Americans, is there any area in the US you don’t understand why more people don’t live there?
September 8, 2025
Because is nice, beautiful etc
31 comments
San Luis Obispo, California
Northern Maine…but I’m happy they don’t.
North of San Francisco and South of Portland. Super fertile area with beautiful coasts and mountains. Weather is very temperate, rains a lot but doesn’t get too hot or cold. Area is relatively safe from natural disasters. You really only have a few smaller towns on the coast and some midsized cities like Eureka, Redding, Eugene etc. Feels like there could be multiple large cities there but there just isn’t.
Yes there are plenty. The problem is that naming them would make other people move there and ultimately ruin what makes the areas great.
Honestly, it’s Michigan.
I mean it’s not like no one lives here – we’re one of the more populous states in the union. But given the natural beauty in this state and the fact that we’re surrounded by the Great Lakes, I’ve wondered why even more people don’t live here. I know I’m biased, but I’ve done a lot of driving across the United States, and Michigan is still the most beautiful state I’ve been to (that’s not to say there isn’t a lot of competition out there).
The winters aren’t even that bad if you live in the Lower Peninsula!
Pretty much any place like that, the answer is “cost of living.”
I’m happy they don’t, but there is a ton of the coast of my state, Oregon, that would be full of resorts/people if going somewhere was based on beauty of one’s surroundings.
Wyoming. I don’t personally want to live there, but it’s got some stunning areas. I’m surprised Texans and Californians didn’t flock there like they did with Idaho, Montana, and Colorado
There are so many beautiful places in the United States but unless their are job opportunities (high paying ones) people don’t live there.
A lot of places that are nice and beautiful also don’t have a lot of jobs so most people aren’t going to move there.
Industry -> Population Growth.
No, it’s usually pretty easy to figure it out.
Lots of midwest/rust belt cities. They usually have good infrastructure (sports, transit, museums, etc), decent urban planning (not just endless subdivisions, but cute houses where you can walk places), decent airports, a decent amount of professional jobs, at least some neighborhoods/inner ring suburbs with good schools, and lower COL than the coasts.
There are places I’m puzzled why people continue to live there. But there are. Lot of options in the US and the reason people don’t is self evident.
Honestly the great lakes region. Why would you leave a place with all four seasons to live in the water scarce west or the deadly humidity of the south
A lot of us have Scottish, Irish, Italian, or German ancestry. They are beautiful countries but a view can not buy a house or put food on the table. If an area is empty in the US it falls under a few things:
1. Lack of jobs.
2. Lack of infrastructure. (government, internet, running water, electricity, education for kids, medical services)
3. Weather sucks. The US has more extreme weather than Europe. Hurricanes, tornados, fires, mud slides, blizzards, arctic blasts, etc. Dakota and Wyoming can have like 35C in the Summer and -7C in the winter.
4. Terrain. A city of 200,000 can’t just appear on the side of the mountain. Cities were along rivers and places like Pittsburgh just tried to expand among the hills. There is a good reason why northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern Maine are so empty.
Northern New England like Vermont. It’s beautiful but it lacks the charm of Boston area or southern New England’s amenities.
I kind of wish some places had lower population. The worst thing to see is some pristine place get built up with ugly houses and malls. Like Woodbury commons. 🤮
Not really. There’s always at least one reason why they don’t.
Like, I think Delaware is beautiful, but more people don’t live there because there’s literally nothing there. It’s basically a giant field with some woodlands.
I could tell you, but then they’d want to come live here
The North Shore (Minnesota or the UP). If it were up to me, the Twin Cities would’ve been built where Duluth is.
If it’s a nice area, it’s probably expensive.
If it’s nice and inexpensive, there are probably no jobs.
If it’s nice, inexpensive, and has jobs, those jobs probably don’t pay well.
If it’s nice, inexpensive, has jobs, and the jobs pay well, those jobs probably suck.
San Diego – it’s the nicest place I’ve lived in the U.S. surprised population isn’t double!
If there was such a place, I would not spoil it for said place.
No, every region of the US will have its own pros and cons!
I mean, I live in Southern California, which is arguably very beautiful. But it’s expensive and I don’t see it getting any better in my lifetime at this point!
Most places in the Northeast, but also kind of glad not more people live around here. The tourists are bad enough in the summer and fall.
Honestly West Virginia, weather is good and scenery astonish, I get there’s no economic incentive but how they don’t focus in create a strong touristic industry or high tech environment
The Ozarks! I went on a trip there once, and I didn’t understand why it wasn’t full of people. So pretty!
I don’t understand why people in tech who live in the Bay Area and aren’t from California (which is most of them) don’t try to live in Washington near Seattle. It’s also a major tech hub, cost of housing is about 30% or more less, and it’s just ridiculously pretty. (Bay Area is also very pretty but WA has it beat.)
They don’t live there because the area isn’t fully developed yet or the areas are hard to get to; between California and Oregon, parts of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. These are very rural areas.
I want to say Oregon but it’s awful here. Ave yourself and don’t check it out
Philly. It’s a cool town, inexpensive rent, good art, good science, interesting people. Bars are actually open late.
