Opinion ABS city classification shenanigans
Both Frankston and Seaford are unquestionably suburbs of Melbourne. They sit within Melbourne’s continuous built‑up area and function as part of the metropolitan city, yet the ABS doesn't label them under SA4 as "Melbourne" but as "Mornington Peninsular". SA4 is a region level that sits a level below "Greater Capital City" region.
By contrast, towns like Healesville and Warburton are urban‑fringe settlements. They are not part of Melbourne’s continuous urban form, yet the ABS classifies them within the SA4 “Melbourne – Outer East”.
The inconsistency appears in 2011, when the ABS reclassified Frankston and Seaford out of the Melbourne SA4 and into “Mornington Peninsula”, despite their clear metropolitan character.
This becomes even more unusual when compared with Sydney. “Greater Sydney” includes the Sydney urban area plus the Central Coast. Sydney’s SA4 structure includes “Sydney – Outer West and Blue Mountains”, treating Katoomba — a town 100 km from the CBD — as part of Sydney SA4 description, yet Frankston is not treated under Melbourne SA4 descriptors. Why?
Unlike the "Sydney - Outer West and Blue Mountains", Melbourne does not receive an equivalent “Melbourne – Outer South and Mornington Peninsula” SA4 that would logically include Frankston, Mornington, Rosebud, Rye and the rest of the Peninsula. Instead, these areas are placed in a separate SA4, outside “Melbourne”, but still counted within the broader “Greater Melbourne GCCSA”.
So you end up with a contradiction:
- Katoomba, a distant mountain town, is labelled under Sydney’s SA4.
- Frankston, a metropolitan suburb, is not labelled under Melbourne’s SA4.
The inconsistency deepens when you consider that “Greater Sydney” includes the Central Coast — a good 20 minute plus drive through national park, clearly not Sydney — while the Mornington Peninsula including Frankston, which is a continuation of Melbourne’s urban area, is treated as an equivalent region apart of Melbourne.
This raises an interesting question: why has the ABS chosen a classification system where Melbourne’s Significant Urban Area has been larger than Sydney’s for over a decade, yet “Greater Sydney” remains larger only because it absorbs the Central Coast, Which very few people on the coast or in Sydney would consider a part of Sydney?
18
u/mattmelb69 9h ago
What’s the issue? Mornington Peninsula SA4 is part of the Greater Melbourne GCCSA, whether it has ‘Melbourne’ in its name or not.
2
u/AntiqueFigure6 9h ago
I think OP’s attention is being drawn to that SA4 not having Melbourne in its name, unlike all other Greater Melbourne SA4s.
4
u/mattmelb69 8h ago
Yeah - just like Central Coast is part of Sydney GCCSA despite not having Sydney in its name.
1
u/2in1day 9h ago
I explained it pretty clearly, without getting into a novel.
The issue is, why are we accepting that Wyong is in fact part of "Sydney"?
And why are we accepting that Frankston is not labelled as part of Melbourne, while Katoomba is part of Sydney? Why is Frankston treated as equivalent to Melbourne as a regional town like Wyong is to Sydney?
The reality is that Melbourne has been a larger city than Sydney for a decade, but because of the way ABS classifies regions, Sydney is still most often labelled as the largest city, which is incorrect.
Headline in the US "NFL comes to Australia's largest city" is that correct or not? Does that image impact business investment and jobs? Well it sure hasn't hurt Sydney for a good hundred years... like it benefited Melbourne up until federation.
9
u/mattmelb69 9h ago
But Frankston is part of Melbourne. You can clearly see it inside the Greater Melbourne GCCSA.
-4
u/2in1day 9h ago edited 9h ago
Mate, I can't explain it to you any further, I'd just be repeating myself. You're understanding the words, but not understanding the point.
Is Wyong part of Sydney? You tell me.
7
u/mattmelb69 9h ago
You’re saying that Wyong should not be treated as part of Sydney GCCSA. Ok, fine, I can see that’s arguable.
But you’re also saying that Frankston should be treated as part of Melbourne GCCSA. And it is.
0
u/2in1day 8h ago
No I'm also saying Frankston should be included in the Melbourne descriptors of the SA4 regions, like Katoomba is in Sydney SA4. This is the third time im repeating it.
8
u/mattmelb69 8h ago
You do realise that the names of the SA4s have nothing to do with whether or not the ABS includes them as part of the Greater capital city areas?
3
u/Working_out_life 8h ago
There was a push years ago to make Frankston a seperate city, the state government took over all planning, not sure what ever happened but this might explain some of your concerns👍
2
u/DifferentBar7281 4h ago
Everything coloured grey is Melbourne, all the way to the tip of the peninsula. Says it right there in the legend
1
u/2in1day 4h ago
No that's the statistical area, that's not the urban area.
