
Sydney’s plan to split into three cities in as little as 20 years - optimusrex
https://edition.cnn.com/2018/04/12/asia/sydney-three-cities/index.html
======
jlangenauer
As a former resident of Sydney, this will change nothing. Sydney is fucked
because of a number of interrelated circumstances, none of which are easy to
change:

\- The first is its geography. The harbour is a giant wall through a big part
of the city, with only a few chokepoints where people can cross. These are
congested, and constrain the entire road and rail transportation network. The
Pacific ocean constrains growth to the east, the blue mountains to the West,
and the national park to the south. The only growth corridors are towards the
southwest, and northwest - a long, long way from the CBD.

\- It's not nearly dense enough. Australians love their free-standing houses,
both the McMansions in the new suburbs, and the trendy terraces in the inner
city, beloved by Baby Boomers who have a convenient lifestyle while living in
an "urban village" \- of course, they all bought back in the 90s when it was
still affordable. These two types of housing make it incredibly inefficient to
build a workable rail public transport network, so a lot of the PT is forced
to use busses, which are not as popular, and suffer from the same congestion
at the chokepoints as well as the additional car traffic from everyone who
isn't well-served by PT. This is a lot of people.

\- Any attempts to build higher density housing, particularly in the sainted
inner suburbs will be met with cries of "Over-development", even by people who
should know better such as the Greens.

I moved to Berlin a few years ago, and it's a comparable city in size to
Sydney (3.5m vs around 5m in Sydney). It works far better because it's far
denser, and the level of infrastructure provided makes living here a breeze by
comparison. Berlin came of age before the motor car, and was geographically
constrained for quite a period there by an actual wall. Sydney really started
to grow just as the car become popular and widely-owned.

~~~
claudius
Berlin also has the advantage of only becoming a large single city in the
1920s. Beforehand, there was "Berlin proper" and a number of cities nearby
nearly equally large and locally equally relevant (e.g. Charlottenburg,
Wilmersdorf and Spandau in the west, Köpenick in the southeast and Lichtenberg
in the east). Due to there being no cars, travel between those cities was
impractical on a daily basis up until the rise of mass transport. This lead to
these cities setting up their own city centres with residential areas formed
around those city centres.

After extension of the city of Berlin in 1921, this lead to it having many
"city centres" around which life was formed in a similar way Sydney attempts
to achieve now by this artificial after-the-fact split. I’m doubtful it’ll be
successful.

~~~
jlangenauer
The same thing happened in Sydney - Parramatta was a separate town until (I'm
guessing here) the 1850s or so, Camden was until recently a separate town, but
it's being swallowed up by the outwards expansion of Sydney.

------
femto
As a Sydneysider, I see it as the state government giving up, and trying to
sell their ineptitude as a good thing. Successive governments have botched
transport to the point where it is no longer possible to commute between large
sections of Sydney. For years now, I've had to accept that the locations of my
potential employment are limited within Sydney, if I want to have any waking
time overlapping with the rest of my family. Now we are being told that it's
our own silly fault for expecting that if we live in Sydney then we can have a
job in Sydney.

I'm guessing that this declaration will have little real effect. The
government will try to create new job centres out of Parramatta and Liverpool,
as they have been for decades, but the new efforts will he just as effective
as the old and people will continue to commute to the CBD and North Sydney
arc, where a big chunk of the jobs will remain.

It's not a world leading bit of town planning, but the results of poor
planning.

~~~
tallanvor
Is the problem with transportation in Sydney really that unique in Australia?
I've only been there once for a couple of days, but I've spent a few weeks
total in Melbourne, and it seems to have a similar issue - public
transportation seems almost exclusively arranged to get people to and from the
CBD. I have a friend who lives in Kingsbury, and going to the airport can take
him more than 1.5 hours compared to driving there which can take less than 30
minutes.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
Melbourne's transport system is indeed largely built around getting everyone
along spokes into the CBD.

Sydney is a slightly different beast though. Its transport problems stem from
a mixture of geography, history and lack of/inept planning.

Its roads are generally thinner and crazier due to being a more "organic" in
its early planning compared to melbourne (which is built in a planned grid).
Sydney literally tore up and destroyed one of the biggest tram networks in the
world and converted the roads to automobile.

Meanwhile the combination of the harbour, sea to the east, blue mountains to
the west create an increasingly geographically constrained city. Transport
options are severely limited out to the eastern suburbs (cynically, partly by
desire, they are also the wealthiest suburbs in general). Contrasted with
melbourne, which is built on a massive flat plain around a bay, Sydney terrain
encompasses hills and valleys to a far greater extent further limiting the
engineering options.

Finally, sydney's main airport is comparatively close to the main CBD (almost
half as close as melbourne's) which is further limiting the available land
within the central area, and resulting in requirements to build a second
airport out west to try to increase air capacity to the city.

The result, along with australia's cultural and historical proclivities is a
city almost in constant congestion, highest house prices, and with easily the
longest commutes in the country. (keeping in mind when viewing comparable
stats, that although sydney is out in front, I felt many sydney-siders will
rationally try to compensate/substitute their travel times to avoid the
congestion).

Lived in both myself. All major cities have congestion, but its at another
level in Sydney compared to the other Australian cities. The culture in the
office of "accepting crazy travel times to get into work" was insane.

