The mean centre of US population is “the point at which an imaginary, flat, weightless and rigid map of the US would balance perfectly if weights of identical value were placed on it so that each weight represented the location of one person on the date of the census”, in the definition of the US Census Bureau itself.
That bureau has been holding censuses every decade since 1790; these censuses form the backdrop for this string of mean centres of population in the US. The map shows an ever westward shift of that centre, obviously in parallel with the westward expansion of the US and its citizenry. The mean centre of population of the US has shifted thusly:
- 1790: 23 miles east of Baltimore (MD)
- 1800: 18 miles west of Baltimore (MD)
- 1810: 40 miles northwest by west of Washington, DC
- 1820: 16 miles east of Moorefield (VA, now WV)
- 1830: 19 miles west-southwest of Moorefield (VA, now WV)
- 1840: 16 miles south of Clarksburg (VA, now WV)
- 1850: 23 miles southeast of Parkersburg (VA, now WV)
- 1860: 20 miles south by east of Chillcothe (OH)
- 1870: 48 miles east by north of Cincinnati (OH)
- 1880: 8 miles west by south of Cincinnati (OH)
- 1890: 20 miles east of Columbus (IN)*
- 1900: 6 miles southeast of Columbus (IN)*
- 1910: in the city of Bloomington (IN)
- 1920: 8 miles south-southeast of Spencer (IN)
- 1930: 3 miles northeast of Linton (IN)
- 1940: 2 miles southeast by east of Carlisle (IN)
- 1950: 8 miles north-northwest of Olney (IN)
- 1950: 3 miles northeast of Louisville (IL)**
- 1960: 6-1/2 miles northwest of Centralia (IL)
- 1970: 5 miles east-southeast of Mascoutah (IL)
- 1980: 1/4 mile west of DeSoto (MO)
- 1990: 10 miles southeast of Steelville (MO)
- 2000: 3 miles east of Edgar Springs (MO)
This list refers to the nearest city, which might be in a different state than the mean centre itself. For a more complete listing, including precise sets of decimal coordinates, please see this Wikipedia article.
Some mean centre trivia:
- The very first census’ mean centre was near Chestertown in Maryland – very close to the nation’s capital (the location of which was chosen exactly for its centrality). Westward expansion has made Washington DC increasingly eccentric, not just in a literal, geographic sense, but also by the steady eastward “mean streak” of its statistical population centre, depicted here.
- The most appropriate mean centre surely was the one near the very aptly named town of Centralia, Illinois (1960).
- The addition of Hawaii and Alaska to the Union (in 1959) didn’t cause as much of a shift as one might expect : it moved the mean centre only two miles south and ten miles west (1960).
- Interestingly, the mean centre of the European Union has moved in the opposite direction, as the EU has continued to expand into Eastern Europe (if anyone knows of nice maps representing that eastward drift – they are welcome.)
Many thanks to Kees Huyser for alerting me to this map, illustrating the aforementioned Wikipedia article.
* Corrected Columbus, OH to Columbus, IN (thanks to all who pointed out the error).
** Please note that the double mention of the 1950 census (with a different result) reflects one and the same set of data, calculated according to an earlier method and the current one, respectively.
Dear Sir.
The 1890 & 1900 symbols seem misplaced.
Comment by P. D. Caldwell — June 8, 2009 @ 12:55 am
As a native and former St. Louisan, I duly notice that the population center has been close to St. Louis for several decades.
Comment by countenance — June 8, 2009 @ 1:25 am
I think that the requirement that the rigid map be flat is an artifact of short-sightedness. Compared with when that statue was written (I’m guessing–I don’t know the date) the US as a surface has a lot more curvature to it than at first. I would use a rigid curved section of the Earth’s surface, and have each individual be a vector pointing towards the center of mass of the earth. The center of population would be the point on the surface where all the resultant torques add up to a single vector pointed at the center of mass of the earth. The difference would surely be negligible, but it’s the principle of the thing: a flat map is wrong.
Comment by MainiacJoe — June 8, 2009 @ 2:05 am
Columbus, OH is definitely not the closest city to the 1890 and 1900 points.
Comment by Daniel — June 8, 2009 @ 2:22 am
it should be easy to create such maps, once one has the historical population data in very high resolution.
in 5min I didn’t find any such map for the EU, but I’m positive somewhere on http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/ there’s a database and mapping tool for it. It might be faster to do it manually than trying to search for it though.
