English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

There is so much more to Australia than these 2 capital cities. Besides these cities are not the true Australia. What about rural Australia. great barrier reef, desert, islands and the thousands of small towns with genuine aussies. The tourists really do miss out on the true Australia.

2007-04-08 22:49:57 · 12 answers · asked by jojammum48 4 in Travel Australia Sydney

12 answers

You and I both know there is much more to Australia than Sydney and Melbourne. The majority of questions about Sydney and Melbourne undoubtedly arise from the US. The average US citizen is geographically illiterate, not to mention blind to the political and social reality of the rest of the world. We should have compassion on them, and humour them, as our answers in this forum may, in some little way, gradually open their eyes to the rest of the world. Tell them about Sydney and Melbourne as politely as possible, and sneak in a mention of other delightful places and things to do . But, please, do not ever mention our crown jewels. Let them believe that Sydney and Melbourne is where the action is, maybe turn them loose on the polies in Canberra, but keep them in ignorance about Perth, Darwin, Cairnes, Brissie, Hobart, and the other delightful cities. Let's save our real jewels for Australians to enjoy!

2007-04-09 06:46:27 · answer #1 · answered by jpturboprop 7 · 0 0

Either city, really. It's a bit of a toss up decision. Both have good film schools. Both are international cities, and both cities are LGBT friendly with large gay scenes. Melbourne has very good public transportation. The city and suburbs are well serviced with trains, trams and buses. You wouldn't need a car if you live in Melbourne (unless you're in the outer suburbs but I would imagine you would live closer to the city where there are trams and the majority of internation students live). Sydney's public transportation is okay as well. For living, I would definitely choose Melbourne over Sydney. It's not quite as expensive to live in and it is the World's Most Liveable City, and there is more to see and do. Melbourne is a more artistic/creative, cosmopolitan, "happening" city, whereas Sydney is a more touristy, outdoors, "high life" kind of city. It also depends on what time of the year you will be in Australia as the weather can influence people's decisions. If it is from around October - April then I would choose Melbourne as it is hot and sunny (like Californian weather), if it is from May - September then I would choose Sydney, as although it is cool, it will be slightly warmer and sunnier than Melbourne.

2016-04-01 04:43:03 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Because those are the places people heard of the most - so they ask about them first because, regardless of where they are going once they get here, these two cities will be their first experience of Australia. At least these are "cities" - something in which they are more familair with. They know that they will not feel out of place - with all the mod cons but different enough for them to see Australia. At least from here, they can venture further out to the vast unknown of the outback.

That doesn't mean people are NOT interested in the other places. But overseas tourists are not going to post a question "I am going to Australia, can anyone tell me about Wagga Wagga?" , are they?

2007-04-09 01:21:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

If I go to Australia, I'd like to go to Ayer's Rock. If I could, I'd really like to get around to some of the smaller places, including the outback. I hate how Australians go on and on about Steve Irwin though. I want to meet some intelligent Australians who realize that, yes, someone who plays with dangerous animals may likely be killed by them. I'd like to catch a concert by Nick Cave or Midnight Oil. INXS are lame. The PM of Australia is a boring old conservative. I'd like to see that clamshell opera house in Sydney.

Maybe the people you're talking about just don't know any better. Maybe they're city-dwellers and can't stand to leave the city.

2007-04-08 22:56:22 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

In a realistic sense, most international flights land in one of those two cities... If you're going to come to Australia and you land in a city, why not look there before you move on to another place?

2007-04-09 13:09:28 · answer #5 · answered by purplebuggy 5 · 0 0

I agree totally with you, jojammum…

You can see big cities, much bigger than we have, all over the world.
Visitors really should go out and see what we have to offer.

Possibly, genuine Aussies might scare the socks off them.

2007-04-09 00:18:58 · answer #6 · answered by Hamish 4 · 0 0

because those are the 2 most exciting cities in Australia!

2007-04-08 23:11:12 · answer #7 · answered by Troy Girl 5 · 0 1

it's only normal. You can't see France without seeing Paris, or italy without Rome. although there is so much more to these countries, your major stop is always the big city.

2007-04-09 22:40:49 · answer #8 · answered by webby 5 · 0 0

when 2/3rds of the population live on the SE coast its pretty rich to call it "not the real australia".

2007-04-09 19:40:08 · answer #9 · answered by the atomic penguin 2 · 0 0

Tourists don't need to ask "I'm going to Uluru - what can I see there?" Few serious travellers would do their research on Yahoo Answers.

2007-04-09 16:33:51 · answer #10 · answered by moblet 4 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers