nzlockie:
They are hardly cities though. They are what we in America would call towns. Apia only has 30,000 people, and is agriculture based. Honolulu has about 400,000, 40 skyscrapers, and is a hub for industry.
I don't know why you would think Apia is more developed, as its not a city. Its entirely expected for a place to so small to be developed. I can't agree with the statement, as I don't believe in the premise...
* given the lack of populated areas in Oceania outside of australia meeting the population requirements for a "City", I've extended the premise somewhat.
nzlockie:
In fact, in Oceania out of all the state capitals/largest cities that I've visited, I'd say the only ones that Honolulu beats are Auckland, Wellington, and Darwin.
nzlockie:
Honolulu does indeed beat the "cities" of the Micronesian, Samoan, and other atolls. If the other cities were as industrialized, than we would see a populous much higher than Honolulu. The fact that Honolulu, a city on a small cramped push between the mountains, is bigger than the "majority" of cities in Oceania counts for something. I think tourism revenues to Australia mask that of most other destinations
Priest of Swag:
What's your population required for this exercise?
nzlockie:
I would say a city, in terms of western, asian, african, and middle eastern spheres, would be at least 60,000, and in the US, we still consider that a town.
