[wesleyd]

So it isn’t! TY! It’s not even one and a half times the size!

Nonetheless, my point stands. Bigger than Texas, a sixth the population, yet a housing crisis. I’m sure there are good reasons - like the Rockies - and managing not to sprawl is commendable, but still: surreal.

[cf100clunk]

The Rockies, yes, but also the Selkirks, Purcells, heck, the entire Pacific Coast Range. Seriously, there is little comparison in the topographies. The amount of B.C. land suited to urban populations is miniscule compared to the over all size of the land mass. The climate is almost diametrically different between Texas and B.C., so there's that too. Entire mountain passes are blocked by snow on a regular basis in winter and require enormous effort to clear. Look for the TV show about the B.C. highway towing truckers and you'll get a feel for what is faced. Building urban centres in such places is impossible. Therefore, your point was, to use your own term, ''surreal'', so my opinion is that for obvious geographical reasons it does not stand.