Melbourne surpasses Sydney in population

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Good lord! My thread about this subject is 10 years old! Power Shift: Cities. 46 pages!!! Lots of good discussions on Rio vs São Paulo, Montreal vs Toronto and also Sydney vs Melbourne.

And as @isaidso says above, indeed perceptions take a while to change. The former primate usually keeps its status in several fields way after the surpass.

For instance, Rio de Janeiro still rivaled São Paulo up to the 1990's even on finances. Now, when São Paulo is almost twice as bigger and Rio de Janeiro kept on its relatively decline, São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

A fascinating topic and an SSP highlight.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by tayser

And further clarification: SUA = Significant Urban Area. Effectively from the centre of the city to the edge of the contiguous sprawl.

GCCSA = Greater Capital City Statistical Area. These are areas that include significant parts of adjacent cities outside the main urban area but economically connected to the state capital.

Sydney's GCCSA is larger than Melbourne's primarily because it includes a significant proportion of the southern half of the Central Coast that is north of the contiguous part of Sydney.

Melbourne's GCCSA does not include Geelong (which is a natural thing to compare).

GCCSAs = our 'metro' populations for international comparisons and this is almost always what we are referring to when we talk about populations of cities. SUA is a technicality. Melbourne's GCCSA is still on track to overtake Sydney's in the next decade or so for many reasons including but not limited: it's cheaper to live in Melbourne and you can get comparative salaries in Melbourne.

We almost never refer to city ('LGA' - Local Government Area) populations because both metros comprise ~30 cities/shires/councils - (all of them are LGAs).

It's cute how you guys use "suburb" for neighbourhood or municipality.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Yes, it's analogous to Montreal and probably even on governance, as Montreal was also hurt by some misguided provincial policies.

However it seems Montreal managed to stop its relative fall and resumed its growth..

Many non SSP Canadians still have "stagnant Montreal" in their mind. When that couldn't be further from the truth. It's 2024 not 1994 or even 2004.

There's so much development happening in Montreal right now, not to mention the REM "light metro" rail line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3...%A9tropolitain

Some Canadians think Vancouver is either at the same level of prominence or have exceeded Montreal as Canada's 2nd city.

I'd imagine by the 2026 census the gap between Montreal and Vancouver will have further widened.

GDP, Canadian dollars
2010........2020.....Increase
Toronto - $296.1B......$430.9B....+~$134.8B
Montréal - $164.5B.....$228.7B....+~$64.14B
Vancouver - $105.8B...$163.7B...+~$58B

Statistics Canada. Table 36-10-0468-01 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by census metropolitan area (CMA) (x 1,000,000)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3610046801

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Some Canadians think Vancouver is either at the same level of prominence or have exceeded Montreal as Canada's 2nd city.
]

They're dummies, though.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

By "party" I meant all leisure activities combined. It's been over 10 years since I was last in SP, but I can see how it would have a bigger nightclub scene than Rio. After all, SP is nearly twice the size of Rio. But Rio's geography lends well to outdoor activities that São Paulo just doesn't match, even if it doesn't match on number of nightclubs.

I like to stress this party/culture thing as it's probably one of the last things Rio lost and it's arguably one of the most important. The whole culture and counterculture of Brazil was there, even after São Paulo surpassed it in the 1960's. All the famous singers, the MPB and the cultural resistence against dictatorship was there (São Paulo was already big on that, but still far away from Rio).

Now, Rio de Janeiro lost this too. Badly. It has become conventional, conformist, superficial whereas São Paulo, that used to be laughed at for being uptight, rigid, work-oriented, suddenly became the place where everything happens, all the fads and fashion are born. By just going to a party and see how people dress in both cities. The difference is telling. São Paulo became Berlin.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

As you said, Rio's layout is also denser and feels more walkable to me, and walkability factors very high into places I think I would like to live. Rio feels more like New York to me in that regard, albeit on a much smaller scale.

Indeed. Rio de Janeiro was bigger than São Paulo up to the 1960's, so it's expected it has more pedestrian friendly hoods. After that, cars were gave priority. It's not that extreme, but think of NY vs LA.

However, when you look things closer, like transit figures, for instance, you have a completely different picture: São Paulo subway+railway systems carried 1.76 billion passengers in 2023; Rio de Janeiro both systems carried only 276 million. São Paulo bus system is top notch whereas Rio de Janeiro is a mess. Source: https://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lista_...anos_no_Brasil

Of course I don't know you and I don't know how well you know Rio and SP, but I'd bet you would change your mind after residing down here. Services in Rio de Janeiro are very problematic, things don't work properly, there is a very strong scam culture, safety issues.

We Brazilians usually think gringos are thin-skinned, not street-smart and even though it's a very simplistic way to see things, I cannot help myself on thinking you would give up Rio very quickly, specially as a New Yorker, which are usually very demanding when it comes to services in general. Just like Paulistanos.

[pdxtex]

I went to Australia last fall for two weeks. Didn't get to Melbourne but went to Sydney and Brisbane. Whats most mind blowing is that it takes 18 hours to get there, its a country the size of the United States but only has the population of southern California and everyone is jammed on to one long coastline. Sydney is awesome btw. Ill try to see Melbourne next time.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Docere

A fascinating topic and an SSP highlight.

Thank you, Docere! I love this kind of threads. You learn a lot while organizing them.

Originally Posted by Wigs

Many non SSP Canadians still have "stagnant Montreal" in their mind. When that couldn't be further from the truth. It's 2024 not 1994 or even 2004.

There's so much development happening in Montreal right now, not to mention the REM "light metro" rail line.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3...%A9tropolitain

Some Canadians think Vancouver is either at the same level of prominence or have exceeded Montreal as Canada's 2nd city.

I'd imagine by the 2026 census the gap between Montreal and Vancouver will have further widened.

GDP, Canadian dollars
2010........2020.....Increase
Toronto - $296.1B......$430.9B....+~$134.8B
Montréal - $164.5B.....$228.7B....+~$64.14B
Vancouver - $105.8B...$163.7B...+~$58B

Statistics Canada. Table 36-10-0468-01 Gross domestic product (GDP) at basic prices, by census metropolitan area (CMA) (x 1,000,000)
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3610046801

Yes. Just by looking by Census numbers from 2000's onwards or even watching random urbanism videos on YouTube, it's clear Montreal is now in a good place.

[Nite]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Just from a very superficial level, it seems that Sydney is more constrained in its geography and Melbourne has more space to spread out into, which could explain why it's growing faster. Cheaper land values usually means cheaper housing and faster growth.

Surface area of Both:
Greater Sydney: 12,368 km²
Greater Melbourne: 9,993 km²

here is Canada top 2 for comparison.

Toronto CMA: 5,903 km²
Montreal CMA: 4,258 km²

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by Nite

Surface area of Both:
Greater Sydney: 12,368 km²
Greater Melbourne: 9,993 km²

here is Canada top 2 for comparison.

Toronto CMA: 5,903 km²
Montreal CMA: 4,258 km²

Hard to know how meaningful this is given that the ways of determining what the metro area is and what it includes can differ from country to country.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Klippenstein

Just from a very superficial level, it seems that Sydney is more constrained in its geography and Melbourne has more space to spread out into, which could explain why it's growing faster. Cheaper land values usually means cheaper housing and faster growth.

That's actually one of the main factors explaining Melbourne's success over Sydney on the past two decades. Sydney has a more challenging geography and higher prices.

Originally Posted by Nite

Surface area of Both:
Greater Sydney: 12,368 km²
Greater Melbourne: 9,993 km²

here is Canada top 2 for comparison.

Toronto CMA: 5,903 km²
Montreal CMA: 4,258 km²

On the ranking Melbourne surpassed Sydney, is 7,100 km² for Melbourne and 4,197 km² for Sydney. Source: http://citypopulation.de/en/australia/cities/

[Nouvellecosse]

I can imagine the Aus metro areas being lower density but hard to believe they're less than half the density.

[DCReid]

According to a website and this website:
https://www.finder.com.au/income-pro...ing-comparison


The most expensive major city for housing and utilities is Sydney. To give you a comparison of how much more it is, check out how it compares to the other big cities in Australia:

It's 36% more expensive than in Melbourne
It's 45% more expensive than in Perth
It's 52% more expensive than in Hobart
It's 25% more expensive than in Brisbane
It's 48% more expensive than in Adelaide

So, it probably not a surprise is more Australians and immigrants are now settling in cheaper cities.

But I don't think that is the case in Canada, as Toronto and Vancouver are very expensive but still growth magnets, but maybe they are growing less than cities like Edmonton. I'm guessing part of Montreal's recovery is that it is a relatively inexpensive city compared to Toronto and Vancouver, and most East Coast cities, but Montreal's standing concerning prominence may be a little more nuanced because it is a predominately French enclave of a mostly Anglo region. Thus, I can see why Vancouver may be consider the second city of Canada now - I think even many American businesses may even consider more attractive than Montreal for that reason (my speculation). If you recall, Vancouver even had an NBA team for a short while, but it evently relocated to Memphis.

