Could the entire population of the world plausibly live in Great Britain?

Manila, the most densely populated city on Earth. Image: Google.

I’ve been thinking about the issue of population density across the world – and how it varies hugely. Some people think England is particularly crowded and some would probably say that Great Britain as a whole is quite a tightly packed little island. But of course this is all relative.

I was reminded of this recently when I discovered that the Philippines is now on Google Street View. Since I had a few spare moments, and because my brother lives in Manila, I went for a little tour around the city, and was struck by the sheer density of it.

As it turns out, Wikipedia and other sources say the city of Manila is the most densely populated on earth, with over 41,000 people per square kilometre. This is followed by another Metro Manila area (Pateros), at over 30,000, and then Dhaka in Bangladesh at over 28,000.

Where am I going with this? Using these figures as a reference point, I decided to see whether the entire population of the world – currently about 7.4bn – could fit in the island of Great Britain. 

The answer is yes. Some maps and a few words below to help explain...

I've cut out a chunk of Manila and tiled it over GB – somewhat bigly.

If you scale things a little more closely to the real world, you begin to get a sense of what this kind of density would look like on the ground – and remember that in some parts of the world people do live at these densities.

Just not in the South West of England and time soon, thankfully.

I believe getting planning permission for this might be an issue.

To the other end of the country now, around the far north east corner of Scotland, including Wick (current population about 7,000). Not much room to breathe here.

In fact, there isn't much room left for roads or train lines or parks or anything else, so day to day life might be just a little complicated. 

Transport, waste, communications and a few other things would be a bit tricky.

There are about 7,400,000,000 people in the world now, according to current best estimates, and the land area of the island of Great Britain is about 210,000 square kilometers. The maps here don't have lochs and lakes cut out but my calculations do take this into account. 

So, if we had to accommodate the whole world in Great Britain, this gives us a population density of 35,238 people per square kilometre.  Remember, that is a lower density than the City of Manila (that is, the inner part of Manila with a population of 1.7m, rather than the whole of Metro Manila – an area with 13m people).

Let's look at a few more maps now.

Merseyside and surrounding area.

 

Central London, with a slightly wonky looking Thames.

For reference, there are about 300 people per square kilometre in Great Britain at present. There are about 5,500 people per square kilometre in London and about 6,300 in Tokyo.

New York City has a population density of about 11,000, and Paris is quite tightly packed, at about 21,000 per square kilometre (for the 20 arrondissements). Manhattan has about 26,000 people per square kilometre.


There is loads of stuff on the internet about this general topic, including the excellent Per Square Mile by Tim De Chant. The most densely populated country is Macau, at just over 21,000 people per square kilometre.

If all this metric stuff is confusing, then I can tell you that in imperial units the density needed to accommodate the world in Great Britain is about 90,000 people per square mile. No matter how you measure it, that's a lot. Even Manhattan only has 67,000 people per square mile.

The obvious question now of course is what we should do with the rest of the world. Turn it into a park? Nature reserve? Museum?

I'm joking of course: there is also a more serious point here. I'm just trying to put some perspective on the issue of population density across the globe and how we measure it.

London and the surrounding area – not actually all that dense.

It's tempting to look out the window or use our day to day lives to assess what's ‘normal’; of course, this is natural. But when I've been looking more closely at the GHSL global population datasets recently I have been amazed at just how densely populated some cities are – as you can see a little bit from my previous blog post on the topic.

Dr Alasdair Rae is a senior lecturer in the urban studies & planning department of the University of Sheffield. This article was originally posted on his blog, and is reposted here with the author's permission.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook.

 

 
 
 
 

A growing number of voters will never own their own home. Why is the government ignoring them?

A lettings agent window. Image: Getty.

The dream of a property-owning democracy continues to define British housing policy. From Right-to-Buy to Help-to-Buy, policies are framed around the model of the ‘first-time buyer’ and her quest for property acquisition. The goal of Philip Hammond’s upcoming budget – hailed as a major “intervention” in the “broken” housing market – is to ensure that “the next generation will have the same opportunities as their parents to own a home.”

These policies are designed for an alternative reality. Over the last two decades, the dream of the property-owning democracy has come completely undone. While government schemes used to churn out more home owners, today it moves in reverse.

Generation Rent’s new report, “Life in the Rental Sector”, suggests that more Britons are living longer in the private rental sector. We predict the number of ‘silver renters’ – pensioners in the private rental sector – will rise to one million by 2035, a three-fold increase from today.

These renters have drifted way beyond the dream of home ownership: only 11 per cent of renters over 65 expect to own a home. Our survey results show that these renters are twice as likely than renters in their 20s to prefer affordable rental tenure over homeownership.

Lowering stamp duty or providing mortgage relief completely miss the point. These are renters – life-long renters – and they want rental relief: guaranteed tenancies, protection from eviction, rent inflation regulation.

The assumption of a British ‘obsession’ with homeownership – which has informed so much housing policy over the years – stands on flimsy ground. Most of the time, it is based on a single survey question: Would you like to rent a home or own a home? It’s a preposterous question, of course, because, well, who wouldn’t like to own a home at a time when the chief economist of the Bank of England has made the case for homes as a ‘better bet’ for retirement than pensions?


Here we arrive at the real toxicity of the property-owning dream. It promotes a vicious cycle: support for first-time buyers increases demand for home ownership, fresh demand raises house prices, house price inflation turns housing into a profitable investment, and investment incentives stoke preferences for home ownership all over again.

The cycle is now, finally, breaking. Not without pain, Britons are waking up to the madness of a housing policy organised around home ownership. And they are demanding reforms that respect renting as a life-time tenure.

At the 1946 Conservative Party conference, Anthony Eden extolled the virtues of a property-owning democracy as a defence against socialist appeal. “The ownership of property is not a crime or a sin,” he said, “but a reward, a right and responsibility that must be shared as equitable as possible among all our citizens.”

The Tories are now sleeping in the bed they have made. Left out to dry, renters are beginning to turn against the Conservative vision. The election numbers tell the story of this left-ward drift of the rental sector: 29 per cent of private renters voted Labour in 2010, 39 in 2015, and 54 in June.

Philip Hammond’s budget – which, despite its radicalism, continues to ignore the welfare of this rental population – is unlikely to reverse this trend. Generation Rent is no longer simply a class in itself — it is becoming a class for itself, as well.

We appear, then, on the verge of a paradigm shift in housing policy. As the demographics of the housing market change, so must its politics. Wednesday’s budget signals that even the Conservatives – the “party of homeownership” – recognise the need for change. But it only goes halfway.

The gains for any political party willing to truly seize the day – to ditch the property-owning dream once and for all, to champion a property-renting one instead – are there for the taking. 

David Adler is a research association at the campaign group Generation Rent.

Want more of this stuff? Follow CityMetric on Twitter or Facebook