Compare suburbia in four Western countries: Australia, America, Canada and England (crime, new home)
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 article gives about a density of about 2,800ppkm2 for LA vs 2,300 in demographia. Is it comparing Sydney's urban area with LA's city proper?
The article's really old, it's using data from 2006. The ABS doesn't even use the metrics in the article anymore. The measurement it used for the urban area, the "urban centre", has been replaced by the "urban centres and localities", which is the 2,179km2 area demographia used. If you take a look at that 2,179km2 UCL on ABS, it includes various amounts of unpopulated/undeveloped areas particularly on the fringes, and a few very lowly populated semi rural areas (you said the threshold for the Aus cities on demographia are lower).
In the 12 years from 2006 to 2018, Sydney has grown by 22 percent. So if we take the 1,788km2 area in that article, Sydney's density should comfortably exceed LA's 2,300ppkm2 on demographia. But then I don't know what the LA area exactly encompasses. It's always a little tricky comparing different metrics across different countries.
Also the ABS only releases UCL population figures every 5 years, the last time being 2016. So I think the population for Sydney on demographia is from 2016. It's grown by a few hundred thousand since then.
Quote:
This is a 9 year old article, so Sydney's core has probably densified. But as recently as 2011, Sydney's urban core was no denser than Los Angeles'. The urban core is defined as the Sydney East and Sydney West statistical local areas.
Afaik those "Statistical local areas" aren't used anymore, I think it's been replaced by the Statistical Areas.
I measured the newer SA2s around Sydney's CBD (boundaries in the pic below). The 2018 figures give a density of 11,446ppkm2 over 14km2 (vs 11.7km2 used in the article):
BUT, within that area there's a naval base, a huge park (Botanic Gardens) and a rail yard, and as well a big portion of the CBD itself is office, not residential. So all that's going to drag the density figure down. There's some adjoining areas with a density figure higher than the CBD itself.
If you're curious here's what the area looks like, away from the highrises:
Also, I calculated the density of the area in the pic below a while ago (essentially all the LGAs within Sydney that doesn't incorporate vast amounts of undeveloped land). Out of interest I'll post it here:
It works out to be 4,025ppkm2 over 613km2 (2018 figures). This compares to LA city proper's 3,288ppkm2 over 1,214km2 according to wiki (2018). Though I see there's a large low density area on the hills just north of Hollywood and Beverley Hills which would help drag the figure down a bit. BUT, LA's urban area is 2.5-3 times the size of Sydney's, so you'll have to scale it accordingly.
Last edited by ciTydude123; 02-11-2020 at 04:47 AM..
Unfortunately, Google maps images exceed the max size permitted.
But have a look, click on these links of google maps images. All three images are at almost, if not exactly, the same scale. All three images depict areas of suburban subdivisons near the fringe of their respective metropolitan areas, all mostly built within the last 40 years, each containing development built within the last decade.
1. Naperville, Illinois (density is typical for a U.S. suburb outside of California)
google.com/maps/place/Naperville,+IL/@41.7116404,-88.1745615,1968m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x880e5761e216cd07:0x87df9 c2c7f203052!8m2!3d41.7508391!4d-88.1535352
2. Brampton, Ontario (density is typical for a Canadian suburb)
google.com/maps/place/Markham,+ON,+Canada/@43.752601,-79.7615706,1887m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x89d4d5efa0324ca9:0xf73d5 2812cb23d63!8m2!3d43.8561002!4d-79.3370188
3. Irvine, California (density is typical for a Los Angeles suburb)
google.com/maps/place/Irvine,+CA/@33.7043087,-117.7548455,1886m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x80dcdd0e689140e3:0xa77ab 575604a9a39!8m2!3d33.6845673!4d-117.8265049
As you can see, while Naperville, typical in density for a newer, outer-ring U.S. suburb, is far less dense than Canadian peers like Brampton, Irvine is actually at least as dense as Brampton.
Sure, there's plenty of high rise condos in Mississauga that Irvine doesn't have. But apart from pockets of high rise density, the newer, outer suburbs of Toronto like Markham or Brampton are actually no more dense nor compact than Irvine, although they still are more dense than Naperville.
Once again, when it comes to suburban density as well as politics, California is a whole different beast from the rest of the U.S. California has denser suburbs, higher gas prices, and more left wing politics vs. the rest of the U.S. In these regards, California resembles Canada or Australia much more closely than it does the rest of the U.S.
One difference I've noticed is houses in North America seem on average larger than their Australia counterparts (takes up a larger space within the lot). Also fencing around houses is everywhere in Australia, but in North America you don't seem to have much of that at all.