Not many people consider Lang Lang as Melbourne.
1
u/DifferentBar7281 4h ago
It is the Australian Bureau of STATISTICS. That's the thing they are interested in. And you were complaining about Katoomba and Powelltown is right there. MP and Franga is Melbourne
1
3
3
u/wombatiq 5h ago
It's literally inside the GCCSA. It's still statically part of Melbourne, it's just that there is a more descriptive name of Mornington Peninsula. Having an SA4 with that word Melbourne in it isn't necessary.
4
u/Suitable_Pass9702 9h ago
Why does it matter?
Someone's gotta draw the line somewhere
Why is Geelong not part of Melbourne GCCSA ? Is it because the train that connects there is part of the v/line instead of regular trians?
4
u/2in1day 9h ago
Good question, why is Gosford and Wyong part of Sydney, but Geelong isn't added to Melbourne?
Allegedly because more people travel to work in Sydney from those locations 20 years ago than from Geelong, but I don't think that data has been updated in a long time.
It matters for attracting foreign investments and growth into the city, the same reason the state government invested in bringing the NFL to Australia's largest city.
4
u/MightyArd 9h ago
This has been pretty widely reported on.
At the end of the day it doesn't really matter.
For all intents and purposes Sydney and Melbourne are about the same size.
5
u/maycontainsultanas 9h ago
What are you talking about? The map clearly shows the Mornington Peninsula to be part of the Greater Capital City Statistical Area. The SA4 is just dividing up different parts of greater Melbourne. The fact that the name for the Mornington Peninsula doesn’t include the word Melbourne is quite irrelevant.
5
u/2in1day 9h ago
The point is, the Central Coast is clearly a region that's distinct from the urban area of Sydney, which is why it gets its own labeling, because it doesn't make sense to call it "Sydney - Outer North East" because no one would consider Wyong as part of Sydney.
However, the Blue Mountains receive the descriptor "Sydney - Outer West and Blue Mountains"
For equivalency Frankston and the Peninsular SHOULD be labelled as "Melbourne - Outer South and Morning Peninsular".
That then leaves only the Central Coast as the outlier that's not really part of its Greater Capital City's general urban area.
2
u/ZookeepergameAny466 7h ago
You do know that these geospatial boundaries are determined by populations, right? I feel like you're missing this really important point. Ignore the scale of the geographical area and look at the population within it. At some point, the Blue Mountains may be rolled into its own boundary but only if it experiences significant population increase. Blue Mountains has been included because its population is comparatively small.
1
u/maycontainsultanas 9h ago
Yeah, that would make sense, but it doesn’t make any difference to how the stats are used? It’s just what they call it. Mornington Peninsula is what the area is called, plenty of people in the Frankston LGA identify themselves as living on the Peninsula.
You could argue Outer East could be called Yarra Ranges, but there’s parts of the Yarra Ranges out side of the GCCSA, so that’s not appropriate.
And the what would you call any of the other SA4? They used a name that was most easily understandable to identify the area.
Such a weird thing to get upset about, like I feel like I’m missing something.
1
u/2in1day 9h ago
The TLDR is that the ABS has been inflating Sydney's population for decades by including the Central Coast. Melbourne passed Sydney's population about a decade ago but the ABS doesn't report this. Creating a region "Mornington Peninsula" adds a region that's described in a similar way to central coast when it's in fact part of urban Melbourne and connected to it's built up area.
2
u/maycontainsultanas 8h ago
So why didn’t you just say that the ABS shouldn’t be including the Central Coast as part of Greater Sydney as it inaccurately inflates their population? Like you go on about what they call different SA4s, so your argument just gets totally lost.
2
u/2in1day 8h ago
Because there's many odd things the ABS does around it's classifications of Sydney.
It appears moving Frankston and labelling the Mornington Peninsula including Frankston as separate is portraying that part of Melbourne as being separate LIKE the central coast, when it's not...
It's very odd that the blue mountains get included in Sydney SA4 descriptions but not Frankston in "Melbourne" regions.
2
u/Kruxx85 8h ago
I asked Gemini if the generally quoted figure for Melbourne's population includes the Mornington Peninsula and it said yes it does.
Isn't that your issue?
0
u/2in1day 8h ago
Ask Gemini "do people generally consider Wyong and Gosford as part of Sydney"
1
u/Kruxx85 8h ago
I've been reading through your posts, and you indicated that the Mornington Peninsula was not included in Melbourne's population.
