5 ms·

For people from the US - we do "cities" differently here. If you superimposed that map of Sydney onto San Francisco (and lets mirror flip it to get the coasts

For people from the US - we do "cities" differently here. If you superimposed that map of Sydney onto San Francisco (and lets mirror flip it to get the coasts on the same side) - it'd extend from say Mill Valley in the north down to somewhere past Cupertino in the south - and east (away from the coast) to about Pleasanton. What we think of as "Sydney" is about 40 miles north/south and east/west. The area GoogleMaps tells me is "San Francisco is about 7 miles by 7 miles. Not saying either is right or wrong, just that you might not know just how large a piece of ground what is meant by "Sydney" represents. We call Sydney a city of 5million people. You say San Francisco has a population of ~850k people. The "San Francisco Bay Area" with 7.8 million people is pretty close to what we call "Sydney", and I think that's 8 or 9 "cities" the way the US divides things up...

skissane 9y ago
Well, just as San Francisco has a population of only ~850k, the City of Sydney only has a population of ~200k. In both cases there is a distinction between the city proper and the metro area. Both Sydney and San Francisco are extreme cases, other cases, like Brisbane, Australia or New York City the disparity between city proper and metro area are less extreme. San Francisco is also somewhat unusual in that its metro area has a different name ("Bay Area"). But that isn't universally true of American cities (it is not uncommon, but not universal either.) I'm not convinced that there are any fundamental differences between US and Australian usage here.
- bigiain 9y ago
  Fair enough - I've really only spent enough time in San Francisco and Portland to have felt the "Hang on, what do you mean it's a different city just across that river" weirdness (weird to my Sydney calibrated sense of "how the world works". (Although Reno/Sparks feels odd to me too. Kinda like Albury/Wodonga here - but at least there some sense to there being two cities there, with one on each side of the state border...) Having said that - "Sydney City" maps closer (in my head) to "The Mission District" than to "San Francisco" still. Google Maps draws Sydney City as around 1.6 miles north/south and 1 mile east/west. (Although I thn there's a larger "Sydney City Council" area than that, I know some of Newtown has Sydney City parking rules and the rest has Marrickville/Inner West COuncil parking rules, and Newtown is a half mile or so away from where Google Maps draws that border...) Melbourne has a similar sprawl to Sydney (and lets face it, Sydney and Melbourne are really the only "cities" in Australia, everywhere else is just big or small country towns! ;-) )
- mieseratte 9y ago
  > San Francisco is also somewhat unusual in that its metro area has a different name ("Bay Area"). I routinely use "San Franciso" to mean "the San Francisco Metropolitan Area." I assume "Bay Area" is more of a local thing. There's nothing different about "how Australian's do cities" in the sense OP is talking about. You have a central "City of" and a lot of similar, or smaller sized "City of," "Town of," that compose the area we think of as "the city."
- tomhoward 9y ago
  > I'm not convinced that there are any fundamental differences between US and Australian usage here. Technically that's right, but culturally there is a big difference in my experience (as an Australian who has spent a lot of time in SF Bay Area). In the Bay Area, when people describe where they live they'll refer to their local city/town first - i.e., Palo Alto, San Jose, Oakland, San Mateo, or indeed San Francisco the distinct city. Sure they might refer to the "Bay Area", as a general descriptor of where they live to an outsider, but they wouldn't normally say "I live in San Francisco" if they live in Menlo Park. In Australia, people will primarily describe themselves as living in "Melbourne" or "Sydney", and only if the conversation progresses to which part of that city they live in will they refer to the suburb. Even then they'll talk about the local suburb, which is normally distinct from the municipality, particularly now that the municipalities are quite large and encompass several suburbs.
  - skissane 9y ago
    How people describe where they live depends on who they are talking to. If you live in a given metro area, and you are talking to someone else who you know also lives in that metro area, you are not going to answer "Where do you live?" with the name of the metro area – you are going to describe the part of it in which you live. Conversely, if you are talking to someone who lives on the other side of the country (or the world), you will just name the metro area, because they presumably don't know the geography of that metro area well or at all. And that's true both in the Bay Area and in Sydney too. If you are sitting in an office in Palo Alto, and the person in the next cubicle asks you where you live, you won't say "Bay Area", you'll be more specific. But if you then come on a business trip or holiday to Sydney, and people ask you where you are from, you probably will just say "San Franscisco", because "San Bruno", "Daly City", "Belmont", "Milpitas", "Fremont", "Hayward", etc, means nothing to the average Sydneysider. In the same way, if you are sitting in an office in Sydney CBD, and someone else who you know is local asks you where you live, you aren't going to say "Sydney". You'll say "Castle Hill" or "Bankstown" or "Hurstville" or "Penrith" or "Turramurra" or "Dee Why" or "Woolloomooloo" or whatever. Or maybe you'll give a more regional descriptor, like "North Shore" or "Eastern Suburbs" or "Sutherland" or "Inner West" or "Central Coast" or so on. So I'm unconvinced that this cultural difference you perceive between Australia and the US is actually real.
nkrisc 9y ago
I think Americans well understand huge metro areas. Take Chicago for example: the city proper is only about 220 sq mi (~3mil people) but the metro area is around 10,000 sq mi (~9mil people). Most of that is contiguous urbanization, too. You could drive from Milwaukee, WI to Gary, IN and just about feel like you've never left a city. Pretty much all the major cities in the U.S. are like this. We know how to do sprawl.

