Melbourne surpasses Sydney in population

[nameless dude]

Melbourne's GCCSA also includes the Mornington Peninsula which is the same distance as the Central Coast to Sydney and Wollongong isn't included like Geelong.

I haven't checked for a while but iirc Sydney's absolute growth (natural increase + immigration) is still a bit higher than Melbourne's, but it bleeds a significant amount to interstate emigration. Housing affordability is the main issue. I know of a few people who have moved interstate because they can afford a better lifestyle there for a comparable salary rather than having to work just to pay off the rent or mortgage.

[tayser]

The Mornington Peninsula is a contiguous part of Melbourne (it's all in the SUA) - the sprawl doesn't end until you hit Point Nepean.

There's an enormous green wedge + river delta that separates Sydney's SUA and the Central Coast.

Apples & Oranges.

[nameless dude]

The driving distances are similar. For the most part it takes a similar time to commute regardless of the continuity of development. The CC is dotted with inlets and bays that you can't build on which are geographical challenges Mornington doesn't have.

Wollongong isn't included like Geelong but to be fair Wollongong is another 20 minutes further.

What's the commuting relationship between the two? Iirc the GCCSA uses commuting interchange rates but I haven't been able to figure out what exactly is the cutoff point.

[isaidso]

Originally Posted by Crawford

IMO Sydney is still the alpha. Legacy matters.

Outside of the Australian Open, which is the least prominent grand slam tennis tournament, I don't think there's much associated with Melbourne (and not even sure if most know the Oz Open is in Melbourne, not Sydney). It's one of those cities everyone has heard of, but where there isn't much associated with the name, like a Frankfurt or Dallas.

Anyone know why Melbourne is closing the population gap? More immigrants? More business friendly environment?

I suspect that's the perception of most people but there's something to be said for lag. A city can pull even with another by most metrics but it will take time, often a generation, before people start viewing them as equals. And it takes longer for foreigners to catch up with realities on the ground. When I visited, Australians seem to view these 2 cities as equals even if foreigners didn't yet.

You were right to point out the Australian Open but it does extend beyond that. Melbourne remained the cultural capital of Australia even when Sydney was #1. 9 of Australia's 18 AFL teams are based in the Melbourne area; that's half the league. The Australian Grand Prix is in Melbourne as well. Sydney has the Australian Stock Exchange and stronger iconography (opera house, harbour bridge, Bondi) but Melbourne's top dog culturally. These 2 cities are pretty equal imo.

[MolsonExport]

Both are such great cities. I really enjoyed my visit to Sydney (and Perth, and Cairns, and Uluru,...) back in 2003. The bar was set pretty high, but then I visited Melbourne in 2010, and, well, I liked it even better than Sydney.

[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.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

São Paulo is dominant and completely unchallenged in every single field.

Not in terms of global tourism or intl. renown. SP should be more prominent, but Rio is still Brazil's signature city and global icon. The WC finals were in Rio and Rio serves as the cliche cultural export.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Not in terms of global tourism or intl. renown. SP should be more prominent, but Rio is still Brazil's signature city and global icon. The WC finals were in Rio and Rio serves as the cliche cultural export.

But how that matters on people's daily lives in a big continental country like Brazil where international tourism is pitiable (6 million tourists/year)?

And even on that, São Paulo surpassed Rio on domestic tourism long ago and it's getting more and more attention of foreign tourists as well. Morever, São Paulo handles almost 80% of Brazilian international air traffic and Rio de Janeiro's allegedly international prominence doesn't translate in business and jobs: São Paulo is the HQ of pretty much every multinational present in Brazil/Latin America (and of course, SP is the HQ of the largest Brazilian companies as well, even of the ones whose operations are mostly on other states.

Given Rio de Janeiro was Brazilian capital for 200 years and the largest city for all this period and competed to São Paulo up to the 1990's, being Brazilian (international) tourist capital is not a proper consolation prize.

[Crawford]

Originally Posted by Yuri

But how that matters on people's daily lives in a big continental country like Brazil where international tourism is pitiable (6 million tourists/year)?

You're right. Domestically, there's no contest. But the random person in the U.S. or Germany or China knows Rio better than SP, just via consuming global culture.

I'd also add that while SP is almost certainly a better city for living/working, I found Rio much more interesting for a visit. I can't really think of anything in SP that would provide global visitor appeal.

[Yuri]

Thinking about it, Rio de Janeiro is not only present on this "power shift" list, but in a one of a continuous decline, in a way Montreal didn't (maybe in the 1980's-1990's, not today).

Calcutta might be a good comparison: once India's primate city, today is nowhere near New Delhi or Bombay. I don't know much about India, but it seems Calcutta struggled with bad governance, difficult political environment.

The same might be said about Rio de Janeiro. Losing the capital status was a big thing (Rio retained lots of government agencies, the whole armed forces structure, etc. though), but arguably very bad governors and mayor, deterioration of public services, general disorder all contributed for Rio de Janeiro demise while São Paulo was there to pick every single thing for it.

[Crawford]

Kolkata is a Bengali city, which is prolly pretty unhelpful when India is increasingly Hindu nationalist. Wrong people, language, culture, location and worldview. Very roughly analogous to Montreal.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're right. Domestically, there's no contest. But the random person in the U.S. or Germany or China knows Rio better than SP, just via consuming global culture.

