4 ms·
cities are a lot younger and grew much faster meaning that is not so much the case. Melbourne, in Australia, is a counter example. It started in 1835, it was
by thisrod 11y ago
cities are a lot younger and grew much faster meaning that is not so much the case.
Melbourne, in Australia, is a counter example. It started in 1835, it was the centre of the fastest land grab in history, then the population doubled in ten years during the 1850s gold rush. And today the city centre is world famous.
The local wisdom tends to support the conclusion of the article. The Premier in the early 1990s (who would be called the Governor in the US) committed to making the city a place for people to live, and started changing the laws about planning, business hours and so on that were preventing that. He quickly lost office, because the rural parts of the state viewed him as "the Premier of Melbourne", but the city kept improving.
- nickonline 11y agoThis is most definitely not a counter example. Melbourne is almost 200 years old, it is very young compared to the European cities being cited. You also point out how the city was rough until someone decided to do something about it 20 years ago. The OP I assume would refer to NYC as a 'fast growing city' (around 400 years old) compared to somewhere like London or Madrid which have both been there for over 2,000 years.
- acchow 11y agoNA cities actually did grow much faster. Melbourne's "doubling in ten years" during the 1850's doesn't even come close. Chicago, for example, grew 6x in the 1840s, almost 4x in the 1850s, and 2.5x in the 1860s.