Surely that qualifies you as a city no matter how isolated you are. It takes a lot of infrastucture, organization, cooperation, homes, businesses, goods and services to handle 1.7 million people.
If you got that 1.7 million people stat from Wikipedia, do look at numbers below it: population density 308 per square km, total surface: over 5000 square kilometer. Those are country numbers, not city numbers (Belgium as a whole has a higher population density than that, the Netherlands has nearly half again that). In other words: Perth has 1.7 million people because the definition of "Perth" is essentially "every populated place in Western Australia that isn't hundreds of kilometers away from the city centre".
For comparison's sake, if you take that kind of surface around Helsinki, you'd get close to the surface of the entire region of Uusimaa (I love Wikipedia), which has close to 1.5 million people in it.
But those are just quibbles that don't detract from you being right on the main point, clearly I did underestimate Perth's size.
The world's top ten and worst ten most livable cities
- 30/08/2011 07:06:50 PM
1437 Views
How do you call towns "cities"?
- 30/08/2011 08:12:27 PM
702 Views
I thought you were going to mention Perth. The rest are clearly cities, if you ask me.
- 30/08/2011 08:23:33 PM
687 Views
Perth has 1.7 million people.
- 30/08/2011 08:30:26 PM
846 Views
You kind of inadvertently prove the point...
- 30/08/2011 09:21:18 PM
915 Views
A million people isn't a city?
- 30/08/2011 08:28:20 PM
850 Views
Not necessarily.
- 30/08/2011 10:49:08 PM
813 Views
Re: Not necessarily.
- 30/08/2011 11:56:20 PM
832 Views
to meet their definition of best it also seems to help if you have mostly white
- 31/08/2011 01:52:11 PM
709 Views
Have you been to Toronto or Vancouver ?
- 31/08/2011 04:02:01 PM
725 Views
no but I have the internet and they meet the ethnic description I gave
- 31/08/2011 05:25:40 PM
825 Views
Yeah, I'm sorry, but you're fairly off with that one.
- 31/08/2011 04:52:25 PM
778 Views
OK you did see where I included Asians didn't you and I would call less than 2% significant
- 31/08/2011 05:31:45 PM
769 Views
As a comparison ...
- 30/08/2011 08:37:28 PM
878 Views
weather is a factor and three Canadian cities made the top ten?
- 30/08/2011 09:22:32 PM
844 Views
Vancouver at least has a nice climate.
- 30/08/2011 09:40:31 PM
970 Views
yeah there are not vey many US cities I would want to raise kids in
- 30/08/2011 11:16:52 PM
679 Views
Quality health care in the US, really?
- 31/08/2011 12:27:41 AM
805 Views
Also,
- 31/08/2011 12:53:00 PM
821 Views
no it works out that nicely for most people
- 31/08/2011 01:36:13 PM
781 Views
Getting care, getting timely care, getting quality care and paying for it are all different things.
- 31/08/2011 03:39:30 PM
947 Views
tha tis becuase the hospital is run by republicans and they were out to get you *NM*
- 31/08/2011 07:37:47 PM
532 Views
Livability obviously doesn't include "Concentration of Venomous Creatures". *NM*
- 30/08/2011 11:43:43 PM
401 Views
or perhaps Australian cities rank so high because they're so much better than the alternative
- 30/08/2011 11:58:47 PM
866 Views
Actually, the reason our cities are so liveable is because they're built to keep said creatures out
- 31/08/2011 12:59:01 AM
692 Views
How?
- 31/08/2011 08:20:01 AM
686 Views
I can't risk putting the answer on a public forum, the venomous creatures may find out
- 01/09/2011 07:26:52 AM
626 Views
Why no Boston?
*NM*
- 31/08/2011 12:16:28 AM
386 Views
*NM*
- 31/08/2011 12:16:28 AM
386 Views
Annoyingness of local sports fans was also taken into consideration. *NM*
- 31/08/2011 12:31:21 AM
487 Views
Obviously the study group consists of Yankees fans. Poor, unfortunate souls.
*NM*
- 31/08/2011 12:46:17 AM
365 Views
*NM*
- 31/08/2011 12:46:17 AM
365 Views
A low population density seems to be a key determinant in these rankings
- 31/08/2011 12:51:45 AM
667 Views
There is an obvious mistake
- 31/08/2011 03:07:31 AM
1005 Views
- 31/08/2011 03:07:31 AM
1005 Views