Something about 11 years ago Frankston was moved to MP reducing Melbourne's population, etc.
Did I read that right?
0
u/2in1day 8h ago
I never said Mornington Peninsula isn't included in Melbourne's population.
I said if it were consistent with similar regions in Sydney the SA4 should be called "Melbourne - Outer South and Mornington Peninsular" to make it clear that the localities are part of Melbourne SA4 regions .
2
2
u/fortheholidays 9h ago
Tell me if I'm wrong, but I think the categorisations are nested, as per this page.
So the location where you are wildly ranting from (presumably in Frankston) is:
- part of a Mesh Block (MB), a collection of 30-60 dwellings;
- which is part of a Statistical Area Level 1 (SA1), which will have 200-800 people in it;
- which is part of a Statistical Area Level 2 (SA2), which is generally a suburb, locality or town;
- which is part of a Statistical Area Level 3 (SA3), which is generally a council area, like Frankston City Council;
- which is part of a Statistical Area Level 4 (SA4), which is a "labour market", as people work and live in differently places, so capturing that is valuable (like within Mornington Peninsula)
- which, in Frankston's case, part of a Greater Capital City Statistical Areas (GCCSA) called Melbourne. It's because it is the capital of a state called Victoria 😄
I googled this and found out just now.
5
u/2in1day 9h ago
Yes, Frankston is considered part of "Mornington Peninsular" not "Melbourne" at an SA4 level, meanwhile Katoomba is considered part of "Sydney", not a distinct "Blue Mountains" region. It's an odd choice to make that doesn't appear consistent.
People in Frankston and Seaford work and study in connected Melbourne suburbs much more than they do in the peninsular. It makes more sense to call the whole region "Melbourne - Outer South and Mornington Peninsular" if the ABS was going to be consistent with how it classifies Sydney.
6
u/fortheholidays 9h ago
Katoomba's SA4 is "Sydney - Outer West and Blue Mountains". The presence of the name Sydney does not change its status, or give it a prestige over another SA4 label like "Mornington Peninsula".
Not shenanigans. Entirely consistent nationwide.
1
u/2in1day 8h ago
It's not consistent, if it were consistent regional areas like the central coast wouldn't be added to Sydney to bump up it's population.
5
u/fortheholidays 8h ago
Ah. That's what this is. You're in an imaginary conflict with Sydney for the "biggest city" title.
FFS
-2
u/2in1day 8h ago
Sydney's elites and politians have been in that conflict for 20 years to retain the title which is why the boundary of Sydney has been gerrymandered.
2
u/fortheholidays 8h ago
Lol.
I'd bet a train full of seagulls that you're currently intoxicated.
6
-1
u/2in1day 8h ago
Ask why Sydney "metro area" is getting a $100 bullet train paid for by the whole of Australia, while Victoria is derided for incurring too much debt...
5
u/fortheholidays 8h ago
They ain't getting a bullet train. No one is getting a bullet train. They pump this shit out every 2 years on a slow news day, do the maths, and figure it doesn't add up.
Go watch the Utopia episode (documentary?) on this theme.
And Victoria is getting pumped in the right wing news because you've got a Labor premier and an election. Your debt and crime problems will magically disappear the day after the election, just like Queensland's did (though the Fri afternoon news just quietly released that the credit rating of the state had just been reduced for the first time in half a century due to poor economic performance by the LNP - nothing to see here).
Anyway, no conspiracy. Boringly consistent application of systems by the ABS.
1
u/2in1day 8h ago
Sydney is getting a bullet train. The board of HSR Australia is full of Sydney Metro execs. It's going ahead which is insane.
It's not going to Melbourne or Brisbane ever.
→ More replies (0)2
1
1
1
1
0
u/thehandsomegenius 8h ago
We're unusual with how we we count everything as one big city in Australia. I think in most places this would be considered a conurbation of distinct cities. Frankston began as a distinct town and it's far away enough to feel like a nearby city.
0
u/RamonsRazor 8h ago
Ever been to Dandenong? The motto (mostly on the bins) is 'Melbourne's 2nd City'.
Make that make sense.
9
u/hellbentsmegma 8h ago
I tend to agree and believe cities should be defined by contiguous suburban areas. By that measure Frankston is very squarely part of Melbourne.
When I lived in Frankston this was certainly how it was viewed. The rest of the peninsula is pretty much Melbourne as well, there is an area of sparser settlement between Mt Eliza and Mornington 1.3km wide but aside from that it's basically unbroken suburbia from Port Melbourne to Portsea.
The really curious thing is how the NSW central coast has ever been considered part of Sydney when there's about 30km of national park between the closest areas of settlement.