Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-08-2020, 12:57 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,439,550 times
Reputation: 4482

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Not entirely true. Google up "Rosslyn-Ballston skyline." Or "Tysons Corner." Or "Perimeter Center skyline." Or "Bellevue, Washington skyline." All have large high rise skylines--and growing, too.

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. Which means that the Los Angeles suburbs come out just as, if not more dense, than the Sydney suburbs.
The city of Paramatta has 226,000 people in 2016, the dwellings were 45% separate houses, 15% Row or terrace/town houses and 40% apartments. The city of Willoughby in which Chatswoood is located was 42% Separate houses, 11% Row/Town Terrace and 47% apartments. Overall apartments and town houses make up 45% of all dwellings in the entire Sydney Metropolitan Area. LA itself (The City of Los Angeles) runs at a density about 3,200 per square km which is about the same density as the city of Cantubry-Bankstown (which has no skyline at all) , about 20km South West of the Sydney CBD, and the city of Willoughby if Wiki is to be believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_o...bury-Bankstown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles

Last edited by danielsa1775; 02-08-2020 at 01:26 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-08-2020, 11:15 PM
 
4,147 posts, read 2,916,608 times
Reputation: 2886
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
The city of Paramatta has 226,000 people in 2016, the dwellings were 45% separate houses, 15% Row or terrace/town houses and 40% apartments. The city of Willoughby in which Chatswoood is located was 42% Separate houses, 11% Row/Town Terrace and 47% apartments. Overall apartments and town houses make up 45% of all dwellings in the entire Sydney Metropolitan Area. LA itself (The City of Los Angeles) runs at a density about 3,200 per square km which is about the same density as the city of Cantubry-Bankstown (which has no skyline at all) , about 20km South West of the Sydney CBD, and the city of Willoughby if Wiki is to be believed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/City_o...bury-Bankstown

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles
I mispoke. I should have said that the vast majority of Suburban Sydneysiders, if I'm correct, live in single family homes, townhomes, or low-rise apartments.

In Los Angeles suburbs like Irvine (60 km away from downtown Los Angeles), you'll find many people living in townhomes and low-rise apartments.

The built-up area of Greater Los Angeles is actually denser than the built-up area of Greater Sydney, as well as denser than any other U.S. metropolitan area's built-up area.

Looking at Canterbury Bankstown on Google Maps, it actually looks less dense than Los Angeles proper. Remember, Los Angeles proper includes undeveloped, mountainous areas as well as the international airport and container port where no one actually lives. OTOH, Canterbury-Bankstown has virtually no wilderness area, no airport, no container port, and is mostly just houses with a few industrial parks here and there.

Last edited by MrJester; 02-08-2020 at 11:30 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,439,550 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
I mispoke. I should have said that the vast majority of Suburban Sydneysiders, if I'm correct, live in single family homes, townhomes, or low-rise apartments.

In Los Angeles suburbs like Irvine (60 km away from downtown Los Angeles), you'll find many people living in townhomes and low-rise apartments.

The built-up area of Greater Los Angeles is actually denser than the built-up area of Greater Sydney, as well as denser than any other U.S. metropolitan area's built-up area.

Looking at Canterbury Bankstown on Google Maps, it actually looks less dense than Los Angeles proper. Remember, Los Angeles proper includes undeveloped, mountainous areas as well as the international airport and container port where no one actually lives. OTOH, Canterbury-Bankstown has virtually no wilderness area, no airport, no container port, and is mostly just houses with a few industrial parks here and there.
It think we both need to know that we have an entirely different definition of suburb in Australia. As such places like Paramatta and Bankstown are considered Suburbs. 60km from Sydney you would either in the Middle of a National Park, or in an entirely new Metro Area. Like Woooloongong


https://www.uow.edu.au/assets/curate...-4-999x561.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 07:11 AM
 
283 posts, read 327,362 times
Reputation: 203
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
The built-up area of Greater Los Angeles is actually denser than the built-up area of Greater Sydney, as well as denser than any other U.S. metropolitan area's built-up area.
I'm not sure where you're quoting those figures from, but density figures for entire metros could contain various amounts of undeveloped land (borders stretching far beyond the ends of the city's sprawl) so in most cases it isn't an apples to apples comparison. Sydney officially spans across 12,300km2, but the areas which are actually built up I think is only around 2500km2.

