6 ms·

For Americans that don't get what the big deal is: Australia has a livable area about the same size as does California. The rest of the continent is desert that

by antt 8y ago

For Americans that don't get what the big deal is: Australia has a livable area about the same size as does California. The rest of the continent is desert that gets so hot they had to invent new colors to describe it [0]. Even towns in the 'habitable' area get in the upper 40C [115F] regularly during summer. The last three years have been relatively cool, but in between 2008-2012 there were days where Melbourne and Sydney basically had to shut down because the heat made infrastructure unusable without damaging it. There is hardly any water and the cities were designed around cars far more than any city outside Los Angeles. Add a population that's three times what the neighborhoods were planned for and you see why Mad Max was thought up here. [0] https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/its-so-hot-australia-they-added-new-colors-weather-map/319705/ https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/01/it...

Leary 8y ago
What is the livable area of California, and what is the livable area of Australia? What is the population of California, and what is the population of Australia?
- forthefuture 8y ago
  Australia = 24 million in 296,790 square miles of habitable land. California = 39 million in 163,696 square miles of total land. California has twice as many people in an area half the size (not including inhabitable parts of California since half of it is a desert).
  - oblio 8y ago
    Is the Australian habitable land that low, though? From what I see, they seem to count all the subtropical land as uninhabitable and there's plenty of subtropical countries out there...
    - zaq_xsw 8y ago
      I'd definitely lean towards agreeing with you there. And on top of that, I live on the west coast of Australia, and there are people living fine from Albany (at the bottom) to Broome (at the top), but there's probably only 5% of the coast that has people living on it - scattered from top to bottom (but obviously mostly in Perth). Seems like there's a lot of empty space here. I have relatives that live in-land (in the "wheat belt"), and the climate is perfectly livable there. I think the only places where it is not-so-livable is in places like Marble Bar (second hottest place in WA), and yet there are still a bunch of people that live there - my friend grew up there.
    - FireBeyond 8y ago
      Have a look at some of the sample pictures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback and particularly, about a third of the way down, the aerial photography and the arid interior, and consider that that arid desert extends from the equivalent of Oregon to Tennessee, South Dakota to Oklahoma.
  - skybrian 8y ago
    Seems like when you have major cities, population density varies so much that it's not a meaningful comparison? Maybe better to compare available water or other resources. Cities in the desert are viable if you have water.
    - quicklime 8y ago
      According to the World Bank, Australia gets almost as much rain as the United States. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.PRCP.MM?end=2014&locations=AU-US&start=2014&view=bar https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.PRCP.MM?end=2014...
wycx 8y ago
There is hardly any water and the cities were designed around cars far more than any city outside Los Angeles. As a past/present resident of both LA and Melbourne, I would modify that to say that Syd/Mel are as dependent on cars as much as Los Angeles, but without the planning commitment to cars that LA has exhibited. Bring up maps of LA and Sydney/Melbourne on the same scale. LA has a grid of freeways with a cell-size of 10-15 km. Not so for Sydney and Melbourne, and their surface streets are much worse. Roads designed as two lanes each way made into 3 narrow lanes each way by turning the shoulder into a new lane. Nowhere to go when someone breaks down. Without a commitment to either a comprehensive transit system, or a decent freeway network, Syd/Mel have half-arsed implementations of both. In LA I was comfortable cycling along PCH, Santa Monica Blvd, Sepulveda Bvd etc, but I would never consider cycling on their Melbourne equivalents.
- ak217 8y ago
  > Without a commitment to either a comprehensive transit system, or a decent freeway network, Syd/Mel have half-arsed implementations of both. Funny you say that - when I visited Sydney I thought the regional rail network was better than anywhere in the US outside the eastern seaboard.
  - IForgotUsername 8y ago
    This is true. Note that Sydney has fairly unique infrastructure. Sydney has extensive heavy rail that runs from a web of regional areas straight into the city via underground tunnels and this then becomes a circular underground subway system with numerous stops in the city itself. The Sydney system is great. I used to commute 90mins each way on Sydney trains but the fact that I didn't have to change trains to get to my inner city subway stop meant I took a seat, got my laptop out and it became no different to being at my desk at work. A few less distractions in fact. I might be gushing a bit because I now live in SF which has made me realise just how good Sydney was. Melbourne is similar to SF. They love their above ground trams for inner city transport but those trams do nothing to get people into the city in the first place. The love is pure historical admiration and not rooted in reality. Being above ground is a flaw in terms of adding to congestion and different track gauges and thus train changes is a hassle we could all do without.
reaperducer 8y ago
Even towns in the 'habitable' area get in the upper 40C [115F] regularly during summer I'm curious about how "uninhabitable" is defined in this context. There are American cities of millions of people (Phoenix, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, etc...) where summer high temperatures never get below 100-110° for months on end. They, too, are in the desert, but not classified as "uninhabitable." (OK, maybe Vegas is uninhabitable... ;) ) Down the road from Las Vegas is a town called Baker, California where the hottest temperature on earth was recorded. 134°, IIRC. Thousands of people still live there.
- FireBeyond 8y ago
  >There are American cities of millions of people (Phoenix, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, etc...) where summer high temperatures never get below 100-110° for months on end. There are places in Australia that have set records - including this "160 consecutive days above 100F" - note that this isn't talking 'highs', it was above 100 the entire time.
  - reaperducer 8y ago
    That's great. But I'm still trying to grok how Australians are defining "uninhabitable" for this article.
    - privacypoller 8y ago
      simple answer: there's no water, so unlike your US examples you can't use massive public diversion projects to make these areas fit for habitation.
      - practice9 8y ago
        > simple answer: there's no water even deep under the ground?
        stephen_g 8y ago
rb808 8y ago
I think the real problem is that the growth has improved the economy but reduced the quality of life. A few decades ago it was affordable for most families to buy a nice house close to the beach. Now the big cities have doubled in population and quadrupled in price, that is no longer achievable. Yes Australia could easily have 100m people living there, but they wouldn't be as comfortable as when there were 15m. Its a bit like California. LA & SF in the 60s and 70s sounds dreamy - and we'll never get back to there.
- jl2718 8y ago
  How do you define an ‘improved’ economy? I don’t know any long-term Sydney residents who think life has gotten better for them. It’s full of homeless camps, traffic is a gridlock. Rents are insane. Salaries are low.
rm_-rf_slash 8y ago
I spent a bit of time in Adelaide and found it to be quite easy to get around without using a car. The trains, light rail, and busses all did an excellent job, in my opinion. A bit pricey perhaps, but I did manage to cover an awful lot of ground without a car while I was there.
lookACamel 8y ago
> Australia has a livable area about the same size as does California. California's population is 39M.