31 comments
San Luis Obispo, California
Northern Maine…but I’m happy they don’t.
North of San Francisco and South of Portland. Super fertile area with beautiful coasts and mountains. Weather is very temperate, rains a lot but doesn’t get too hot or cold. Area is relatively safe from natural disasters. You really only have a few smaller towns on the coast and some midsized cities like Eureka, Redding, Eugene etc. Feels like there could be multiple large cities there but there just isn’t.
Yes there are plenty. The problem is that naming them would make other people move there and ultimately ruin what makes the areas great.
Honestly, it’s Michigan.
I mean it’s not like no one lives here – we’re one of the more populous states in the union. But given the natural beauty in this state and the fact that we’re surrounded by the Great Lakes, I’ve wondered why even more people don’t live here. I know I’m biased, but I’ve done a lot of driving across the United States, and Michigan is still the most beautiful state I’ve been to (that’s not to say there isn’t a lot of competition out there).
The winters aren’t even that bad if you live in the Lower Peninsula!
Pretty much any place like that, the answer is “cost of living.”
I’m happy they don’t, but there is a ton of the coast of my state, Oregon, that would be full of resorts/people if going somewhere was based on beauty of one’s surroundings.
Wyoming. I don’t personally want to live there, but it’s got some stunning areas. I’m surprised Texans and Californians didn’t flock there like they did with Idaho, Montana, and Colorado
There are so many beautiful places in the United States but unless their are job opportunities (high paying ones) people don’t live there.
A lot of places that are nice and beautiful also don’t have a lot of jobs so most people aren’t going to move there.
Industry -> Population Growth.
No, it’s usually pretty easy to figure it out.
Lots of midwest/rust belt cities. They usually have good infrastructure (sports, transit, museums, etc), decent urban planning (not just endless subdivisions, but cute houses where you can walk places), decent airports, a decent amount of professional jobs, at least some neighborhoods/inner ring suburbs with good schools, and lower COL than the coasts.
There are places I’m puzzled why people continue to live there. But there are. Lot of options in the US and the reason people don’t is self evident.
Honestly the great lakes region. Why would you leave a place with all four seasons to live in the water scarce west or the deadly humidity of the south
A lot of us have Scottish, Irish, Italian, or German ancestry. They are beautiful countries but a view can not buy a house or put food on the table. If an area is empty in the US it falls under a few things:
1. Lack of jobs.
2. Lack of infrastructure. (government, internet, running water, electricity, education for kids, medical services)
3. Weather sucks. The US has more extreme weather than Europe. Hurricanes, tornados, fires, mud slides, blizzards, arctic blasts, etc. Dakota and Wyoming can have like 35C in the Summer and -7C in the winter.
4. Terrain. A city of 200,000 can’t just appear on the side of the mountain. Cities were along rivers and places like Pittsburgh just tried to expand among the hills. There is a good reason why northern New York, Vermont, New Hampshire, and northern Maine are so empty.
Northern New England like Vermont. It’s beautiful but it lacks the charm of Boston area or southern New England’s amenities.
I kind of wish some places had lower population. The worst thing to see is some pristine place get built up with ugly houses and malls. Like Woodbury commons. 🤮
Not really. There’s always at least one reason why they don’t.
Like, I think Delaware is beautiful, but more people don’t live there because there’s literally nothing there. It’s basically a giant field with some woodlands.
I could tell you, but then they’d want to come live here
The North Shore (Minnesota or the UP). If it were up to me, the Twin Cities would’ve been built where Duluth is.
If it’s a nice area, it’s probably expensive.
If it’s nice and inexpensive, there are probably no jobs.
If it’s nice, inexpensive, and has jobs, those jobs probably don’t pay well.
If it’s nice, inexpensive, has jobs, and the jobs pay well, those jobs probably suck.
San Diego – it’s the nicest place I’ve lived in the U.S. surprised population isn’t double!
If there was such a place, I would not spoil it for said place.
No, every region of the US will have its own pros and cons!
I mean, I live in Southern California, which is arguably very beautiful. But it’s expensive and I don’t see it getting any better in my lifetime at this point!
Most places in the Northeast, but also kind of glad not more people live around here. The tourists are bad enough in the summer and fall.
Honestly West Virginia, weather is good and scenery astonish, I get there’s no economic incentive but how they don’t focus in create a strong touristic industry or high tech environment
The Ozarks! I went on a trip there once, and I didn’t understand why it wasn’t full of people. So pretty!
I don’t understand why people in tech who live in the Bay Area and aren’t from California (which is most of them) don’t try to live in Washington near Seattle. It’s also a major tech hub, cost of housing is about 30% or more less, and it’s just ridiculously pretty. (Bay Area is also very pretty but WA has it beat.)
They don’t live there because the area isn’t fully developed yet or the areas are hard to get to; between California and Oregon, parts of Montana, Wyoming, and the Dakotas. These are very rural areas.
I want to say Oregon but it’s awful here. Ave yourself and don’t check it out
Philly. It’s a cool town, inexpensive rent, good art, good science, interesting people. Bars are actually open late.
My expensive ass college town could never.