What's the housing composition for metropolitan LA? (percentage of houses to townhouses, apartments etc)

One difference I've noticed with Sydney's sprawl (and Melbourne to a lesser extent), compared to most of North America is that Sydney is built much more around transit and walking, whereas LA is mostly built around freeways. If you take a look at the commercial areas in suburban Sydney, most of them are built right around railway stations in these town centre/main street formats, with increased residential density nearby. Kind of like the UK except Sydney sprawls out much more of course.

And those gargantuan surface parking lots eating up swathes of land you see in places like metro LA are mostly nonexistent in suburban Sydney, right until you get to the outer limits of the sprawl.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Earth
468 posts, read 611,131 times
Reputation: 555
Quote:
Originally Posted by ciTydude123 View Post
And those gargantuan surface parking lots eating up swathes of land you see in places like metro LA are mostly nonexistent in suburban Sydney
Thank goodness, we don't want them! Especially given Sydney's desirable proposed mode of high-density with rapid transit/lowered car-dependency. Did you see many of these swathes of land with parking lots in the New York area?

Also, why do American cities include surrounding towns and cities in their population count? For example New York-Newark which totals for a population of something like 18 million. Or Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim Isn't this like Sydney including Newcastle and Wollongong? Given that Newcastle and Wollongong are fairly close and accessible to Sydney's city-centre via commuter rail, why don't we include them in our metro area population statistics under something like 'Sydney-Newcastle-Wollongong urban area'? If Newcastle is too far, what about Gosford? Or is it simply too distant to be one metro area?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 09:36 AM
 
283 posts, read 327,362 times
Reputation: 203
There's two counts for the American cities, the MSA and CSA. The MSA is more like the count for the metro area, while the CSA counts the region around the city (like Newcastle and Wollongong in Sydney's case)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 10:01 PM
 
4,147 posts, read 2,916,608 times
Reputation: 2886
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
It think we both need to know that we have an entirely different definition of suburb in Australia. As such places like Paramatta and Bankstown are considered Suburbs. 60km from Sydney you would either in the Middle of a National Park, or in an entirely new Metro Area. Like Woooloongong


https://www.uow.edu.au/assets/curate...-4-999x561.jpg
No, we're on the same page. I'm talking about the continuous, built-up area of Greater Sydney and Greater LA, only.

There's this guy called Joel Kotkin who has a list of all these cities worldwide, only considering their built-up area. Check this out:

demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

I'm looking at Table 4: Built-Up Urban Areas Ranked by Urban Population Density on page 61. LA and Sydney's built up areas are ranked 943 and 963, respectively.

Greater Los Angeles (built-up area only) 15,440,000 people, 6,299 sq km, 2,300 people/sq km
Greater Sydney (built-up area only) 4,515,000 people, 2179 sq km, 2,000 people/sq km

The Sydney figure does NOT include Woolongong, as Woolongong is separated from Sydney by wilderness, and this survey is counting only CONTINUOUS urban areas that are unbroken by any wilderness.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 11:19 PM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,439,550 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
No, we're on the same page. I'm talking about the continuous, built-up area of Greater Sydney and Greater LA, only.

There's this guy called Joel Kotkin who has a list of all these cities worldwide, only considering their built-up area. Check this out:

demographia.com/db-worldua.pdf

I'm looking at Table 4: Built-Up Urban Areas Ranked by Urban Population Density on page 61. LA and Sydney's built up areas are ranked 943 and 963, respectively.

Greater Los Angeles (built-up area only) 15,440,000 people, 6,299 sq km, 2,300 people/sq km
Greater Sydney (built-up area only) 4,515,000 people, 2179 sq km, 2,000 people/sq km

The Sydney figure does NOT include Woolongong, as Woolongong is separated from Sydney by wilderness, and this survey is counting only CONTINUOUS urban areas that are unbroken by any wilderness.
I know of that one, was actually looking at it this morning, trying to work out how the 2179 square km was arrived at, and what is considered built up?