by antt 8y ago

Leary 8y ago

What is the livable area of California, and what is the livable area of Australia? What is the population of California, and what is the population of Australia?

forthefuture 8y ago
Australia = 24 million in 296,790 square miles of habitable land. California = 39 million in 163,696 square miles of total land. California has twice as many people in an area half the size (not including inhabitable parts of California since half of it is a desert).
- oblio 8y ago
  Is the Australian habitable land that low, though? From what I see, they seem to count all the subtropical land as uninhabitable and there's plenty of subtropical countries out there...
  - zaq_xsw 8y ago
    I'd definitely lean towards agreeing with you there. And on top of that, I live on the west coast of Australia, and there are people living fine from Albany (at the bottom) to Broome (at the top), but there's probably only 5% of the coast that has people living on it - scattered from top to bottom (but obviously mostly in Perth). Seems like there's a lot of empty space here. I have relatives that live in-land (in the "wheat belt"), and the climate is perfectly livable there. I think the only places where it is not-so-livable is in places like Marble Bar (second hottest place in WA), and yet there are still a bunch of people that live there - my friend grew up there.
  - FireBeyond 8y ago
    Have a look at some of the sample pictures here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outback and particularly, about a third of the way down, the aerial photography and the arid interior, and consider that that arid desert extends from the equivalent of Oregon to Tennessee, South Dakota to Oklahoma.
- skybrian 8y ago
  Seems like when you have major cities, population density varies so much that it's not a meaningful comparison? Maybe better to compare available water or other resources. Cities in the desert are viable if you have water.
  - quicklime 8y ago
    According to the World Bank, Australia gets almost as much rain as the United States. https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.PRCP.MM?end=2014&locations=AU-US&start=2014&view=bar https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/AG.LND.PRCP.MM?end=2014...