With those 'apartment homes' at Irvine I suppose the equivalent in Sydney would be the ~3 storey unit blocks. There's little pockets of these everywhere around the metro: https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.971...7i13312!8i6656
Outside of Sydney and Melbourne to a lesser extent, the rest of suburban Australia can get very low density like the US. Though Brisbane's recently been making strides towards densifying its inner city.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
I haven't been to Australia, but if I'm not mistaken, the vast majority of suburban Sydneysiders are NOT living in a high-rises or even mid rise apartments; they're still living in sprawling subdivisions. Paramatta and Chattswood are simply small pockets of density surrounded by a sea of single family homes. And these single family home subdivisions are often even more sprawling and spread out than single family home subdivisions in the Los Angeles suburbs. Which means that the high rise developments of Paramatta, Chattswood, and other pockets of density are a tiny drop in the bucket when it comes to boosting suburban Sydney density.
It's not just Parramatta and Chatswood, throughout the last 10 years the suburbs have exploded with new apartments. Previously unpopulated land has been filled with mid and high rises, and there's areas where whole streets of detached houses have been razed and replaced with apartments. Just a few examples:
So why, if LA urbanized area is the densest in the U.S., is its mass transit behind SF or Chicago?
Because LA's city proper/core area is less dense than Chicago, San Fran, D.C., NYC, and Boston. Remember, the urbanized area includes suburbs, and LA's suburbs are, on average, the densest in the country.
Also, while LA's urban area may be almost as dense as Sydney's urban area, remember, it has over three times the population of Sydney's urban area, and therefore takes up a little over three times as much land. So you have to build a network three times Sydney's size to serve LA's urban area. That would be prohibitively expensive. LA simply covers too much land to be easily covered by a comprehensive rail system.
And that's why I said average density doesn't tell the whole story. Instead of the billions LA has spent building freeways, then building the city around freeways, could they have instead built railway lines and transit then built the city around those, in a more walking friendly environment? That I think would have been better than the large swathes of uniform density but car dependant, strip mall and parking lot suburbia.
I don't usually wanna compare cities between different countries but since you're comparing LA with Sydney already, have a look at how Sydney's built particularly around the commercial areas. Not saying Sydney's perfect but it seems to be at least a few leagues ahead of LA in this regard.
As I understand a lot of US cities including LA used to have good transit systems before the 1950s, but then they razed them and built freeways in their place. Australia never took out its railways to the same scale and most of Sydney and Melbourne's systems are legacy networks built in the late 19th/early 20th centuries (except for the trams, besides Melbourne we still ripped them out).
Sydney was late in building freeways and instead chose to generate development around the railway stations. Most of Sydney's large shopping malls are built right next to those stations, some with direct connections, and they're integrated with active street frontages into a larger, pedestrian focused town centre.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
I'd also like to add, that, as of today, gas prices in Los Angeles are higher than gas prices in Toronto and Montreal, and likely Sydney as well. Now you may ask, "how can that be?" Well, true, average gas prices in the USA are cheaper than average gas prices in Canada and Australia. BUT California is an outlier; it has the second most expensive gas in the USA. While the USA generally is more conservative than Australia or Canada, especially on taxation and the environment, California is far to the left of the USA average, and this left-wing bent is reflected in its high gas prices.
LA County average gas prices in CAD/liter: 1.257
LA County average gas prices in AUS/liter: 1.413
Some Canadians may be thinking that I mistakenly used the Imperial gallon instead of the American gallon in my conversion. I did not. I made sure to use the American gallon conversion factor: 1 gallon = 3.785 liters.
If that's the case it sounds roughly similar to Sydney. I haven't looked up the exact average, but driving around the prices have recently been fluctuating between 1.25 to 1.75aud/litre.
Last edited by ciTydude123; 02-11-2020 at 07:30 AM..
As I understand a lot of US cities including LA used to have good transit systems before the 1950s, but then they razed them and built freeways in their place.
Not really the case in New York or Chicago, they've always had highly efficient underground transport that has never been razed, only expanded. NYC's subway has been around for years and years. Sydney and Melbourne should have followed such a model in the 1940s or 50s but that's when the motor vehicle was about to start shaping Australian cities/suburbia/sprawl.