“Center maps” have great potential for some visualisations I think, for example it is said that young women would leave eastern germany, generating an abundance of depressed males. by comparing the male vs. female population centers, and their movements, one could see that nicely…
on the EU map: a book (on EU geography) via google that discussed mean population centres said, it wouldn’t be as interesting for europe as it would be for the americas, since it has been widely populated since we started measuring it, so there won’t be such a nice frontier movement…
but I remember that during an eurovision broadcast on the new EU25, they had a report from the “new centre of the EU” (which was in germany iirc) but it was unclear how they determined that “center”.
Comment by pascal — June 8, 2009 @ 2:44 am
1890 and 1900 are actually near Columbus, Indiana.
Comment by Mark B — June 8, 2009 @ 3:57 am
If each person was weighted by their, um, weight, where would the center of mass be?
Comment by Ed — June 8, 2009 @ 4:07 am
The 6th comment above seems correct. In addition, a move from Cincinnati to Columbus would have been in the wrong direction, anyway.
Good map, and good information, regardless.
Comment by Patton — June 8, 2009 @ 4:21 am
I was thinking the same thing that #7 Ed was – where is the center if average weight per state was taken into consideration?
Comment by sabernar — June 8, 2009 @ 4:45 am
I’m also wondering what there might be in Bentonville, AK, that is sucking us all towards it?
Comment by Ed — June 8, 2009 @ 6:17 am
[...] Strange Maps: America’s Mean Streak [...]
Pingback by links for 2009-06-08 | The Computer Vet Weblog — June 8, 2009 @ 8:00 am
that is why:
Comment by Willi — June 8, 2009 @ 12:25 pm
hi … an animated look at the population center drift westward …
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/msz03/temp/popctr.gif
and …
http://www.albany.edu/faculty/msz03/temp/popcenter.htm
Comment by Mike Z — June 8, 2009 @ 1:03 pm
Notice also that the center starting shifting southward around the time that air-conditioning became feasible (1920s).
Comment by kip — June 8, 2009 @ 1:30 pm
It took me a few minutes to figure out why the population center continued to shift West–and South–starting with about 1980. Then it hit me: The Sun Belt. Tons of people are moving to places like Arizona and Las Vegas.
If I’d had to guess before seeing the map, I would have guessed the center had actually reversed itself and started to move eastward due to the popularity of the Deep South for not just retirement, but for permanent relocation due to low cost of living (i.e. you should see how many northern transplants live in the Charleston, SC area). I guess all those folks moving to places like Florida, Charlotte, and Raleigh are outnumbered by folks moving to the Southwest!
Comment by Ryan Hauck — June 8, 2009 @ 1:31 pm
Kip, that’s not air conditioning. The first part of the curve southwards (1920-1970/80) is the massive growth of Southern California, and then the shift southwards of industry away from the Rust Belt. Air conditioning doesn’t really come into play until until the tail end of the curve.
Comment by Derek L — June 8, 2009 @ 1:41 pm
[...] Maps: America’s Mean Population Center By Doug Strange Maps has an interesting map, showing the migration of the the mean center of the the United States’ population over the [...]
Pingback by Masson’s Blog - A Citizen’s Guide to Indiana » Strange Maps: America’s Mean Population Center — June 8, 2009 @ 3:10 pm
[...] A map of the continuing shift of the center of US population westward. (strange maps) [...]
Pingback by Sunday links: EMH breakdown | Investing - Thecreditcardfiles.com — June 8, 2009 @ 3:17 pm
About the geographical centre of Europe there seems to be some differences. It seems Bernotai (Lithuania), Rachiv (Ukraine) and Kremnické Bane (Slovakia) claim this (or so says the Dutch wikipedia). According to the French Geographical Association (IGN, Institut Geograpique National) the centre of the European Union would now be in Gelnhausen, Germany. The German wikipedia, where I double-checked this gives even coordinates: 50° 10′ 21″ N, 9° 9′ 0″ O Does this answer satisfy everyone (not taking in account any linguistic mistakes)?
Comment by Henk — June 8, 2009 @ 3:57 pm
@18: “O” is not a valid cardinal direction
Comment by Lurker — June 8, 2009 @ 4:21 pm
@19: Sure it is: O = Ost, German for “west.”
Comment by Alex — June 8, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
That should, of course, be “east.”
Comment by Alex — June 8, 2009 @ 4:46 pm
According to the video above, there are no airports servicing Nebraska or Iowa. Why’s that?
Comment by Alex — June 8, 2009 @ 6:24 pm
@Alex
(22)
the video shows fedex only, maybe Iowa and Nebraska are United-Parcel-Area? :-)
(20)
Ost-West: that mistakes really satisfies me – being from Germany I will never ever distinguish lat from lon by heart, I have to recapitulate EVERY time: do you have a mnemonic trick to help me?