wycx 8y ago

There is hardly any water and the cities were designed around cars far more than any city outside Los Angeles. As a past/present resident of both LA and Melbourne, I would modify that to say that Syd/Mel are as dependent on cars as much as Los Angeles, but without the planning commitment to cars that LA has exhibited. Bring up maps of LA and Sydney/Melbourne on the same scale. LA has a grid of freeways with a cell-size of 10-15 km. Not so for Sydney and Melbourne, and their surface streets are much worse. Roads designed as two lanes each way made into 3 narrow lanes each way by turning the shoulder into a new lane. Nowhere to go when someone breaks down. Without a commitment to either a comprehensive transit system, or a decent freeway network, Syd/Mel have half-arsed implementations of both. In LA I was comfortable cycling along PCH, Santa Monica Blvd, Sepulveda Bvd etc, but I would never consider cycling on their Melbourne equivalents.

ak217 8y ago
> Without a commitment to either a comprehensive transit system, or a decent freeway network, Syd/Mel have half-arsed implementations of both. Funny you say that - when I visited Sydney I thought the regional rail network was better than anywhere in the US outside the eastern seaboard.
- IForgotUsername 8y ago
  This is true. Note that Sydney has fairly unique infrastructure. Sydney has extensive heavy rail that runs from a web of regional areas straight into the city via underground tunnels and this then becomes a circular underground subway system with numerous stops in the city itself. The Sydney system is great. I used to commute 90mins each way on Sydney trains but the fact that I didn't have to change trains to get to my inner city subway stop meant I took a seat, got my laptop out and it became no different to being at my desk at work. A few less distractions in fact. I might be gushing a bit because I now live in SF which has made me realise just how good Sydney was. Melbourne is similar to SF. They love their above ground trams for inner city transport but those trams do nothing to get people into the city in the first place. The love is pure historical admiration and not rooted in reality. Being above ground is a flaw in terms of adding to congestion and different track gauges and thus train changes is a hassle we could all do without.

reaperducer 8y ago

Even towns in the 'habitable' area get in the upper 40C [115F] regularly during summer I'm curious about how "uninhabitable" is defined in this context. There are American cities of millions of people (Phoenix, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, etc...) where summer high temperatures never get below 100-110° for months on end. They, too, are in the desert, but not classified as "uninhabitable." (OK, maybe Vegas is uninhabitable... ;) ) Down the road from Las Vegas is a town called Baker, California where the hottest temperature on earth was recorded. 134°, IIRC. Thousands of people still live there.

FireBeyond 8y ago
>There are American cities of millions of people (Phoenix, Palm Springs, Las Vegas, etc...) where summer high temperatures never get below 100-110° for months on end. There are places in Australia that have set records - including this "160 consecutive days above 100F" - note that this isn't talking 'highs', it was above 100 the entire time.
- reaperducer 8y ago
  That's great. But I'm still trying to grok how Australians are defining "uninhabitable" for this article.
  - privacypoller 8y ago
    simple answer: there's no water, so unlike your US examples you can't use massive public diversion projects to make these areas fit for habitation.
    - practice9 8y ago
      > simple answer: there's no water even deep under the ground?
      - stephen_g 8y ago

rb808 8y ago

I think the real problem is that the growth has improved the economy but reduced the quality of life. A few decades ago it was affordable for most families to buy a nice house close to the beach. Now the big cities have doubled in population and quadrupled in price, that is no longer achievable. Yes Australia could easily have 100m people living there, but they wouldn't be as comfortable as when there were 15m. Its a bit like California. LA & SF in the 60s and 70s sounds dreamy - and we'll never get back to there.

jl2718 8y ago
How do you define an ‘improved’ economy? I don’t know any long-term Sydney residents who think life has gotten better for them. It’s full of homeless camps, traffic is a gridlock. Rents are insane. Salaries are low.

rm_-rf_slash 8y ago

I spent a bit of time in Adelaide and found it to be quite easy to get around without using a car. The trains, light rail, and busses all did an excellent job, in my opinion. A bit pricey perhaps, but I did manage to cover an awful lot of ground without a car while I was there.

lookACamel 8y ago

> Australia has a livable area about the same size as does California. California's population is 39M.