Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Simple enough, but based upon natural, not man made beauty. More emphasis can be placed on immediate setting, and closer in stuff, but anything within 100 km. certainly contributes.
The cities up for consideration are:
-Melbourne
-Sydney
-Brisbane
-Auckland
All are good, but which is best? Criteria to consider would include
-Mountains
-Geologic Features (cliffs, waterfalls, valleys/Geothermal Activity
-Vineyards
-Forests/Greenery
-Variations in Landscape
-Beaches/Coastline
-Urban Parks/Green Spaces
My vote is for Auckland, but each is quite good in their own way.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,734 posts, read 23,720,801 times
Reputation: 14591
No experience with any of them, but if I were to pick a city to visit out of the bunch based on the most scenic setting within its surroundings, I'd go with Sydney because it already has a spectacular harbor/seaside setting within and around it. I'd imagine Brisbane within 100km likely has the best beaches all around. When I think of Melbourne I think of history/culture/urban things, not really scenery. Not very familiar with Auckland and it is a very nice looking and photogenic looking city; but I seem to separates it a bit from the idyllic New Zealand mountain coastal scenery as most of that iconic stuff is on the South Island where Auckland is north island which isn't quite as dramatic in terms of terrain. My two cents based on reading and photos, would be interested in hearing a different take from one who has experienced them.
Thank you for your thoughts! I have been to Auckland most significantly, so I suppose I have somewhat of a bias there. Here are some places that are well known within an hour (though I would agree, the South Island is more majestic, which is REALLY saying something):
Edit: One correction. Tongariro National Park (aka Mordor) is actually on the North Island. It is about 4 hours from Auckland, and is definitely of the star attractions of the place. That being said, I'd still agree the south is more rugged and mind blowing overall, natural scenery wise (though the north counters with better weather)
Last edited by theurbanfiles; 08-06-2017 at 01:06 PM..
I have no idea which is best, though Brisbane is way under rated in my opinion. Even growing up in south qld, I heard very little about the islands off the coast and the forest coveted hills and moutains of the hinterland areas.
I spent my easter camping in this park 90km from Brisbane.
When it comes to the OVERALL beauty of natural scenery(based on the above criteria OP listed), I'd have to say Australia comes behind the US, Canada, New Zealand, and even Ireland.
When it comes to the OVERALL beauty of natural scenery(based on the above criteria OP listed), I'd have to say Australia comes behind the US, Canada, New Zealand, and even Ireland.
I feel the same way. Australia has a lot of nice places to see, but does come short when compared to those other countries.
I feel the same way. Australia has a lot of nice places to see, but does come short when compared to those other countries.
Um I may be biased , but Auckland wins for me. But sydney would be very close behind.
Auckland has got not one but two harbours so basically any part of the city has a coastline. Then there are both the hunua and waitakere ranges which both have mountains/rainforests/waterfalls etc. There are also all the offshore Islands eg waiheke with alot of vineyards and then there are the othe 50 volcanoes! which are throughout the city and have really nice views and parks.
Sydney got its harbour which I think is really nice aswell and the blue mountains
And ummm well both Melbourne and Brisbane seem pretty crap for natural environment. Both are built on relatviely flat areas with a dirty river flowing through LOL!
Um I may be biased , but Auckland wins for me. But sydney would be very close behind.
Auckland has got not one but two harbours so basically any part of the city has a coastline. Then there are both the hunua and waitakere ranges which both have mountains/rainforests/waterfalls etc. There are also all the offshore Islands eg waiheke with alot of vineyards and then there are the othe 50 volcanoes! which are throughout the city and have really nice views and parks.
Sydney got its harbour which I think is really nice aswell and the blue mountains
And ummm well both Melbourne and Brisbane seem pretty crap for natural environment. Both are built on relatviely flat areas with a dirty river flowing through LOL!
Those place do look nice and I take back what I said about Brisbane being boring, but still prefer Auckland and Sydney.
Still think Melbounre is crap though
No problems as mentioned before even some locals are sometimes unaware of what is around Brisbane. It might be the fact that the gold coast beaches are so close and get most of the publicity, I'd be the first to acknowledge that mountains and rainforests are not normally associated with Brisbane.
MI'd love to get to Auckland one day and have a look for myself, I'm sure the area is beautiful.
Last edited by danielsa1775; 08-10-2017 at 01:38 AM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
, but Auckland wins for me. But sydney would be very close behind.
which are throughout the city and have really nice views and parks.