[nameless dude]

Originally Posted by Nite

Surface area of Both:
Greater Sydney: 12,368 km²
Greater Melbourne: 9,993 km²

Most of the land making up those areas are undeveloped land around the urban areas. The actual built up extent is only a small portion. The maps below highlighted in beige is the area you brought up, outlined in purple roughly represents the land that is built up.

https://blog.id.com.au/wp-content/up...ey-529x400.jpg

https://blog.id.com.au/wp-content/up...ne-529x400.jpg

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by nameless dude

Most of the land making up those areas are undeveloped land around the urban areas. The actual built up extent is only a small portion. The maps below highlighted in beige is the area you brought up, outlined in purple roughly represents the land that is built up.

https://blog.id.com.au/wp-content/up...ey-529x400.jpg

https://blog.id.com.au/wp-content/up...ne-529x400.jpg

Obviously there is also some undeveloped land in what is officially considered "Greater Toronto" and "Greater Montreal", but comparing apples to apples, it's certain all four metros would be a lot closer in area than having the two Aussie ones double the size.

[Acajack]

Originally Posted by DCReid

I'm guessing part of Montreal's recovery is that it is a relatively inexpensive city compared to Toronto and Vancouver, and most East Coast cities, but Montreal's standing concerning prominence may be a little more nuanced because it is a predominately French enclave of a mostly Anglo region. Thus, I can see why Vancouver may be consider the second city of Canada now - I think even many American businesses may even consider more attractive than Montreal for that reason (my speculation). If you recall, Vancouver even had an NBA team for a short while, but it evently relocated to Memphis.

I wouldn't say that's true on a general level. In terms of economic heft Montreal is about where you'd expect it to be as the second city in the country. (Note that Vancouver can be hampered to some degree in terms of its economy by the high cost of living there.)

It's true that Montreal hasn't always carried the full weight you'd expect it to have, especially not during its downturn years, but it's notable that during some periods even fourth-place Calgary has rivalled Vancouver on certain economic metrics.

Beyond that, yes some Anglo-Canadians do sometimes have Toronto and Vancouver as top-of-mind and exclude Montreal. This is especially true when the real estate market is being discussed.

But still, the Toronto-Montreal economic axis is quite well-developed with two thirds of Canada's population in the wider area around them, and access to over 100 million American consumers just across the border. Both Toronto and Montreal have pretty enviable locations - if location is important to your business.

[Docere]

About 60% of Canadians live in 2% of the land area.

[Docere]

Not that these things make "equivalents" but FWIW San Francisco is Sydney's sister city, while Boston is Melbourne's.

[edale]

I think some Americans overestimate the importance of Vancouver and incorrectly assume it's Canada's number 2 city due to the NYC-LA dynamic in the US. Toronto is the big east coast city and clearly the primate city of the country ala NYC, while Vancouver is the big west coast city that has a big cultural footprint and media presence. I know that's way too simplistic, but I bet that's a big part of the reason why Americans overstate the importance of Vancouver.

[Wigs]

Originally Posted by Acajack

...but it's notable that during some periods even fourth-place Calgary has rivalled Vancouver on certain economic metrics.

Yeah, in 2014 when the oil and gas market crash happened, Calgary was very close to Vancouver's GDP. Vancouver's economy was less than 16% larger.
Both Calgary and Edmonton are still dusting themselves off from a decade ago, but Calgary is poised to post the best growth of Canada's largest cities for 2024.

Of course we're only in first quarter so things can change

CMA GDP 2014...2020
Vancouver ~$125.43B...~$163.78B (+$57.97B)
Calgary $107.63B...~$102.663B (-$4.97B)

*I realize this data is outdated*
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1...pid=3610046801

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Good lord! My thread about this subject is 10 years old! Power Shift: Cities. 46 pages!!! Lots of good discussions on Rio vs São Paulo, Montreal vs Toronto and also Sydney vs Melbourne.

And as @isaidso says above, indeed perceptions take a while to change. The former primate usually keeps its status in several fields way after the surpass.

For instance, Rio de Janeiro still rivaled São Paulo up to the 1990's even on finances. Now, when São Paulo is almost twice as bigger and Rio de Janeiro kept on its relatively decline, São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

Your Power Shift: Cities thread was one of the best ever. The last paragraph about São Paulo vs Rio de Janeiro sounds eerily similar to Toronto vs Montreal. It took a very long time but Toronto (now 53% larger) is dominant and unchallenged in every field. There's a perception that Montreal is a bigger draw for international tourism but even that one is no longer true. Like São Paulo, Toronto has a lower international profile than you'd expect considering its size. I suspect it won't remain that way for either city. Toronto's star continues to rise.

That said, I would like to see more parity amongst our biggest cities. Having 1 huge city that utterly dominates is problematic on many levels; especially in a vast federation.