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.
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
You have to be careful in comparing "cities" because the definition of "Sydney" is different than the definition of "Toronto". In order for Sydney to be 4-5 times less dense than Toronto, you would have to compare all of Greater Sydney including the far-flung suburbs (what Australians mean when they refer to "Sydney") to just the 416 area code (the "City of Toronto).
The density figures for "Sydney" encompass a wide area stretching almost 60 km from the city centre. In order to make an accurate comparison to Toronto, you'd have to include everything in the 905 between Milton and Oshawa, and all the way up to Bradford.
All of which will bring the Toronto density figure way down, probably to levels comparable to Sydney.
I will grant you that Toronto is a bit more dense than Sydney. But the difference isn't that great.
Do a Google Earth or Streetview search and you will see that most of Sydney is not made up of homes on expansive lots.
Its postwar areas are similar in density to single-family home areas of Etobicoke and Don Mills, and the newer suburbs have lots of large houses shoehorned into smallish lots (at least relative to house size), just like you see in Markham, Mississauga, etc.
Good point, Toronto being 4-5 times as dense seems like a stretch. Our definitions for cities are different. I'm guessing 1.5 to 2 times as dense might be closer, but I have to re-check the stats.
Good point, Toronto being 4-5 times as dense seems like a stretch. Our definitions for cities are different. I'm guessing 1.5 to 2 times as dense might be closer, but I have to re-check the stats.
Again, how about my city Mississauga, which already feels "lowish" in density, and every Australian city but Sydney is even less dense?...
Yes, even (Greater?) Melbourne is less dense than where I currently live; a solidly-suburban, relatively-uncongested city.
-Budweiser beers at cheap prices (6-pack retails for $17, carton of 24 $46 - you do the math) yet in San Francisco including sales tax is only $7 for a 6-pack.
-Cheaper pay-TV rates (I pay $132 for all channels per month, in America, can get the same amount of channels for just $25 per month)
-Cheaper clothes, so insanely expensive here. I've already had my say on this in a previous thread.
-Bought an large orange juice for just $1.75 (in SF), I was amazed at how cheap it was and said so, counter-hand said it was expensive by SF standards, I said in Sydney it would cost around $4 - $5, she was horrified. Can even get $1 sandwiches with decent fillings which is virtually impossible here, usually retails for around $4 -5 per pack.
-Free refills of soft drinks/coffee/tea. Yes, we have it at Hungry Jacks but it doesn't apply to all cafes.
-Shoes for $50 USD, the same brand of shoes sells for around $120 - $ 150 here. Major rip-off.
- More understanding and less xenophobic of "different" cultures.
- More understanding and tolerant of Aboriginals instead of writing them off as drunks and being on "welfare"
-More friendlier people, they're in very short supply here.
-We're at least 10 years behind the US. In California I was quite impressed at how all pubs close at 2am equalling less drunks and violence & how well-behaved people were. In fact I saw much less drunken brawls in SF than I do here!
-Budweiser beers at cheap prices (6-pack retails for $17, carton of 24 $46 - you do the math) yet in San Francisco including sales tax is only $7 for a 6-pack.
-Free refills of soft drinks/coffee/tea. Yes, we have it at Hungry Jacks but it doesn't apply to all cafes.
-Shoes for $50 USD, the same brand of shoes sells for around $120 - $ 150 here. Major rip-off.
-We're at least 10 years behind the US. In California I was quite impressed at how all pubs close at 2am equalling less drunks and violence & how well-behaved people were. In fact I saw much less drunken brawls in SF than I do here!
-What?!? That seems expensive for the USA.
I would have thought it'd be $4/six-pack and $7/12 pack.
Usually plain domestic beer is cheaper than Coke than in the USA! (retail prices, not bar prices )
-Maybe that's a good thing; fountain drinks are just artificial sugar-syrup and water.
Though some place, you will find free refills for coffee or in parts of the USA fresh brewed iced tea... I'd miss that.
-Shoes are expensive in Canada too;
usually 50% higher than American shoes, with or without the exchange rate.
Canadian prices though not as bad are probably similar to Australia for shoes.
-When do bars close in Australia? Ontario has a "last call" policy
where they are not allowed to serve alcohol after 2am, but bars may remain open longer,
so patrons can have time to finish their drinks and whatnot.
Again, how about my city Mississauga, which already feels "lowish" in density, and every Australian city but Sydney is even less dense?...
