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.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14670
I would say Seattle, as it has mountain ranges on both sides of the city. Cascades to the east and Olympics to the west which makes for gorgeous sunrises and sunsets. Mount Rainier dominates the southern horizon and is an awesome sight to behold. Seattle also has a lot of waterfront, throw in some steep hills, a pretty skyline, lots evergreen trees and you have yourself a hell of a beautiful city.
Vancouver also matches Seattles beauty in simalar ways as the mountains are a stones throw from the city.
Salt Lake City is a close runner up, the Wasatch mountains rise a mere few blocks from the Utah state house.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,753 posts, read 23,828,256 times
Reputation: 14670
Hmmm.... interesting poll selections. Cincinnatti has got hills, definitely not mountains. Pittsburgh and Charleston WV have big hills, but not mountains.
Albuquerque has spectacular mountains on the edge of town, and Vancouver (very famous mountain setting) was missed.
Location: Austin, TX/Chicago, IL/Houston, TX/Washington, DC
10,138 posts, read 16,053,483 times
Reputation: 4047
Seattle, Tucson, San Diego (my three favorite cities), Los Angeles, San Francisco, Phoenix, Albuquerque, El Paso, I think all of them can claim the title, they all have a little bit of diversity in their look, so I personally think any of them can claim the win for this.
Honorable Mention: Portland/Denver (to a lesser degree)
07-07-2010, 03:27 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 10 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,921,991 times
Reputation: 4052
I picked Seattle, Washington.
I also agree with what Caphillsea said about Seattle, WA and Vancouver, BC.
However, there are other great things about both of those cities and its definitely NOT ONLY their natural setting and scenery. I think some people seem to forget that related to Seattle and Vancover.
Im sure Caphillsea would agree about that.
But still, even if Seattle and Vancouver were great only for their natural scenery and setting, that still makes them great.
And also, the mountain scenery cant be seen every day of the year from Seattle itself because of certain reasons that block the mountain scenery views from Seattle. Im sure some can guess what I am referring to.
Last edited by ; 07-07-2010 at 03:47 AM..
07-07-2010, 03:54 AM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 10 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,921,991 times
Reputation: 4052
Now I will respond to some cities on the poll from top to bottom:
Los Angeles: I like the mountain backdrop Los Angeles has but the mountain landscapes around it can seem too dry and barren. It does look better with some snow on top.
A lot of days the smog and pollution in the Los Angeles area can prevent someone from seeing the mountain scenery from LA, I heard from some.
I still think I prefer Seattle's and Vancouver's mountains around them compared to Los Angeles.
Portland, Oregon: Compared to its Pacific Northwestern neighbors, Seattle and Vancouver(BC), Portland doesnt really have a mountain backdrop. I dont think mountains can be seen from Portland itself. Mount Hood is awesome, and is an hour away from Portland, but I dont think it can be seen from there.
The most ironic and funniest thing is that Portland has height restrictions for buildings in the city and virtually no city skyline because some people there didnt want a high rise skyline in Portland to block their "mountain views" from Portland while Seattle and Vancouver, have pretty, nice, and impressive skylines and pretty big skylines relative to their population. Yet, Seattle and Vancouver have better mountain views and nicer skylines than Portland No offense to Portland! I do like things about Portland.
Salt Lake City: That place has a great mountain backdrop, but I still think I prefer Seattle's and Vancouver's backdrop, especially because Seattle and Vancouver also have great city skylines, and more great city things about them, and in a way, if someone took away Salt Lake City's mountain backdrop, Salt Lake City would probably try to get its act together and make itself have a nicer city skyline and more great city things within the city instead of relying on its nearby mountain scenery for its self esteem. Also Salt Lake City's nature landscapes are still too dry to me.
Cities like Seattle, Vancouver, Los Angeles, San Diego rely on other things too, other than their great mountain backdrop and great nature scenery.
Pictures like this are certainly taken from Portland.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NaturalUrbanBalence
Portland, Oregon: Compared to its Pacific Northwestern neighbors, Seattle and Vancouver(BC), Portland doesnt really have a mountain backdrop. I dont think mountains can be seen from Portland itself. Mount Hood is awesome, and is an hour away from Portland, but I dont think it can be seen from there.
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.
