POPULATION OF SYDNEY.

Manawatu Standard, Volume XLVI, Issue 24, 28 December 1925, Page 2

POPULATION OF SYDNEY.

ASTONISHING PROGRESS

POSITION AMONG EMPIRE CITIES.

SYDNEY, Dec. 17. Sydney is making most remarkable strides, and claim is made by the Sydney Morning Herald that the New South Wales metropolis now ranks next to London, excluding Bombay and Calcutta, with their largo coloured populations. Not many years ago Melbourne had a largbr population than any other Australian capital. Her growth at one period was indeed remarkable, but never so remarkable as Sydney’s development during the last 20 years. Take, for instance, tho figures of 1888 : Melbourne and suburbs .. 371,630 Sydney and suburbs ... 346,758 Into the “nineties” Melbourne still led, and then Sydney drew level, and since then has been speeding ahead, until now she ranks as tho largest city of the Empire outside the United Kingdom (excluding India) but, says tho Herald, if Sydney had her due with respect to area included in counting her population she would—and most people will be surprised to learn it—com© second only to London, for her actual metropolitan population, as will be shown later, is greater than that of Glasgow, which in the official tabulations; is the second city of the United Kingdom. If ono refers to the Commonwealth or State Year Books, h© will find the population figures for the year ended December 31, 1924, respectively set forth thus:—Sydney 1,012,070, Melbourne 885,700. The fact is that Sydney’s metropolitan population is considerably larger than the official figures indicate. Melbourne counts every soul within a 10 miles radius, taking in the populations of shires and municipalities wholly or partly within that ambit, as for example, Oakleigh, Preston, Sandringham, Williamstown and so on. Her population figures cover an area of 163,366 acres. Sydney,, for some remarkable reason, only includes in her metropolitan count an area of 118,299 acres, which leaves out many denselypopulated suburban areas that are actually part of the throbbing metropolis. Sydney’s population is, as wo have already stated, based on an area of only 118,299 acres, as compared with Melbourne’s area of 163,366 acres. To make Sydney’s area comparable with Melbourne wo have only to include municipalities, which the Melbourne area would take in. This adds 113,890 persons, and gives us the true comparison of populations:— Acreage. Population. Sydney ... 164,249 1,113,890 Melbourne 163,366 885,700 Glasgow’s population for 1924 was 1,051,000, and her rate of growth since 1921 has not been nearly so treat as that of Sydney. Thus it will e seen that, if Sydney’s metropolitan population were properly reckoned—or, at all events, were reckoned on the Melbourne basis, which is a fair enough one—she would stand to-day in the population lists as the Empire’s second white city. The Herald concludes: “We havo given the population count over approximately tho same area as Melbourne. It only remains to be added that there are still left out all tho townships of the Hornsby and Warringali shires, as well as those of tho Sutherland Shire.”