~~~
ShadowFaxSam
I keep hearing how Sydney has the most expensive housing.

In my experience, I found renting to be much more expensive in Melbourne
compared to Sydney.

This may be driven by affluent areas such as Rose and Watsons Bay.

So while these new measures could potentially lower pricing in the housing
market for buyers, I could see this having negative affects for the renting
community.

~~~
ACow_Adonis
I say this not only as someone having lived in both, but as someone who has
had some past professional interest tracking rents and the like: Sydney has by
far been the more expensive between the two cities in terms of rental and
house prices.

There may be a subjective element in being present in Melbourne while rent
prices took off which makes Melbourne seem to have become more expensive, but
it's not even close.

Edit: for instance, I live within walking distance of Melbourne cbd in a
modern 2 bedder with 1 car space. Market rent approx $650 - $750 pw (not even
including aberrations like docklands). In Sydney, you have to draw a
substantially wider radius and transport time around the city centre and
employment hub before you start hitting comparable properties and rates.

~~~
ShadowFaxSam
This site here backs up what you said, and as you mentioned its really not
close. My personal experience was based on short term rentals (<1 year).

[https://www.bedssi.com/rental-price-guide-for-australian-
cit...](https://www.bedssi.com/rental-price-guide-for-australian-cities)

I did find that Sydney had more availability and options (at least during the
market period I was searching). Lower Supply and High Demand should drive up
Melbourne's price, but as you said, real estate in Sydneys CBD is just more
valuable than Melbourne.

------
bigiain
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
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.

~~~
tomhoward
> 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
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.

~~~
tomhoward
I agree with all of what you're saying except this:

 _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"_

No, people from the Bay Area don't say that, and indeed it's considered by
purists to be a faux pas to ever say you live _in San Francisco_ if you live
in a different city in the Bay Area.

In the context you've described, someone who lives in Mountain View would
normally say "I live in the San Francisco Bay Area", or "I live in Mountain
View, near San Francisco", but not "I live in San Francisco".

Whereas someone who lives in an outer suburb of metropolitan Melbourne or
Sydney would just say "I live in Melbourne/Sydney".

Let's just remind ourselves why we're having this discussion: the root
commenter was explaining for US readers what Australians mean when referring
to "Sydney", in this context of discussing the possibility of breaking the
city up into three parts.

The point stands that the valid US equivalent here would be "San Francisco Bay
Area", not "San Francisco".

~~~
skissane
To what extent is what you are talking about a feature of American English in
general, or a feature of Bay Area usage specifically? Is it universally true
that in American English, if a person lives in X metro area but not in X
proper, they would never say "I live in X"?

~~~
tomhoward
I was going to expand on that but didn't want to go overboard on the comment
length!

This custom is not confined to the Bay Area, but it does vary from place to
place. It's not a function of American English, it's about the culture and
governance structure of the area in question.

Someone from Brooklyn, New York might describe their home locality as
"Brooklyn" or "New York City" (or indeed their neighbourhood in Brooklyn, e.g,
Williamsburg). But it's perfectly valid for a person from Brooklyn or
Manhattan or Queens to say "I live in New York City" as the five boroughs are
all contained within the municipality of NYC.

In Los Angeles, someone from Santa Monica or Beverly Hills might just say to a
foreigner "I live in Los Angeles" for simplicity, even though they're separate
municipalities from the City of Los Angeles, though they're all within Los
Angeles County. Whereas someone in Pasadena or Malibu would more likely name
that as their home town, even though they're also in Los Angeles County.

I'm not so familiar with specific customs in many other major metropolises,
but certainly the metro areas of Seattle and Boston are collections of
separate cities - I.e., Redmond, Washington and Cambridge, Massachusetts are
referred to by name as distinct from Seattle and Boston respectively.

But I'll again remind you of the whole point of this discussion: in Australia
we have a fairly straightforward understanding of what is meant by city names
like Melbourne or Sydney for the purpose of discussing a topic like this news
story: it refers to the greater metropolitan area.