Comment by Willi — June 8, 2009 @ 7:56 pm
Yeah, as #14(Ryan Hauck) pointed out, the dip to the south and west is due to migration to the Sun Belt (the southern and western part of the US). Places like Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Texas, Arizona, Colorado, California, etc., have seen lots of growth in recent years.
And as #15(Derek L) points out, air conditioning wasn’t common at the beginning of the downward curve. I’ve had to listen to stories about “how good I have it” for years about how my parents went to high school in the 1970s in south Louisiana and the school buildings didn’t have any air conditioning besides an open window.
Comment by boznia — June 8, 2009 @ 8:36 pm
This is one of the best maps you’ve ever posted.
Comment by NG — June 8, 2009 @ 8:53 pm
Oops, I should have done more research. I had remembered reading that the adoption of A/C made it possible for cities like Miami and Houston to become metropolises. According to Wikipedia, A/C sales took off in the post-WWII period, so that wouldn’t account for the southward shift in the 20s.
Comment by kip — June 8, 2009 @ 9:13 pm
Since it’s mentioned that adding states shifted the center I assume that means their populations don’t count before that? Do old censuses count Native Americans? Is there any of that 3/5ths of a person math going on here?
Comment by Nacoran — June 8, 2009 @ 9:28 pm
If there’s going to be map for Europe, I’d like to see one done for Russia, too. Mainly because it would be nice to see if the population’s been moving to Siberia or not.
Comment by El Santo — June 9, 2009 @ 12:13 am
WHen did the natives, slaves and “mexicans” start being counted – is it a fair bet that the population was so far East to start with because large numbers were not counted ?
Comment by Alan — June 9, 2009 @ 2:32 am
Just for the record, it’s Columbus, IN. Little town, near Bloomington, also called Columbus. You might want to edit the post.
Comment by Michael Hancock — June 9, 2009 @ 5:17 am
#3 seconded – any flat projection implies distortion, and the parameters of the flat projection aren’t even specified here so that we can evaluate the distortion.
Great map though!
Comment by Christian vdB — June 9, 2009 @ 8:37 am
[...] Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by BagOfNothing.com » Our Population Center is Moving — June 9, 2009 @ 11:02 am
You bastard.
I mean that in a complimentary way (is that possible?)
I stumbled onto this fabulous site about 2 hours ago and have not got any work done since. I may soon find myself unemployed.
Thanks so much for reproducing (among countless other gems) the Tory atlas from the Spitting Image book – took me right back.
Comment by Richard H — June 9, 2009 @ 12:55 pm
I recall that in 1980, when the population center crossed the Mississippi, some of the media treated it as some sort of apocalyptic event, and an utterly strange one (Doesn’t America look like the Saul Steinberg map?). I think in the Northeast it was felt as the latest of many humiliations.
Comment by Rodger — June 9, 2009 @ 5:20 pm
#28,30 Censuses were only taken within the boundaries of the United States. There would be no point to take a census of the Lousiana Purchase when it was in another country. Ditto for the areas gained in the Mexican0-American War.
Comment by Andrew Bore — June 9, 2009 @ 6:38 pm
@Willi (24), how about this: Germany is longer north-to-south than it is wide east-to-west. So there you go – the lines that run N-S through the country are _long_itude, the ones that run E-W (or O-W, for you) are latitude.
@Nacoran (28), it looks like indeed the populations of territories aren’t counted for this purpose (otherwise adding Alaska and Hawaii wouldn’t have shifted the center of population).
As for Native Americans, most of them were excluded from the census by the Constitution (“Indians not taxed,” Art. I sec. 2, and Amendment XIV), although apparently they started to be counted unsystematically from 1860 onward (http://www.archives.gov/publications/prologue/2006/summer/indian-census.html). Since the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 they’re counted in the census like any other US citizens.
Comment by Alex — June 9, 2009 @ 6:57 pm
@37 Alex
Alaska was first counted in the U.S. census in 1880, and Hawaii was first counted in 1900. Even if Alaska and Hawaii weren’t counted in the census until 1960 (the first held after they became states in 1959), it wouldn’t have been the primary reason for the shift of the location of the center of U.S. population between 1950 and 1960. Alaska’s population in 1960 was 226,167 and Hawaii’s was 632,772. Between 1950 and 1960, California gained 5,130,981 people, and Texas gained 1,868,483 people.
Comment by boznia — June 9, 2009 @ 8:18 pm
[...] 389 – America’s Mean Streak « Strange Maps [...]
Pingback by igorbrejc.net » Fresh Catch For June 9th — June 9, 2009 @ 9:01 pm
Since I live in Missouri, not far from the “center”, I’ve been aware of this information. What struck me for the first time however, is the apparent change in rate of the progression from east to west, and how it might be grouped into 50 year increments.
