2006-08-13 00:27:58 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Travel ➔ United Kingdom ➔ London
Melbourne is younger (meaning a more advanced heritage), with a behind the times upkeep on their advances (meaning less advanced frontrunners). London is a relatively ancient city, with it's 1000 year old buildings still standing, but it's also richer which means far more advanced frontrunners of tech. What this means is that if you divide the difference between the more advanced frontrunners with the difference between the more advanced heritage, it should work out to be about the same.
As for beautiful, everyone who has read poetry knows that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and a rose by any other name would smell as sweet. Forget the names. Do you like really old buildings wired with the latest gear, or newer buildings wired with last year's gear, or second hand tech from London (it's not really like that, I'm exaggerating and generalising)?
2006-08-13 04:55:56 · answer #1 · answered by Bawn Nyntyn Aytetu 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
London, would give anything( except the 400 quid that costs the trip) to go to London. Still THere are more pricks in London than in Melbourne, so can't decide, Melbourne sounds really great, ....my heart .....with the Brits????
2006-08-13 00:46:39 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Melbourne. And they have the weather to go with it as well.
2006-08-13 00:32:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Melbourne is more beautiful.
2006-08-13 00:32:03 · answer #4 · answered by angrychik 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
melburne...since the UK is dark and dingy
2006-08-13 00:35:27 · answer #5 · answered by Roxy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