London vs Sydney
 

I have an Australian friend coming here for a holiday in a few days and she keeps asking me about quick touristy things to do in London...........I need to advise her that London is VAST in comparison to Sydney, how many times bigger would you say it is? 5, 10, 20 times bigger?

Re: London vs Sydney
 

London's population is about 5 times bigger than Sydney's I think. Although London sprawls over a large area, so does Sydney. You can actually walk around London's centre quite easily. She can see Buckingham Palace, walk down through St James Park and go to art galleries, Trafalgar Square and the Houses of Parliament.
She can stroll along the banks of the Thames and see the London Eye. Hop on a boat and cruise down to the Tower of London and look at the crown jewels.
Or she could go shopping, walk down Regent Street and wander around the back streets to Liberty's and then to Chinatown, up Shaftesbury Avenue and gawp at theatres- must get into a show, as that is very touristy.
Or, she can wander to the Natural History Museum and then catch a tube to Covent Garden.

All sorts of things I've done in a day or two. Take blister plasters though!

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Not bigger in area, 8 times bigger in terms of population etc, 10 times more things to see, 20 times more infrastructure, public transport, public buildings etc. .

Re: London vs Sydney
 

There are some really questionable statistics in this thread! :lol:

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Have a go yourself then , ;)

I can see that Sydney is at least twice as big in Area As London if you look at the Metropolitan figures........ I'd say my population figures aren't that far off as there were 13,000,000 million in Londons 10 years ago in 2001 and 4,500,.000 in Sydney currently. As for transport and public buildings no comparison. Almost like comparing Bendigo with Melbourne.

Sydney does have one of the best Vistas in the world though, which makes up for a hell of a lot of any perceived shortcomings..

Re: London vs Sydney
 

That's what I was thinking :) I'll steal some off wikipedia:

Greater London:

Population: 8,174,000 (2011 census)
Area: 1,572 km2
Population Density: 5,200/km2

Greater Sydney:

Population: 4,627,345
Area: 12,144 km²
Population Density: 2058/km²

So on wiki's figures London has a population 1.7 times larger than Sydney, a population density 2.5 times higher and is 7.7 times smaller in area (who knows what this area includes though)


Another population figure that could be used for London is:

"The London commuter belt is the metropolitan area surrounding London, England from which it is practical to commute to work in the capital. It is alternatively known as the Greater South East,[1] the London metropolitan area[2] or the Southeast metropolitan area.[3] It should not be confused with Greater London or the Greater London Urban Area.

The boundaries are not fixed; they expand as transport options improve and affordable housing moves further away from London.[4] The commuter belt currently covers much of the South East region and part of the East of England region, including the Home Counties of Kent, Surrey, Berkshire, Buckinghamshire, Hampshire, Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Essex and Sussex. The population of Greater London and those counties adjacent to the green belt was 13,945,000 in 2001.[5] Much of the undeveloped part of this area lies within the designated Metropolitan Green Belt. The Green belt currently covers nearly all of Surrey, eastern Berkshire, southern Buckinghamshire, southern and mid Hertfordshire, southern Bedfordshire, south-west Essex, and western Kent. In addition, three Areas of Outstanding Natural Beauty the Chiltern Hills, Surrey Hills and North Downs AONBs surrounding the Thames basin feature in the commuter belt."


This long distance commuter boundary has a population of 12-14 million which would make it 3-4 times the size of Sydney (not counting Sydney's long distance commuter belt).

Re: London vs Sydney
 

out of topic. thread closed.

Re: London vs Sydney
 

I'm confused...who does the arithmetic for Wikipedia!?

Re: London vs Sydney
 

If you are talking about the density figure I assumed the calculations are more complicated than a straight division. Probably take built up areas, rather than total area which may contain national park, green belt or whatever...my guess anyway...

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Anyone who logs in I think.:D

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Definitive answer;

London's official population is 8,173,900

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/davehil...ation-rises-12

Sydney's official population is 4,627,345.

One thing I can't tell you is exactly what boundaries they use to define the urban/metro areas of each city so it is hard to make an accurate comparison just based on that.

It's easy enough to go on to Google earth and measure the area of the continuous built up area for both cities and compare the geographic size that way.

Roughly from Google Earth I'd say the London continuous built up area is 2700 sq km and Sydney is around 2000 sq km

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Not only is it bigger, its been at it longer (at least 10 times as long), and used to run an empire. As such there are lots and lots of 1st division attractions, and even more 2nd division, that in Sydney would warrant a tourist bus stop of their own.

Being topical, reminder how they blew off so many notable historical events in 10 secs each during the Olympics opening ceremony.

Suggest she picks 'types' of thing she wants to see, then makes day tours out of just those. 'Doing' London, touristvisitwise takes weeks.

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Yes I agree. She said her husband wanted to go to the British Museum AND The Tate Gallery all in one day. I went to the British Museum a few months ago and didn't get to see everything in one whole day.

Rather than population statistics I was trying to give her some kind of perspective. You know you can walk from Central Station in Sydney to The Rocks in less than 2 hours (I can't quite remember now) but in London you seem to walk for HOURS and HOURS and still don't see everything...........

Anyway thanks for all your answers, I know what I mean LOL!!

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Yes and another difference with London imo is because of the density and low rise buildings the city centre is not as well defined as Sydney...in London you can still feel like you are in the city centre even though you have left it. The change is more gradual/continual.

In Sydney it is obvious because the high rises stop and the architecture/feel totally changes.

Re: London vs Sydney
 

Which Tate - there's Tate Britain and Tate Modern? Plus the National, of course. Oh, and the V&A. And whilst you're in South Ken there's the Natural History Museum, the Science Museum.

That's a week if you do them right, maybe 3 days if you rush. I'd suggest each and every one surpasses any Museum/Gallery in Sydney. Then there's architecture. And music. And theatre. And ...

The Rocks gets referenced a lot with regards to Sydney, but you can turn down many roads by the river in London and get a more intense vib of history hitting you in the face.

And then there's the hidden stuff, that you don't see unless you know its there, and have an invite.

There are many negative points to living in London, but the breadth and depth of it surpasses anything someone from Oz is likely to consider.