skissane 9y ago

Well, just as San Francisco has a population of only ~850k, the City of Sydney only has a population of ~200k. In both cases there is a distinction between the city proper and the metro area. Both Sydney and San Francisco are extreme cases, other cases, like Brisbane, Australia or New York City the disparity between city proper and metro area are less extreme. San Francisco is also somewhat unusual in that its metro area has a different name ("Bay Area"). But that isn't universally true of American cities (it is not uncommon, but not universal either.) I'm not convinced that there are any fundamental differences between US and Australian usage here.

bigiain 9y ago
Fair enough - I've really only spent enough time in San Francisco and Portland to have felt the "Hang on, what do you mean it's a different city just across that river" weirdness (weird to my Sydney calibrated sense of "how the world works". (Although Reno/Sparks feels odd to me too. Kinda like Albury/Wodonga here - but at least there some sense to there being two cities there, with one on each side of the state border...) Having said that - "Sydney City" maps closer (in my head) to "The Mission District" than to "San Francisco" still. Google Maps draws Sydney City as around 1.6 miles north/south and 1 mile east/west. (Although I thn there's a larger "Sydney City Council" area than that, I know some of Newtown has Sydney City parking rules and the rest has Marrickville/Inner West COuncil parking rules, and Newtown is a half mile or so away from where Google Maps draws that border...) Melbourne has a similar sprawl to Sydney (and lets face it, Sydney and Melbourne are really the only "cities" in Australia, everywhere else is just big or small country towns! ;-) )
mieseratte 9y ago
> San Francisco is also somewhat unusual in that its metro area has a different name ("Bay Area"). I routinely use "San Franciso" to mean "the San Francisco Metropolitan Area." I assume "Bay Area" is more of a local thing. There's nothing different about "how Australian's do cities" in the sense OP is talking about. You have a central "City of" and a lot of similar, or smaller sized "City of," "Town of," that compose the area we think of as "the city."
tomhoward 9y ago
> I'm not convinced that there are any fundamental differences between US and Australian usage here. Technically that's right, but culturally there is a big difference in my experience (as an Australian who has spent a lot of time in SF Bay Area). In the Bay Area, when people describe where they live they'll refer to their local city/town first - i.e., Palo Alto, San Jose, Oakland, San Mateo, or indeed San Francisco the distinct city. Sure they might refer to the "Bay Area", as a general descriptor of where they live to an outsider, but they wouldn't normally say "I live in San Francisco" if they live in Menlo Park. In Australia, people will primarily describe themselves as living in "Melbourne" or "Sydney", and only if the conversation progresses to which part of that city they live in will they refer to the suburb. Even then they'll talk about the local suburb, which is normally distinct from the municipality, particularly now that the municipalities are quite large and encompass several suburbs.
- skissane 9y ago
  How people describe where they live depends on who they are talking to. If you live in a given metro area, and you are talking to someone else who you know also lives in that metro area, you are not going to answer "Where do you live?" with the name of the metro area – you are going to describe the part of it in which you live. Conversely, if you are talking to someone who lives on the other side of the country (or the world), you will just name the metro area, because they presumably don't know the geography of that metro area well or at all. And that's true both in the Bay Area and in Sydney too. If you are sitting in an office in Palo Alto, and the person in the next cubicle asks you where you live, you won't say "Bay Area", you'll be more specific. But if you then come on a business trip or holiday to Sydney, and people ask you where you are from, you probably will just say "San Franscisco", because "San Bruno", "Daly City", "Belmont", "Milpitas", "Fremont", "Hayward", etc, means nothing to the average Sydneysider. In the same way, if you are sitting in an office in Sydney CBD, and someone else who you know is local asks you where you live, you aren't going to say "Sydney". You'll say "Castle Hill" or "Bankstown" or "Hurstville" or "Penrith" or "Turramurra" or "Dee Why" or "Woolloomooloo" or whatever. Or maybe you'll give a more regional descriptor, like "North Shore" or "Eastern Suburbs" or "Sutherland" or "Inner West" or "Central Coast" or so on. So I'm unconvinced that this cultural difference you perceive between Australia and the US is actually real.

nkrisc 9y ago

I think Americans well understand huge metro areas. Take Chicago for example: the city proper is only about 220 sq mi (~3mil people) but the metro area is around 10,000 sq mi (~9mil people). Most of that is contiguous urbanization, too. You could drive from Milwaukee, WI to Gary, IN and just about feel like you've never left a city. Pretty much all the major cities in the U.S. are like this. We know how to do sprawl.