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.
Thanks for the ideas and suggestions so far! I figured people would tell me to skip one or two of these cities and spend more time elsewhere, but visiting cities is one of the main reasons I travel. I have a website where I photograph cities, so I would like to spent at least some time in each of these places even if I am not able to see all the attractions. Obviously I think we will spent the most time in Sydney, but the other cities may have to be shorter visits.
From what I have seen, Perth looks like a city we would really love. We like large, but easy to navigate cities with a high quality of life and Perth really seems to be a city we would enjoy even though it's so far. So I might spend only a day or two in a city like Brisbane and spend several days on the west coast.
For example, while we love Paris, we actually enjoy Rotterdam more on a trip last year. We prefer Amsterdam over London (even though London is amazing).
This is why I'm trying to fly into NZ and out of Western Australia (or vise versa) so we can work our way across without backtracking.
I still hope to have time to fit in at least some time in the more remote areas of New Zealand and Australia. We can just spend a day or two in Auckland and go to the South Island for a day or two.
However a true visit to the "outback" may be a challenge. Is Kangaroo Island worth a visit on the way to Perth?
Also, we are forced to travel in June or July. It doesn't seem like winter is all that bad there, but is there a better month of the two? Is the weather generally pretty clear with blue skies in the winter or is it lots of rain and overcast? Is the vegetation still relatively green?
Thanks again for any help.
Sounds like much of your trip will be spent dealing with airports and flying on planes. The distances involved for all of this is significant. If you are only going to New Zealand to spend a day or two, the juice is not worth the squeeze. The South Island is not a day trip. If you don't mind that much traveling and flights, then you'll be happy. If you actually want to be able to see stuff and do stuff, then you'll be disappointed. If you take for instance going to Perth, getting out into the actual Outback is a significant trip. It's like going from Los Angeles to Utah, except there are few roads and civilization to assist your quest and that's just to get you to the edge of it.
Keep in mind that Australia and New Zealand only took in a lot of immigration after WW2, so much of the two countries are relatively unpopulated and newly developed. The cities are very spread out(not bad in my opinion) but I think for some people expecting the classic style cities of Europe with their long histories are going to be disappointed.
I think I've noted, one would be hard pushed to visit Australia to get much out of city tourism, outside of Sydney, on such a limited time schedule as the OP has.
Just the fact they mentioned cities of the nature of London, Paris, Amsterdam , even Rotterdam is suggestive that the vibe, one suspects was so captivating in those locations, will be disappointing if the urban experience is primary being sought after. Australia, is not really about that. It is about nature, flora and fauna, long distances between places, outback experiences, but if cities are your thing, I'd seriously go elsewhere.
Perhaps they could consider adding Tasmania . Keep in mind that Hobart is a beautiful little city with more of its colonial architecture intact than anywhere else, I think. From there the bush is readily accessible, though not so much a classic outback experience. It will be cold in June/July but so will be and Perth and Melbourne.
It all depends specifically what the OP is looking for. I find parts of Sydney fascinating. One street I know in Randwick, probably typical of many others, reveals so much of the city's history. There is a row of preserved Victorian mansions alongside ugly sixties walkup apartments, while opposite are Californian bungalows next to recent villas and townhouses. An aesthetic mess but the story of our city.
Perth is probably a nice city for living, but having had a week there recently visiting friends, there is not a great deal to see. Fremantle is interesting for a half day, as is the main Park. Found it much more expensive than Sydney for restaurants.
Actually I think that Canberra is more interesting than Perth and Brisbane. It is worth a day or two just to see the contrasts between there and the rest of our cities.
Keep in mind that Australia and New Zealand only took in a lot of immigration after WW2, so much of the two countries are relatively unpopulated and newly developed. The cities are very spread out(not bad in my opinion) but I think for some people expecting the classic style cities of Europe with their long histories are going to be disappointed.
There is still history in Australian cities - and the further we move in time, the older that history gets. People say Australia is young, but it's only young relative to Europe. It's been a bustling society for long enough now, and as you pointed out, the flavours of multiculturalism arrived as recently as 50-60 years ago to shape the place it is today. Even before the immigration influx of the 1960s, it was a mostly white successful Colonial outpost.
