Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 9746024)

Here's an interesting article:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...in-Europe.html

Now let's look at the "real" population density of Canada. Let's assume that the border with the "lower 48" US states (I'm ignoring the border with Alaska) is about 4000 miles long and that the population of Canada lives within 100 miles of that border. They all don't but let's assume they do even though it will make the population density appear higher than it really is.

4000 miles x 100 miles = 400000 sq miles of habitable space.

Canada's population is about 34 million.

So based on these numbers, the population density in this habitable space is 34,000,000 people divided by 400000 sq miles which equals 85 people per square mile.

The population density of the UK is about 630 people per square mile. In England, it's 1000+ per square mile.

Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 9746052)

Huh? I just chopped out a huge chunk of the friggin' country! I can chop out more and still arrive at a population density much less than that of the UK. How many miles north of the US border do you want to give me? 50? 25?

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 9745983)

... that has bugger all to do with the access to the countryside of the average person in the UK vs. the same in Canada.

Originally Posted by Mr fixyou (Post 9744410)

Canada pros

The great outdoors, and the ability to truly get away from the world and civilisation should the desire take you. True in my experience.

Really friendly people, who are quite willing to help out a poor Brit who has become lost on their grid system! True in my experience.

Much better standard of living True in my experience. Though this does depend on what you want out of life.

Better fresh food (expensive though.) True in my experience.

Easy access to lots of sports and most people seem to take far better care of their health and fitness than in the UK. True in my experience.

The lack of violence on the streets. I have spend quite a bit of time in BC, van and vic mostly. What I've noticed is the lack of violence in BC. I know you have some gun crime and drug dealing but you don't have the level of street violence that we have in the UK and you should be very grateful for that. True in my experience.

A greater sense of community, even in a big city like van, but especially noticeable in Victoria. True in my experience.

Canada cons

Car insurance by the sounds of it... True.

Real estate in downtown van True.

UK pros

BBC programmes ( though most if not all can be streamed directly to your tv from the web now) True.

Cheaper car insuranceTrue.

Food is cheaper to buy (haven't found restaurants cheaper though!)True.

Originally Posted by JonboyE (Post 9746080)

As does the access from the centre of Toronto to someone considering BC.

Originally Posted by iaink (Post 9746075)

GTA population density
Population density per square kilometre
3,972.4

Greater London population density
4,932/km2

Broadly similar if you ask me, and in the UK there are networks of public footpaths that simply dont exist here in the countryside, as well as well established rights of way.

To swap one suburban or urban lifestyle for another wont make much of a noticeable change in lifestyle beyond now having a less forgiving climate if you ask me.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 9746054)

Again, you're including vast areas of Canada where no one of significance lives, Manitoba for example, and Saskatchsomething. What might be useful to look at is where people do live, places with jobs, and what access to fields they have. Slough vs. Brampton for example, would be fair or, in the case of recent posts, Cheltenham vs. Surrey (BC).

That said, I'm reconsidering my view of the UK. Good areas come and go, bad ones get gentrified. The people I know there mostly live in the London Docklands, in council housing around Burnt Oak, or in Hastings. They all seem happy enough and never mention living in fear but I haven't asked them if they'd feel the same in Cheltenham or Bournemouth; those places today might make someone from Detroit or Buffalo want to stay in with the doors locked.

Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 9746110)

No, I shifted every Canadian to within 100 miles of the border with the "lower 48" US states so I've chopped off most of the country including almost all of Manitoba and Saskatchewan and every other province. I still had a population density that's a fraction of that in the UK. In fact if I put every Canadian within 25 miles of the US border, I'd still have a number that's lower than the UK. Within 10 miles and I'd still have a population density lower than that of England.

The fact is that the UK is very densely populated. Many people who leave the UK cite this as one of the reasons for leaving. The numbers back up their claims.

Originally Posted by dbd33 (Post 9746100)

Care to compare the crumbling urban decay of Cheltenham with the verdant pastures of Surrey?

Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 9746110)

I've chopped off most of the country including almost all of Manitoba and Saskatchewan

Originally Posted by MarylandNed (Post 9746052)

Huh? I just chopped out a huge chunk of the friggin' country! I can chop out more and still arrive at a population density much less than that of the UK. How many miles north of the US border do you want to give me? 50? 25?

Originally Posted by JonboyE (Post 9746096)

I thought a bit of balance, from someone who actually lives here, might be helpful.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 9746283)

I actually live here too. So do most people who've contributed to this thread.

Originally Posted by Editha (Post 9746283)

I actually live here too. So do most people who've contributed to this thread.