1790 – 1840 … movement due west.
1840 – 1890 … faster movement west.
1890 – 1940 … still heading west, but slowed to a crawl (takes forever to cross Indiana)
1940 – today … foot on the accelerator (“California, here I come!”).
Any informed speculation on the Great Crawl of 1890 – 1940? Offsets due to the influx of European immigration into what is now known as the “rust belt”? Just can’t maintain the rate established during the days of “manifest destiny”, until air conditioning and the interstate highway system? My guesses are those of an amateur.
Comment by Tim Nagy — June 9, 2009 @ 11:51 pm
@boznia (38): Of course the residents of territories are counted in the decennial censuses. But apparently, when it comes to figuring out the mean center of population, only states are counted.
Comment by Alex — June 9, 2009 @ 11:57 pm
@30:
I’m pretty sure “mexicans” weren’t counted because Texas, California et al. were still solidly part of Mexico. The Center starts that Far East because the original 13 states were all on the Atlantic.
Comment by cartophilia — June 10, 2009 @ 2:26 am
Thanks for the Post -
udmtv.com – Watch Free HD Videos of your favorite Tv Shows
Comment by Udmnetwork — June 10, 2009 @ 8:41 pm
“Mean streak”. Genius.
Comment by Vic Fieger — June 11, 2009 @ 3:44 am
@15: Keep in mind that most of those northern transplants in cities like Raleigh are exactly that: NORTHERN transplants. A person moving from Buffalo to Raleigh doesn’t change the east-west center of the country a bit, as Buffalo is due north of Raleigh. A person moving from Washington, Philadelphia, New York, or Boston to Raleigh actually pushes the population center west, not east.
As for Atlanta, it’s due south of Cincinnati, so you can see how people moving from the north to there are also pushing the mean to the west.
Comment by rhodent — June 15, 2009 @ 4:15 am
An animated version appeared in the National Atlas of the US.
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/history/a_popcenter.html
Comment by revelation jones — June 15, 2009 @ 12:57 pm
@3, @32: I’m pretty sure that the whole idea of the centre of gravity of a flat map is just to help visualize it. They probably just found the point that would minimize everyone’s total flying distance to it, appropriately taking into account the fact that it’s the surface of a sphere. (On a flat surface, the two are of course completely equivalent). So really, it’s just a metaphor that helps the non-mathematically inclined understand, and distortion was never really a worry.
Comment by Oreo Priest — June 15, 2009 @ 9:46 pm
This must mean that America is becoming more “Southern.” Yee Haw!
Comment by Bourgoises Pig — June 16, 2009 @ 3:14 pm
I was born and raised in Bloomington. There was, for many years, a limestone marker commemorating Bloomington being the 1910 center of population on the courthouse square. When the government moved into new digs a few blocks away, they moved the stone. Neither location was ever the actual spot as calculated by the mean.
Comment by Daniel — June 21, 2009 @ 4:33 pm
Looks like movement stagnated just before the Great Depression, and then people started moving West again, probably in search of work.
Comment by Robert S. Paul — June 24, 2009 @ 4:19 pm
[...] StrangeMaps has an interesting post characterizing the mean center of US population over time. As California, Arizona, Texas, Georgia and Florida muscle up, the balance point moves steadily southwestward. As Saul Bellow once noted: In Los Angeles all the loose objects in the country were collected, as if America had been tilted and everything that wasn’t tightly screwed down had slid into Southern California. Tags: demographics, Maps [...]
Pingback by Hyde Park Blvd » Blog Archive » Steady Southwest Trend — June 26, 2009 @ 5:47 pm
Another typo is with the 1950 spot. Olney is in IL not in IN.
Comment by Mike Fortner — July 8, 2009 @ 1:32 am
I just scanned through the 52 comments, and I don’t think anyone has mentioned another trend on this map, but I might have missed it somewhere:
What strikes me, aside from the obvious westward trend, is that there is complimentary, more subtle trend – Southward – since 1940, which goes along with what we know about rapid growth in the “sunbelt”.
Comment by Benjamin — July 15, 2009 @ 2:50 pm
[...] America’s mean streak. [...]
Pingback by Benjamin Tegarden / Daily Reading — July 23, 2009 @ 2:00 pm
Gratuitous self-promotion of the 1900 site: http://tobolski.com/Little_Indiana/Census_Block.html
Comment by tobolski — July 29, 2009 @ 10:01 am
I’ll second #52: Olney (1950) is in Illinois, not Indiana. Be sure to visit and say hello to the white squirrels!
Comment by Jenny — August 4, 2009 @ 3:22 pm