That's right, that's why I said most not all. New York, Chicago, the Bay Area, Boston eg look great. The swathes of low density residential suburbs away from the areas I was talking about is a perfect example of how cars shaped Australian suburbia. If you put it in context, Sydney is certainly auto-centric compared to Europe and Asia, but by North American standards it seems it'll be one of the very least auto-centric, most pedestrian friendly cities. But I guess it'll still lean more towards NA than Europe/Asia.
Last edited by ciTydude123; 02-11-2020 at 09:13 AM..
One difference I've noticed is houses in North America seem on average larger than their Australia counterparts (takes up a larger space within the lot). Also fencing around houses is everywhere in Australia, but in North America you don't seem to have much of that at all.
With those 'apartment homes' at Irvine I suppose the equivalent in Sydney would be the ~3 storey unit blocks. There's little pockets of these everywhere around the metro: https://www.google.com/maps/@-33.971...7i13312!8i6656
Outside of Sydney and Melbourne to a lesser extent, the rest of suburban Australia can get very low density like the US. Though Brisbane's recently been making strides towards densifying its inner city.
It's not just Parramatta and Chatswood, throughout the last 10 years the suburbs have exploded with new apartments. Previously unpopulated land has been filled with mid and high rises, and there's areas where whole streets of detached houses have been razed and replaced with apartments. Just a few examples:
Those Sydney suburbs have impressive density, no doubt, but Irvine's no slouch either. Keep in mind that Irvine is an outer suburb--it's literally right on the fringe of Greater Los Angeles' built up area. It backs up to mountains and wilderness. For an outer suburb in the U.S. and Canada, Irvine is VERY dense. Remember, outer suburbs are less dense than inner suburbs.
Here's some google street view of Irvine apartments:
Irvine has seen a lot of apartment projects like these, many of which are infill projects. Parking lots, warehouses, and old offices are torn down and replaced with apartments.
Irvine also has quite a bit of mid-rise office space:
That's right, that's why I said most not all. New York, Chicago, the Bay Area, Boston eg look great. The swathes of low density residential suburbs away from the areas I was talking about is a perfect example of how cars shaped Australian suburbia. If you put it in context, Sydney is certainly auto-centric compared to Europe and Asia, but by North American standards it seems it'll be one of the very least auto-centric, most pedestrian friendly cities. But I guess it'll still lean more towards NA than Europe/Asia.
True, and Sydney (as well as Melbourne I guess?) is working hard to combat the sprawl engendered by the motor vehicle with the urban infill and density models. Also, once the lines of the Sydney Metro is expanded with the second City & Southwest line in 2024, it might result in a city that is more linked and easily navigated if you want to get to one side of the city to the other in a "turn up and go" fashion.
True, and Sydney (as well as Melbourne I guess?) is working hard to combat the sprawl engendered by the motor vehicle with the urban infill and density models. Also, once the lines of the Sydney Metro is expanded with the second City & Southwest line in 2024, it might result in a city that is more linked and easily navigated if you want to get to one side of the city to the other in a "turn up and go" fashion.
I think crane counts are always good to see where the multi story developments are happening, they are not all residential apartments been constructed of course, and it does not indicate how high the building is. Obviously, a very tall building on a small block of land will have less cranes than a 5 story complex over a large block of land. My understanding is that most of those cranes in sydney are outside the CBD/Downtown.
I think crane counts are always good to see where the multi story developments are happening, they are not all residential apartments been constructed of course, and it does not indicate how high the building is. Obviously, a very tall building on a small block of land will have less cranes than a 5 story complex over a large block of land. My understanding is that most of those cranes in sydney are outside the CBD/Downtown.
This is the north American Index prepared by the same company. I have no idea if they are talking city or Metro areas. Even it is just the cities, as opposed to Australian metros, it still shows that the number of cranes in Sydney is still very large, more comparable to Toronto more than anywhere in the USA.
Those Sydney suburbs have impressive density, no doubt, but Irvine's no slouch either. Keep in mind that Irvine is an outer suburb--it's literally right on the fringe of Greater Los Angeles' built up area. It backs up to mountains and wilderness. For an outer suburb in the U.S. and Canada, Irvine is VERY dense. Remember, outer suburbs are less dense than inner suburbs.
Irvine would be dense for an average outer Australian suburb too. Those apartments are kinda reminiscent of the newer midrise developments in for example, Penrith on the outer western fringe:
Not too much a fan of the architecture though. White blocks, everywhere.
Houses with shared driveways, you see a fair few of those around Sydney too (like the one I posted before), except not in such a concentration as in your example. They're usually spread out individually, mixed in with all the detached houses.
How much of LA is built like Irvine? Are there any other examples of dense LA suburbs?
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.
