as a percentage as well.

Just my opinion and take on it of course.

Also a significant part of rural Alberta is actually agricultural land, farmland, ranchland. Arizona just does not have that as much. Large endless looking croplands give an area a more 'settled' look to me.

*ancient ruins don't give me an "old and settled" look as much as an abandoned look. As if it was settled, then abandoned and it had to be resettled by a new civilization long after that.

[Centropolis]

Originally Posted by toddguy

To me, "newly settled" means post World War Two growth (just my take on it).

Alberta was at about 940,00 in 1951, about 4 million now.

Arizona was at about 750,000 in 1950, and is at about 7 million now.

Arizona has much more post war growth, numerically and as a percentage as well.

Just my opinion and take on it of course.

Also a significant part of rural Alberta is actually agricultural land, farmland, ranchland. Arizona just does not have that as much. Large endless looking croplands give an area a more 'settled' look to me.

*ancient ruins don't give me an "old and settled" look as much as an abandoned look. As if it was settled, then abandoned and it had to be resettled by a new civilization long after that.

and arizona had 50,000 more people than alberta in 1900. one can make any sort of point they want presenting numbers in the preferred light, in a thread that has "feel" in the title. i just personally think of the southwest as kind of an old feeling place...to be sure, ive actually wandered over more of the rural southwest than have spent any time in the larger cities.

i'm thinking less of phoenix and say calgary than all of arizona and all of alberta, and the associated landscape.

arizona just feels like it's been wandered by humans for much, much longer, and the evidence is much more apparent to me. this is all subjective as hell.

[toddguy]

^^ yes, it is very very subjective I agree on that. But it is interesting to see different opinions on what seems settled and all.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by Pedestrian

The appearance is/was deceptive. Even the most unpopulated areas of Nevada have been the turf, not of survivalists, but of people such as Basque sheep herders since the middle 1800s around the time of the CA Gold Rush. Towns like Winnemucca and Elko were centers of Basque culture (and even San Francisco was influenced when the Basques came to town annually).

And while the Basques were herding their sheep in the wide open spaces of northern Nevada, the Mormons were moving into southern Nevada from Utah.

I didn't know about any of that (interesting find though) but not much remains of that Nevada compared to now...which is casinos, mafiosos rotting in the desert, retirees, and alien bodies hidden away at area 51 while Florida is still pretty much, still Florida. Even with all the Cubans and geriatric New Yorkers in the south.

[BIMBAM]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

texas was settled by europeans in the 17th century, florida a century before.

knowing this and other things, alberta feels to me to be the newest, the greenest...the fewest graves, the fewest ghosts.... texas had over three million souls in 1900, alberta stunningly around 70,000..

Alberta is still so new, they've avoided being colonized with rats. There are still no rats in the province of Alberta, even though they follow humans pretty much everywhere we go.

[ue]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

and arizona had 50,000 more people than alberta in 1900. one can make any sort of point they want presenting numbers in the preferred light, in a thread that has "feel" in the title. i just personally think of the southwest as kind of an old feeling place...to be sure, ive actually wandered over more of the rural southwest than have spent any time in the larger cities.

i'm thinking less of phoenix and say calgary than all of arizona and all of alberta, and the associated landscape.

arizona just feels like it's been wandered by humans for much, much longer, and the evidence is much more apparent to me. this is all subjective as hell.

Not to go just with the one I live in, but I'd say Alberta too. Canada in general feels less matured and "settled" than the US. Yes, the St Lawrence Valley and East Coast have been settled for centuries, but industrialization came later in Canada, and outside of the very old cores of some cities, it is generally newer, or perhaps more updated over time. I find the US tends to have a lot more vintage built form, whether that's old motel signs or brick main streets. A lot of Alberta towns look very shabby and modernist. For example, Barrhead AB vs Anaconda MT. In fact, the few US cities that tend to feel on par for the newness of Edmonton and Calgary are Las Vegas and Phoenix. Even Houston and Dallas were much more significant settlements before WWII than either Alberta city, even if Texas is more synonymous with the "New" America of the Post-War.

[isaidso]

Haven't been to most of these places but Western Australia looks newest to me. To the above post, industrialization happened the same time in Canada that it did in the UK. The difference in Canada was that vast tracts of our south were still frontier back then.

[Sun Belt]

Originally Posted by Centropolis

arizona feels even older than nevada to me, and still more people than alberta in 1900 and now.


www.flagstaff365.com

From ancient ruins to mid-century agriculture farming towns like Gilbert, AZ.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/gilbertaz/4578529454

Gilbert, AZ - from tiny farming town 50 years ago to boomburg suburb of Phoenix.


https://www.movebuddha.com/blog/moving-to-phoenix-az/

[Buckeye Native 001]

At least the Anasazi and Hohokam understood the limitations and restrictions of water usage in desert environments. It's also why both disappeared sometime early in the second millennia (or in the Anasazi's case, fled after getting freaked when Sunset Crater blew its top and eventually intermingled with what would become the Navajo and Hopi tribes)

Please don't ruin my obviously sarcastic comments with pedantry. I am a product of public high school education in Arizona...

[Doug]

I've lived in Alberta, BC, Texas and Western Australia

Alberta edges out Nevada for rawness due to geographic isolation and historical irrelevance. Nevada had a mining boom and railroad well in advance of Alberta's homesteading boom of the early 1900's. Plus Nevada has long been in California's orbit. Southern Alberta was the last piece of North America to be explored for several reasons: indifference from the federal government towards western expanaion, remoteness, rugged terrain, no navigable bodies of water, aggressive indigenous population, too cold and arid for agriculture, poor forest reserves, no known mineral deposits at the time.

Western Australia, while more isolated, already had a population well over 100,000 by 1900 due to mining and whaling booms. Perth was about 60k in 1900 and 350k in 1950. In comparison, Calgary was about 4k in 1900 and 115k in 1950.

I would add Utah and Arizona to that list.