In the US it is less straightforward and sometimes quite different depending
on where you're talking about, e.g., SF Bay Area, hence the root commenter's
helpful clarification for US readers.

------
optimusrex
Sydney has had a huge influx of population and the lack of infrastructure to
accommodate this growth is a major issue.

I just don't see how splitting into three cities solves any of these problems.
Now they are three separate governments with different amounts of
funds/budget.

The Easter Harbour District with the CBD should garner the highest budget and
thus have more runway to build infrastructure, but what about the other two
cities?

Will they still be able to benefit from the tourism revenue from the CBD and
Harbour?

~~~
daemin
I recall listening to an LSE presentation by the mayor of Lagos, where they
split the city into several CBDs so people could commute and work around one
of those rather than having to come into the single centre. I think this is
the general idea where a city would have several central areas so that each of
them becomes a functioning city in its own right and it would lessen the peak
hour intensity of travel for each of them.

~~~
optimusrex
Parramatta already is a functioning CBD with infrastructure issues that have
been present for the last few years as its become more and more popular for
realtor companies to develop. This is the one area that I could see benefiting
from this plan.

I'm most skeptical of the Western District becoming its own thriving and
independent CBD.

~~~
daemin
Something more west than Parramatta?! I would have guessed the next main CBD
would be North.

Granted I was lucky when I lived in Sydney, I was able to afford to live close
enough to walk everywhere. I hated driving though, the traffic mainly but
always fearful of accidentally turning onto a toll road. I'm still dismayed
about the governments insistence on big toll highway projects.

~~~
stephen_g
The NSW Government is so crazy that they’re adding new tolls to a previously
free highway to pay for a ridiculously expensive new toll road.

Sydney and Melbourne’s populations are both growing way too fast for the
Governments to keep up with infrastructure, schools, hospitals, etc. even if
they were competent... (The Federal Government sets the skilled migration
rate, which is unusually high compared to other OECD countries, but the states
have to pay for the infrastructure. At the same time, there’s huge slack in
the employment market with up to 20% unemployed or under-employed).

I’m so glad my family moved away from Sydney when I was a baby... If you can
find a good tech job, life is much better (and cheaper) in Brisbane.

~~~
isostatic
> If you can find a good tech job

Finding one job is easy. However what's the contingency if that job goes
(bust, relocate, get fed up with the politics, etc)

People seem to flock to major tech hubs because they are more likely to be
able to find a replacement job. There's less competition for jobs in Brisbane,
but there's fewer jobs available, and it's harder to leave one job on Friday
and start a new one on Monday.

------
retrogradeorbit
"The divide aims to tackle problems such as major population growth, sky-high
housing prices and increasingly congested commutes."

All three problems are self inflicted. Some have labelled Australia a
"Population Ponzi". We could just stop doing it to ourselves. But then house
prices might collapse, followed by the banks, and no land owner wants that.
Apparently just reducing the intake is not an option. [1]

[1] [https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/03/four-corners-
fails-...](https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2018/03/four-corners-fails-big-
australia-report/)

------
mjsweet
The NSW government abandoned a forced amalgamation of 14 city councils in
Sydney in July last year. My question is this; are they proposing amalgamating
existing local councils into three major cities or are they proposing three
major urban planning “zones”?... hence the “split” of Sydney into three. If
it’s the second option, I wonder how local councils will cooperate considering
the animosity toward forced amalgamation in the past?

------
smoyer
"By creating three cities out of one, officials are hoping to persuade
residents to live in a more diverse range of locations."

Do residents of an area actually behave like this? Those who can afford to may
live anywhere they want. But only those who own their own businesses can
determine where they work - the rest _have_ to work in a particular location.
And the choice of where to live involves many trade-offs including commute
distance.

My intuition would say that splitting up Sydney will have no effect on
resident behavior but that having three governments will be less efficient
than one with taxes going up accordingly.

~~~
toyg
_> having three governments will be less efficient than one_

But it will provide three times as many jobs for the class of people that
decides on these matters.

It's hard not to be cynic about politics when institutions "self-reform" by
_expanding_ in non-obvious (and likely more expensive) ways.

------
tankenmate
Sydney is already a number of cities, Sydney, Paramatta, Blacktown, Ryde,
Liverpool, Canterbury, Blacktown, Penrith, (and a veritable stream of smaller
"cities" like Fairfield) and various counties / shires as well, Hornsby,
Sutherland, Hills Shire. The issues has never been the names or appellations,
the biggest issue since WWII has been the sheer vast size of the suburban
sprawl and relatively little coordination and NIMBYism that goes with it.

