Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The total figures for area and population that I listed include only European portions of transcontinental countries, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Jacksonian , you are confusing me too. According to the maps I showed the USa fits all of euro with tons of room to spare. Just land sizes are what i am talking about. According to the map all of Euro fits in apx 1/3 red of the USA lower 48 states with ease.
What is or isn't quailty of life in terms of population is nothing I would know about. I am not a city dweller. I avoid cities all I can.
Jacksonian , you are confusing me too. According to the maps I showed the USa fits all of euro with tons of room to spare. Just land sizes are what i am talking about. According to the map all of Euro fits in apx 1/3 red of the USA lower 48 states with ease.
What is or isn't quailty of life in terms of population is nothing I would know about. I am not a city dweller. I avoid cities all I can.
The map of Europe that About.com uses in the illustration that you linked to does not include all of Europe - in fact, there are numerous countries missing from that map, including Poland, Hungary, Greece, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarius, Ukraine, Romania, Finland, etc.
I believe that About.com is attempting to illustrate the scale of European countries in comparison to US states rather than comparing the US to Europe as a whole.
I have attached a better illustration that shows all of Europe and all of the US to the same scale, and I have rotated Europe clockwise in order to more easily visualize the land area comparison.
I notice a lot of people wouldn't want to live in urban areas because they feel it's to crowed, not enough space etc... but that's not the case. To be urban, a city doesn't need to be as dense as say, Philly, Boston, San Fran and what not. An urban landscape is simply a planned community as a whole instead of several planned residential areas networking from unplanned arteries. Small towns and older railroad villages are an example of this.
The density seen in cities such as Portland, Seattle and Miami are actually seen in many suburbs. My father lives in a neighborhood in a northern Cincy suburb and it's is sprawltastic, but the houses are still no more than 12-15 feet apart. Check out some of Toronto's sprawling, yet incredibly dense areas. I just find it more efficient to build based on a centralized location, whether it be urban or suburban. It seems like that model has been completely tossed out the window. At my mothers house, there is a neighborhood directly behind her subdivision, not even separated by a fence. I can walk to the backyard of the house behind me, but to get there by driving, I'd have to go 1 1/2 miles out of the way to get there. It's just not efficient.
Not everyone wants to be crammed into an urban environment
I'm too am amused by attitudes such as this.
So your only choices are packed-in-like-sardines urban areas.....or suburban (and yes even rural ) sprawl?
What about small-to-mid sized towns? Or older (inner ring) "suburbs" that have grown into communities with all ammenities, including employment opportunites, no commuting required???
It doesn't have to be so all or nothing.
Rural living can be great. As long as you don't need to drive everyday and you are fairly self-sufficient. If you have kids who need to attend school and are involved in many activities...maybe not for you. If you have a job that requires daily face-time, also probably not for you. If you require Starbucks every morning....super-dooper not for you.
If you are (semi) retired, telecommute and/or homeschool, plus you can grow/raise your own food, brew your own java and bake your own bread....then I see nothing wrong with living in the boonies.
The total figures for area and population that I listed include only European portions of transcontinental countries, including Russia, Kazakhstan, Georgia, Turkey and Azerbaijan.
Considering that this excludes the lower-population parts of Russia, is that a fair comparison? What would US population density look like if you excluded the low-population Far West states and Alaska?
Considering that this excludes the lower-population parts of Russia, is that a fair comparison? What would US population density look like if you excluded the low-population Far West states and Alaska?
But Siberia's not even part of Europe, it's part of Asia.
Considering that this excludes the lower-population parts of Russia, is that a fair comparison? What would US population density look like if you excluded the low-population Far West states and Alaska?
I'm not sure I follow what you're asking/comparing.
But Siberia's not even part of Europe, it's part of Asia.
Hawaii isn't part of North America either, but you specified all 50 states. It doesn't seem like a fair comparison to leave out the half of Russia that doesn't fit the argument.
In fact, directly comparing Russia to the United States is a lot better comparison than comparing a single country (the US) to a continental land mass (Europe.)
But do Russian cities, in a larger (and, on average, less dense) country, follow the European model or the American model?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
