3 ms·
Urban density has been increasing markedly in Australia over the past few decades, at least in Sydney. Not quite as fast as some folks would like (ie everybody
by hugh3 16y ago
Urban density has been increasing markedly in Australia over the past few decades, at least in Sydney. Not quite as fast as some folks would like (ie everybody with a spare quarter acre that they'd rather put up twenty units on) but density is certainly going up.
In my opinion, though, what Australia really needs to do is to develop the infrastructure outside the major cities to persuade people to move out there. Australia can easily accommodate another ten million people, but not if they all want to live in Sydney and Melbourne. Why can't Broome and Mildura and Wagga Wagga have two hundred thousand people?
- jacques_chester 16y agoGeneralising enormously, the capital cities are already perched in the best locations. A successful city needs two major things: ready access to water and ready access to trade. That's why most major cities are on rivers or around major harbours. Take my home town Darwin, for example. It is not destined to be one of the world's great cities because it is poorly positioned. There's buckets of water but due to the flatness of the country it's hard to dam. The harbour is large but shallow. The approaches from East and West are not friendly to bulk shipping. Sydney, Melbourne, Adelaide, Brisbane and Perth are already hogging the best spots for large cities.
- brc 16y agoThis type of thinking doesn't explain Houston, Las Vegas, Phoenix - the list goes on. These are large cities by Australian standards but fit very few of your criteria. Las Vegas depends on the Hoover Dam, but certainly not trade or shipping. Water supply is the major issue in Australian cities, but this can be solved (see Kalgoorlie) if people put their mind to it. I agree that Australia needs to develop the regional areas more.
- rdouble 16y agoHouston is actually the 2nd biggest port in the USA and 6th biggest in the world. It's also surrounded by oil and natural gas. Phoenix and Vegas are weird ones, but most large cities in the USA are on a big lake, river or ocean, or some combination of those.
- brc 16y agoMy bad with Houston. I must have been thinking of Dallas. The factor with Las Vegas and Phoenix are that they are modern growth cities. You don't need a deepwater port to facilitate growth in a modern city, just a good airport, good road/rail links and good communications infrastructure. You could argue that Phoenix is propelled by retirees and golf players and Las Vegas by gambling - but the reason doesn't matter, just the fact that a city can be sustained does.
- jacques_chester 16y agoMy understanding is that Vegas is on a major highway and has a natural trade (gambling). Other Nevada gambling towns which are not on that route are less successful. Is that correct? To cover myself, refer again to my prefatory remark that I was generalising enormously.
- dalore 16y agoLas Vegas has trade and shipping... tourism.