If you mean "classic style" in the sense of architecture, you only need to Google "Lost Sydney" and "Lost Melbourne" for an idea on how grand & opulent these cities were. Both Sydney and Melbourne have remnants of the past, some well preserved old buildings, as does Adelaide which is nestled halfway between the west and east coast.
I enjoy modern cities as much as historic ones. While we plan to see some nature there, it's probably not going to be the main reason we visit. We will probably spend more time in NZ for nature. I'm hoping we can spend several days in NZ.
Having been all over mainland USA (including extensive travel in the Rockies etc), all the beaches from CA to TX to FL plus Hawaii and to Canada (including British Columbia), Switzerland etc, I honestly don't think rural Australia will be all that impressive or at least won't be worth the time and cost to see areas such as the outback. I would love to do it, but it's just not going to be in the cards on this trip. The cities are the priority and whatever we can see within short trip of the cities. That's why I mentioned Kangaroo Island etc.
We also would like to make a stopover in Dubai or maybe Singapore on the way there or on the way back.
Canberra is small, but has some monumental architecture and a layout that comes from being a very top down planned city, so you may find that interesting for photography purposes (as I hear it's not that interesting overall), plus it's fairly little travel time from Sydney or Melbourne. You'll probably want a bit of height though to really capture the master plan aspect of it.
If you mean "classic style" in the sense of architecture, you only need to Google "Lost Sydney" and "Lost Melbourne" for an idea on how grand & opulent these cities were. Both Sydney and Melbourne have remnants of the past, some well preserved old buildings, as does Adelaide which is nestled halfway between the west and east coast.
True, but keep in mind that in 1850 Australia's population was only about 400,000, and by the time of the gold rushes in the 1860s it was still only around 1million.
There is still history in Australian cities - and the further we move in time, the older that history gets. People say Australia is young, but it's only young relative to Europe. It's been a bustling society for long enough now, and as you pointed out, the flavours of multiculturalism arrived as recently as 50-60 years ago to shape the place it is today. Even before the immigration influx of the 1960s, it was a mostly white successful Colonial outpost.
If you mean "classic style" in the sense of architecture, you only need to Google "Lost Sydney" and "Lost Melbourne" for an idea on how grand & opulent these cities were. Both Sydney and Melbourne have remnants of the past, some well preserved old buildings, as does Adelaide which is nestled halfway between the west and east coast.
Limited history. Multiculturalism kicked in far later than sixty years ago. At late as the seventies, Australia retained its position as one of the more homogeneous countries . Obviously remnants of the past remain, but take Perth, as an example. The destruction of the past during the seventies especially, when developers held sway, was pure vandalism.
I was shocked when after many years, revisited Melbourne and saw how that city had transformed its buildings.
History while now protected, is too much the case of the bolting the gate after the horses have fled. One would not visit Australia for history.
Australia is not only young compared to Europe by all Continents. Hasn't USA preserved its history more intact?
Limited history. Multiculturalism kicked in far later than sixty years ago. At late as the seventies, Australia retained its position as one of the more homogeneous countries . Obviously remnants of the past remain, but take Perth, as an example. The destruction of the past during the seventies especially, when developers held sway, was pure vandalism.
I was shocked when after many years, revisited Melbourne and saw how that city had transformed its buildings.
History while now protected, is too much the case of the bolting the gate after the horses have fled. One would not visit Australia for history.
Australia is not only young compared to Europe by all Continents. Hasn't USA preserved its history more intact?
When i have been in Australia i have been struck how Australian cities, very much like U.S. cities, have obliterated much of their architectural history. So many cities there and here are just forests of highrises. I was particularly impressed by Fremantle and to a lesser extent by Hobart for keeping a large portion of their downtowns full of history still.
The U.S. like Australia has also torn down much of its history in its large cites. New York city especially is notorious in this regard (but still remnants in Greenwich Village, Soho, and Brookln Heights). But there are a fair amount of smaller cities that still retain strong historic vestiges and are therefore very attractive. Santa Fe, Charleston, Savannah, Santa Barbara, French quarter in New Orleans, and others.
In regards to New Zealand, Auckland is the business end of NZ. Unless you have business to transact there, it's a pretty boring city. Some of the North Island is scenic and easy enough to drive around. The South Island is more scenic, more tourist oriented and more fun. I always prefer the South Island
In regards to Auckland being boring couldn't disagree more.
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.