Yes. If maybe Brazil was a global powerhouse there, that might matter a bit. But Brazil nor Rio aren't.

Originally Posted by Crawford

I'd also add that while SP is almost certainly a better city for living/working, I found Rio much more interesting for a visit. I can't really think of anything in SP that would provide global visitor appeal.

Definitely. Life in São Paulo is way way better and simpler than in Rio, specially for a foreigner, not used to local idiosyncrasies. Rio sometimes is too much for a Brazilian, let alone for an expat. And of course, safety, way better private/public services and even the weather.

And for tourism, obviously Rio: few cities in the world can compete with that. From churches that rival the ones in most important European cities to the breathtaking landscape. You can spend a month there and you'll have touristic things to do.

São Paulo, on the other hand, might be one of the best cities for urban enthusiasts, and due its low international profile, it's always a pleasant surprise. The city is endless and have this raw urban energy that's very hard to match. Of course, this kind of tourist is like what? 1% or less?

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Crawford

You're right. Domestically, there's no contest. But the random person in the U.S. or Germany or China knows Rio better than SP, just via consuming global culture.

I'd also add that while SP is almost certainly a better city for living/working, I found Rio much more interesting for a visit. I can't really think of anything in SP that would provide global visitor appeal.

Yeah, São Paulo is a business city. SP vs Rio is like Frankfurt vs Berlin, or Milan vs Rome. One city is business, the other is party.

Personally, I would prefer living in Rio over São Paulo, but for career oriented people I think SP is a no-brainer.

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, São Paulo is a business city. SP vs Rio is like Frankfurt vs Berlin, or Milan vs Rome. One city is business, the other is party.

Personally, I would prefer living in Rio over São Paulo, but for career oriented people I think SP is a no-brainer.

Rio is no longer the party city. Maybe only till the 1990's. It became incredibly conventional, dull, bolsonarist and very limited. São Paulo is the coutry's party city, with endless clubs and parties of all kinds. São Paulo is actually Berlin in your comparison, cutting edge, avant garde, innovative, creative.

Regarding living preferences, Rio has amazing neighbourhoods, denser than anything São Paulo has so it's perfectly normal for one prefering one over other (although there are way more cariocas in SP than paulistanos in Rio). If nightlife is your thing, than it's São Paulo. Rio de Janeiro feels sleepy compared. Unless by "party" you mean laidback not work-oriented.

From 2000's São Paulo made an amazing job distancing itself from the business city that everybody fled on weekends to a city that fully embraced urban life. Hence we have street carnaval now, Paulista and Minhocão closed for cars on weekends and people really reclaim the urban space.

[Docere]

Originally Posted by isaidso

I suspect that's the perception of most people but there's something to be said for lag. A city can pull even with another by most metrics but it will take time, often a generation, before people start viewing them as equals. And it takes longer for foreigners to catch up with realities on the ground. When I visited, Australians seem to view these 2 cities as equals even if foreigners didn't yet.

Seemingly with good reason, as they're both pretty much the same size.

You were right to point out the Australian Open but it does extend beyond that. Melbourne remained the cultural capital of Australia even when Sydney was #1. 9 of Australia's 18 AFL teams are based in the Melbourne area; that's half the league. The Australian Grand Prix is in Melbourne as well. Sydney has the Australian Stock Exchange and stronger iconography (opera house, harbour bridge, Bondi) but Melbourne's top dog culturally. These 2 cities are pretty equal imo.

What makes Melbourne the leading city for culture?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Crawford

Kolkata is a Bengali city, which is prolly pretty unhelpful when India is increasingly Hindu nationalist. Wrong people, language, culture, location and worldview. Very roughly analogous to Montreal.

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. Again, I don't know much about Calcutta but it seems it's still losing ground fast.

[Wigs]

Again, the Metro with the higher Metropolitan GMP/GDP will be the more important city.
Docere, do you have that data?

[Yuri]

Originally Posted by Wigs

Again, the Metro with the higher Metropolitan GMP/GDP will be the more important city.
Docere, do you have that data?

You asked Docere, on the other thread we had this discussion: this surpass is on the urban area ranking, not on metro area where Sydney is still ahead. The Guardian's article he posted actually detailed that. I can't tell, however, on each one of the rankings Australians pay more attention.

Melbourne started to speed up on the mid-2000's and it since then it became clear it would eventually surpass Sydney at some point.

[Docere]

No more clickbait headline thread titles for me.

It should read: Sydney and Melbourne basically identical in size.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Yuri

Rio is no longer the party city. Maybe only till the 1990's. It became incredibly conventional, dull, bolsonarist and very limited. São Paulo is the coutry's party city, with endless clubs and parties of all kinds. São Paulo is actually Berlin in your comparison, cutting edge, avant garde, innovative, creative.

Regarding living preferences, Rio has amazing neighbourhoods, denser than anything São Paulo has so it's perfectly normal for one prefering one over other (although there are way more cariocas in SP than paulistanos in Rio). If nightlife is your thing, than it's São Paulo. Rio de Janeiro feels sleepy compared. Unless by "party" you mean laidback not work-oriented.

From 2000's São Paulo made an amazing job distancing itself from the business city that everybody fled on weekends to a city that fully embraced urban life. Hence we have street carnaval now, Paulista and Minhocão closed for cars on weekends and people really reclaim the urban space.

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.

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.