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.
Its exactly the same in Sydney and Every other Australian City for that Matter, The Australian Bureau of Statistics, collect that data on exactly that of the 12,367km2 that is greater Sydney, 6,663 km2 of it is National Park with no Population at all, and a further 3,898 km2 is rural farmland/small towns.
All Australian metros are exactly like that, Greater Brisbane (Which i live in of course) for Instance is more than 15,000 kms, but the actual Urban part is scarcely more than 1,000 kms 2.
Sydney has Wooloongong, the Central Coast and Newcastle, which you may consider to be connected to the city, however California as a whole is of course much more dense than Australia's East Coast, so I am sure where one city ends and the next one begins, is far more complicated still.
Brisbane/Gold Coast is the best example in Australia of how a single urban agglomeration can be considered two entirely Separate Cites. Its about 30 Miles from Brisbane CBD to where the gold Coast Starts, Brisbane City is far closer to the Gold Coast than most of the rural farm land that makes up that Greater Brisbane area However the two are still considered entirely separate cities,
Vindag lives and loves the beaches in an area equivalent to Wooloongong but want to compare only Bondi. If he was to include all the beaches from the Central Coast to Wooloongong as "Sydney", he still loses on Beaches. But no one who lives in the gong or Gosford would ever say they lived in Sydney. It would be ridiculous for us.
Vindag lives and loves the beaches in an area equivalent to Wooloongong but want to compare only Bondi. If he was to include all the beaches from the Central Coast to Wooloongong as "Sydney", he still loses on Beaches. But no one who lives in the gong or Gosford would ever say they lived in Sydney. It would be ridiculous for us.
No, I feel we need to include the 11 miles (18 kilometers) long Laguna Beach Area, which includes several breathtaking steep cliff beaches, coves, and caves. Yes there is The Main Beach At Laguna, which is the size of Bondi Beach, but then several more spectacular cove beaches, like magnificent 1,000 Steps Beach. That would give Los Angeles the edge, because you would then have both types of beaches, the large sandy, sporty, piers, flat city beaches (which I prefer), and the beautiful more scenic cove beaches that you prefer.
So many Australians who take a single trip to the US don't venture to the East coast unfortunately. So for many, LA is America...
You are certainly right that LA driving is easier than Sydney.
I agree with you on this. I was actually born on the East Coast in Philadelphia, left when I was 20, and lived the last 50 years in Los Angeles. In the summer time the East Coast is very beautiful with extreme greenery, and in fall, has the most beautiful, intense Autumn leaf colors in the world. Also the Beach water temperatures gets warmer on the East Coast than California. From Boston to Washington DC is the most interesting part of the US, in my opinion. Still cheer for the Philly sports teams, before the LA sports teams!
Sydney.
I know LA from the movies but I'd chose NY over it.
Sydney's massively underrated (well Melbourne's more old worldy that's why). Maybe I'm partial, I think both Melbourne and Sydney have better skyscraper skylines than Los Angeles. They're on NY level almost. LA is like an endless suburb lol. Aussias are also nicer than LA locals.
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.