Re: Wheaton Metro Escalator; 2nd Longest Anywhere?

[David McLoughlin <davemcl@NO***damned***SPAMiprolink.co.nz>]

Sandy Smith wrote:

> And since it's been previously established that what folks in Australia and New
> Zealand call "suburbs" is more expansively defined than what North Americans
> call "suburbs" (rough distinction:  in North America, if it lies within the
> corporate boundary of the central city, it's not "suburb" even if it looks like
> one, while in ANZ, if it's not close to the CBD, it is one even if it's within
> the corporate boundary of the central city)

Not quite, Sandy.

In Australia and New Zealand, a "suburb" is any residential area outside
the CBD, even if it is immediately outside the CBD (ie over a bridge or
main road from the CBD). As you say, it doesn't depend on a municipal
boundary at all.

Also as you say, a "suburb" down here is much more exapansively
described than in the US. Our "suburbs" can start within a kilometre of
our main CBD streets, yet also extend to the farthest flung parts of our
built-up areas.

Also as you say, municipal boundaries are irrelevant to what makes a
suburb down here.

Of interest to North Americans, often the most desirable "suburbs" or
"places to live" down here are those closest to the CBD. As a rule of
thumb, the most expensive places to live in NZ and Australia are closest
to downtown, while the cheapest and least desirable are those farthest
away. In major cities like Melbourne, Sydney and (haha) Auckland, what
North Americans deride as "row houses" are the height of fashion and are
being built (or renovated) in large numbers in our inner city areas, for
yuppies (they are called "terrace houses" down here).

Sydney and Melbourne have long had such terrace housing, from the 19th
Century. Auckland only caught up about 10 years ago, now they are going
up all over the inner suburban area.

David McLoughlin
Auckland New Zealand