Capital Cities in Google Terrain View

I was reading a thread on Adelaide and @DaveM mentioned Google Terrain view which I wasn't familiar with. Looked up the capital cities. Which city looks like it's tightest for unused land that's suitable for large scale development?

Obviously unsuitable terrain isn't the only reason land might not be available for development (used for agriculture, limited by UGB) and there are other factors to consider e.g. immigration levels (one state may have much less land, but far lower immigration). Thought it may make an interesting discussion point though. Hobart and Adelaide look the tightest from a macro perspective using terrain only (in my opinion)...

Here's a link to the view with terrain turned on:

https://www.google.com.au/maps/plac...ec640!8m2!3d-34.9284989!4d138.6007456!5m1!1e4

& the capital city maps:

Adelaide



Brisbane



Canberra



Darwin



Hobart



Melbourne



Perth



Sydney



Anyone care to share reasons that large swathes of land nearby the other capitals might not be suitable for development?

 

Adelaide doesn't have any, its completely landlocked by a legislative boundary

 

And where it has open infill eg around southern expressway is restricted either due to contamination or fault lines

 

3D Google Earth rendering is another tool that helps understand natural topography. Adelaide, Brisbane, Perth, and (most of) Metro Melbourne have been rendered already. Unfortunately Sydney, Hobart, Darwin haven't yet.

Handy though when understanding the relative height of things surrounding and properties one might be contemplating. E.g. water towers, trees, neighbouring houses perched on hills etc...

 

I only buy in rising topography markets

 

To you have to be on the ground?