As an example this is what looks like 12km to the North West of central Brisbane, and that is pretty much what it looks exactly like for the next 20 km, going in that direction, and all that is within the boundaries of the city of Brisbane. Is it built up or rural? You certainly have more horses and deer out there than people, I would imagine Sydney would also have something very similar.

https://www.realestate.com.au/neighb.../homes01-2.jpg
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-09-2020, 11:40 PM
 
4,147 posts, read 2,916,608 times
Reputation: 2886
Quote:
Originally Posted by danielsa1775 View Post
I know of that one, was actually looking at it this morning, trying to work out how the 2179 square km was arrived at, and what is considered built up?

As an example this is what looks like 12km to the North West of central Brisbane, and that is pretty much what it looks exactly like for the next 20 km, going in that direction, and all that is within the boundaries of the city of Brisbane. Is it built up or rural? You certainly have more horses and deer out there than people, I would imagine Sydney would also have something very similar.

https://www.realestate.com.au/neighb.../homes01-2.jpg

Joel Kotkin's definition:

An urban area ("built-up urban area,"
urbanized area or urban
agglomeration)
is a continuously built
up land mass of urban development
that is within a labor market
(metropolitan area or metropolitan
region). An urban area contains no
rural land (all land in the world is either
urban or rural). In some nations, the
term "urban area" is used, but does not
denote a built-up urban area.

Except in Australia, the authorities generally use a minimum urban density definition of 400 persons per square kilometer (or the nearly identical 1,000 per square mile in the United States) in areas that comprise urban areas.

OK, I guess you have a point. Because while in the U.S. and Canada "urban area" is defined as a minimum density of 400/sq km, in Australia it happens to be a substantially lower 200/sq km. So I can see how Sydney could actually be denser than LA in built up area if you assessed it by the same 400/sq km standard.

On the other hand, apparently Statistics Canada uses a 400/sq km cutoff, while the U.S. uses a slightly lower, 386/sq km cutoff. So if anything, the U.S. density figures are skewed to be slightly lower vs. Canada.

In that regard, Los Angeles stands at 2,300/sq km, behind Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, but ahead of Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa.

In terms of their density and layout, however, the LA suburb of Irvine is much closer to the Toronto suburb of Markham than Irvine is to a typical Chicago suburb like Naperville, or a typical Houston suburb like Sugar Land, or a typical D.C. suburb... you get the point. LA suburbs are denser than suburbs anywhere else in the U.S. and are more on the level of density of a Canadian suburb like Markham.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-10-2020, 12:05 AM
 
Location: Brisbane
5,021 posts, read 7,439,550 times
Reputation: 4482
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester View Post
Joel Kotkin's definition:

An urban area ("built-up urban area,"
urbanized area or urban
agglomeration)
is a continuously built
up land mass of urban development
that is within a labor market
(metropolitan area or metropolitan
region). An urban area contains no
rural land (all land in the world is either
urban or rural). In some nations, the
term "urban area" is used, but does not
denote a built-up urban area.

Except in Australia, the authorities generally use a minimum urban density definition of 400 persons per square kilometer (or the nearly identical 1,000 per square mile in the United States) in areas that comprise urban areas.

OK, I guess you have a point. Because while in the U.S. and Canada "urban area" is defined as a minimum density of 400/sq km, in Australia it happens to be a substantially lower 200/sq km. So I can see how Sydney could actually be denser than LA in built up area if you assessed it by the same 400/sq km standard.

On the other hand, apparently Statistics Canada uses a 400/sq km cutoff, while the U.S. uses a slightly lower, 386/sq km cutoff. So if anything, the U.S. density figures are skewed to be slightly lower vs. Canada.

In that regard, Los Angeles stands at 2,300/sq km, behind Toronto, Montreal, and Vancouver, but ahead of Calgary, Edmonton, and Ottawa.

In terms of their density and layout, however, the LA suburb of Irvine is much closer to the Toronto suburb of Markham than Irvine is to a typical Chicago suburb like Naperville, or a typical Houston suburb like Sugar Land, or a typical D.C. suburb... you get the point. LA suburbs are denser than suburbs anywhere else in the U.S. and are more on the level of density of a Canadian suburb like Markham.
It just looked a bit odd to me when it said Brisbane 1,000. Now i know Brisbane is not dense by any means (which i love personally), however i do know the vast majority of the population would live at a density higher than that, which is what made me think a bit.

You certainly seem to know what you are talking about so I will leave it at that. Obviously its hard to extremely specific in these studies.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > World Forums > World
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top