Is there already a major population center in every place where a major population center could be?
In my alternate history project, the USA is much bigger and it's territory as of 1950 encompasses most of what would be the real USA, the Baja California Peninsula, all of Canada, Greenland, Iceland and several outlying territories.
Also, in my project, the USA never had any anti-immigration laws and this results in the country having a higher population ( with more land for that population to occupy ) and a dramatically different ethnic makeup wherein European Americans make up only a slight majority of the population and the west coast is majority Asian-American among other things.
According to some non-exhaustive research that I've done, the population of my alternate USA circa 2016 would likely exceed 435 Million people.
-
Recently, I had a bit of thought.
Would the higher population make it realistic for my alternate USA to have towns and cities in places where there is no population in reality or is there already a town and/or city in every place where a town and/or city could realistically exist?
I've always been under the impression that the population of North America has already settled every place that a settlement could exist in. Ghost Towns for example, are ghost towns precisely because their primary reason for existing ( resources ) no longer exists and frontier towns that are still populated are usually maintained, almost exclusively by tourism.
I live close to California City, a failed city that was intended to rival Los Angeles in scale but never got more than a few hundred people. Once more, It seems to me that every failed city was always bound to fail simply because it wasn't located in a place that could generate any meaningful economic activity.
What do you think? More towns and cities or nah?