Yes, even (Greater?) Melbourne is less dense than where I currently live; a solidly-suburban, relatively-uncongested city.
Mississauga should not be compared to Sydney as a whole but to local government areas like Willoughby, Parramatta, and Bankstown. These are highly-developed, relatively dense suburban areas outside the core, like Mississauga is.
You have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Don't compare the density of Caledon East with that of downtown Sydney...
Mississauga should not be compared to Sydney as a whole but to local government areas like Willoughby, Parramatta, and Bankstown. These are highly-developed, relatively dense suburban areas outside the core, like Mississauga is.
You have to compare apples with apples and oranges with oranges. Don't compare the density of Caledon East with that of downtown Sydney...
Caledon East?
Mississauga is almost entirely-developed (with some parkland areas) and our population stats are limited to city borders.
Peel Region is probably close to 2 million people, which might include "Caledon East."
(add another 500-600k for Brampton, plus surrounding smaller towns and rural communities further north)
How about Mississauga with Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth?
All of those Austrailan cities have higher populations but much lower density.
Surprisingly, smaller cities like Townsville, Darwin and Canberra share similar population densities with these cities.
Smaller cities like Oakville, Burlington and maybe St.Catharines might still have similar densities with Mississauga.
The difference in density of any developed areas in Ontario with most developed areas in the USA is dramatic, imho.
How about Mississauga with Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth?
All of those Austrailan cities have higher populations but much lower density.
.
My point is that the density of Mississauga, which is only one small part of the GTA, should not be compared to the entire entity known as "Sydney" (which is actually equivalent to the entire GTA).
Regarding Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth, once again, Mississauga should only be compared to a portion of their metros that is similar in profile to Mississauga, not to their entire metros (which like any city's metro include extremes like both high-density downtowns and low-density exurban/semi-rural areas).
Better still, the overall metro densities Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth should be compared to the metros of Canadian cities of similar size, which would be cities in Canada like Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa.
My point is that the density of Mississauga, which is only one small part of the GTA, should not be compared to the entire entity known as "Sydney" (which is actually equivalent to the entire GTA).
Regarding Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth, once again, Mississauga should only be compared to a portion of their metros that is similar in profile to Mississauga, not to their entire metros (which like any city's metro include extremes like both high-density downtowns and low-density exurban/semi-rural areas).
Better still, the overall metro densities Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth should be compared to the metros of Canadian cities of similar size, which would be cities in Canada like Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa.
So you're saying it's wrong for me to take their population density stats
and draw some conclusions about travelling within the city...
because I live in the "wrong" city to compare them to?
Location: The western periphery of Terra Australis
24,544 posts, read 56,081,790 times
Reputation: 11862
Quote:
Originally Posted by Acajack
My point is that the density of Mississauga, which is only one small part of the GTA, should not be compared to the entire entity known as "Sydney" (which is actually equivalent to the entire GTA).
Regarding Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth, once again, Mississauga should only be compared to a portion of their metros that is similar in profile to Mississauga, not to their entire metros (which like any city's metro include extremes like both high-density downtowns and low-density exurban/semi-rural areas).
Better still, the overall metro densities Brisbane, Adelaide or Perth should be compared to the metros of Canadian cities of similar size, which would be cities in Canada like Vancouver, Edmonton, Calgary and Ottawa.
I have to agree with you. It's not really useful to compare a small, satellite city like Mississauga with a huge metro area like Melbourne.
I think you'll find if you compare Toronto and Vancouver to Sydney and Melbourne you'll find them somewhat denser. Canadian cities are somewhere between American and European cities in density, while Australian cities are up there with American cities.
^^ Now that the Australian cities' densities subject has been beat-to-death ()
How about a new topic for Aussie improvements?
- Free use of toilets at any establishment
This is pretty much expected in Canada, though I'm not sure as to if owners can forbid non-customers from using their facilities. Probably can, but I rarely see these "suggestions" enforced. Most establishments do not have signs or policies claiming their restrooms are for customers and staff only. It is usually implied that their restrooms are meant like a public service, provided you don't vandalize them. Regardless of the establishment, I am unaware of "pay-toilets" (coin-operated locking devices) existing anywhere in Canada.
In another thread somewhere,
I believe I read that some places charge money to access the bathrooms or toilets in Australia,
which probably increases the frequency of public-urination.
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.
(retail prices, not bar prices 
)
