More about the Author
Glenn is a Census data expert, having worked at the Australian Bureau of Statistics for 10 years and at .id fo...
View Full Profile »When preparing my last blog “Perth’s population – a story of economic boom”, I initially made a statement which I’ve long believed, though I forgot where I heard it. That is the “fact” that Perth is the most remote city of more than a million people on Earth. It seems right (certainly a long flight from Sydney or Melbourne and then it’s the Indian Ocean for many thousands of km in the other direction!) It’s been quoted about the place, and I’ve always taken it at face value.
So I checked it. Turns out, it’s false.
This Wikipedia article states that this meme came from Bill Bryson in his book Down Under, but says that it was originally about cities of more than 500,000, which isn’t how I originally heard it, it was definitely a million.
The nearest city of over 1 million (or 500,000) to Perth is Adelaide, which is 2,104km away as the (Adelaide) crow flies.
If you use 1 million population as the criterion, the most remote city in the world is actually Auckland, New Zealand. Auckland is 2,153km from Sydney, and with no other million cities in New Zealand, Sydney is the closest to Auckland. This is 49km further than Adelaide to Perth.
If you use 500,000 people as the criterion, which the original statement apparently did, then Honolulu, population 953,000 in the 2010 Census wins hands-down, having about three-quarters of the population of Hawaii and being 3,841km from San Francisco the closest large city. Not only that, Honolulu’s population is rapidly growing towards the 1 million mark, and then there can be no argument.
Maybe Bill Bryson was referring to road distance, in which case it’s about 2,600km from Adelaide to Perth. But in that case, it’s hardly fair to Honolulu or Auckland which you can’t drive to from the next equivalent size city.
Maybe it’s all about a feeling of remoteness? Certainly Perth feels more remote than Auckland, which has many other significant sized centres in New Zealand within a few hundred km, while most of the other centres in WA require a flight to reach from Perth, or a very very long drive.
As always, definitions of these things are tricky – while these sort of demographic statements can ring true, it doesn’t mean they’re always correct – anyway I won’t be using that particular meme again!
2011 Census data will be released on 21 June 2012. Do check out this space or join us on twitter @dotid if you would like to receive more updates about the Census or information about demographic and economic trends. You may also like to visit us at id.com.au where you can access our demographic resource centre.
Mythbusting – love it!
I have to admit, I’ve always thought it was a strange claim, and assumed it was related to remoteness due to the large size of the Australian land mass.
Back in the days before Perth had a population exceeding 1 million, it used to be said that it was the most isolated/remote capital city. There was no mention of population. I remember hearing this back in the late ’70s or early ’80s.
So it’s obviously been around for a while then – But Honolulu would still have qualified on that score, as the state capital of Hawaii in the USA.
Similar to Anthony’s point, perhaps it may have been before Auckland’s population reached a million. Hence the most remote city of over a million people would have been Perth till Auckland’s population reached that mark. However, since most people in Australia remembered that fact, no one bothered to update their info. Much like the tag line of Melbourne being the world’s ‘most livable city’. It’s oft repeated but not always reflected in recent surveys.
Good thinking – Perth’s population hit 1 million in the late 1970s, while Auckland didn’t get there until about 1993, so it could’ve been at that time. Would’ve been splitting hairs though (but then Auckland’s only slightly more remote than Perth anyway).
Interesting statistics.
More can be made from this topic.
For example, let’s see what major countries can be reached from the respective cities in question by air to further qualify the most remote city status.
Perth can reach:
Indonesia 3-4hours.
Singapore-5hours
Most large S.E. Asian cities within 6 hours.
Africa 10-11 hours.
The middle East 10-11hours.
Most cities on the East coast of Australia within 4.5-5.5 hours.Shorter to Adelaide.
When I look at this, and look at where you can reach from Auckland within these times, I have to say the Auckland would have to be far more remote than Perth.
I would conclude that Peth is the most remote Australian city from other capital cities, but I don’t think the “most remote city” in the world is correct.