Burnie vs Park Grove, TAS Suburb Comparison

Burnie for retirees and families; Park Grove for beach lifestyle and investment.

See which suburb leads on livability, safety, schools, and lifestyle.

Head to head

Visual comparison

BurniePark Grove

Overall score

Burnie

61.2/100

Park Grove

50.0/100

Crime rate

Burnie

50.0 / 1k

Park Grove

50.0 / 1k

Nearby amenities

Burnie

593

Park Grove

55

Population

Burnie

693

Park Grove

2,613

Metric leadBurnie 3Park Grove 62 tiedacross 11 compared metrics

Livability profile

Desirability pillars scored 0–100 vs comparable suburbs

Audience fit

Who each suburb suits — composite scores out of 100

All metrics

Side-by-side scores for every compared metric.

Full comparison table

Exact figures for every metric — winner highlighted in bold.

CategoryBurniePark Grove
Overall score61.2/10050.0/100
Housing (desirability)52.5/10056.1/100
Crime rate50.0 / 1k50.0 / 1k
Schools & preschools47
Weather (desirability)82.3/10082.3/100
Parks & reserves2—
Public transport stops911
Walkability83.5/10018.5/100
Nearby amenities59355
Green cover3.9%14.8%
Population6932,613
SEIFA (IRSAD decile)3/107/10

Comparison summary

Burnie is a regional smaller community that feels self-contained without feeling remote, while Park Grove is a coastal mid-sized suburb shaped by beach life and outdoor living. Park Grove leans into coastal living, while Burnie feels more inland and suburban in character.

Burnie tends to lead on walkability, nearby cafés and amenities, and overall desirability, while Park Grove stands out for housing affordability, schools and education options, and public transport access. On housing, Burnie sits in a affordable band, compared with a gently premium feel in Park Grove.

On balance, retirees, families, people chasing a beach lifestyle, investors, value-focused buyers, and households prioritising schools are more likely to prefer Park Grove, while Burnie remains a solid alternative depending on what matters most day to day.

Generated from the official metrics on this page. It can omit nuance or contain errors — check the tables and source notes before relying on it.

Related comparisons