"I'm not sure how much larger the area of metro Sydney is than Metro Adelaide. Sydney east-west looks similar to Adelaide north-south, but a bit thicker in the other dimension. Parramatta has 8 buildings over 100m tall
, if that's a measure of business activity. Chatswood
has another 7.
Melbourne has Dandenong, but then Geelong, Ballarat, Bendigo are separate cities not too far away.
I should clarify what I was trying to say.
At no point was I referring to the geographical size of Adelaide or other cities. I was referring to their respective populations.
Adelaide sits at about 1.35 million.
Cities with significantly more people (eg Chicago at nearly 10 million and Philly at 7million) haven't gone down the path of Sydney or Toronto.
Therefore, why does Adelaide need to?
And even if the above cities were to, perhaps it could partially be justified due to their enormous populations.
But Adelaide is far from being the same league as large global cities.
As you know, it's a small global city and therefore in my view doesn't require the same infrastructure/urban layout as Melbourne, Sydney, or Toronto.
As for Geelong, Ballarat and Bendigo - they are far from being other CBDs within Melbourne.
Geelong CBD is 78kms from Melbourne. Ballarat CBD is about 90kms from Melbourne. Bendigo CBD is about 150km from Melbourne.
None of them are in a conurbation with Melbourne and therefore aren't of relevance to the discussion.
You're right in saying that Dandenong is a satellite CBD within Melbourne. Box Hill has recently surpassed it in height (125m towers) - something I find unnecessary and disappointing.
I don't mean to shut down your argument, just pointing the facts as I see them.