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.
Yea seriously, do people here seriously think everyone would enjoy living in such dense cities like New York or San Francisco?
Listen, you're from God-knows-where and this topic doesn't really apply to you. We are talking cities, not yeeehhaww Texas.
I live in Houston right now and tend to feel sorry for anyone who has to live in Texas. Awful place and can't wait to move back to the supreme NYC which is interesting considering I was born and raised in Houston. I'm just too above this place, that's all. I just go around town now holding my nose in the air counting down the days I'm out of this sad, sad place and back to civilization.
Sorry, some trees does not count as natural beauty. Every city has trees. Take San Francisco for example. Many trees in their neighborhoods. But they also have sunning hills and mountains right there in the city, coupled with the redwoods on close by islands and the ocean (which looks clear!). NYC...has trees...and some views of faraway mountains. Which is fine, but it doesn't have immediate natural beauty.
Sorry, some trees does not count as natural beauty. Every city has trees. Take San Francisco for example. Many trees in their neighborhoods. But they also have sunning hills and mountains right there in the city, coupled with the redwoods on close by islands and the ocean (which looks clear!). NYC...has trees...and some views of faraway mountains. Which is fine, but it doesn't have immediate natural beauty.
It's not just the trees. It's the trees lining the sidewalks and streets, creating a canopy combined with beautiful, old architecture. Not every city has Brownstones or row houses in general. Looking down those streets is amazing. I tried to find a picture looking straight down but I couldn't.
Trees are natural beauty, anyway. Not every city has an abundance of trees, especially deciduous trees. Cities in or near the desert lack much vegetation and are quite brown, for example. You have to admit - areas of LA or near it are straight brown. You won't find that around here. Staten Island has two neighborhoods located on hills (the highest hills on the East Coast located on islands) with stunning views of the harbor, ocean, skyline, and more. Brooklyn has hills along the harbor and coast and Manhattan and the Bronx are located right across the river from the NJ/NY Palisades, with riverside with beautiful views of them. Queens and Brooklyn have beaches.
NYC doesn't have views of any "far away mountains", but as I mentioned the Palisades are right across the river and I think may be part of the western Bronx as well. When people think NYC they tend to think Manhattan and only Manhattan. Manhattan itself is a flat, built out and up urban island with a lot of concrete and steel and a lot of parks. People tend to ignore, unintentionally I presume, the other 4 boroughs that are far less urban and more diverse in landscape than Manhattan is.
You don't need mountains nearby to make a place beautiful. Personally, I don't care at all for mountains so whenever someone makes that argument I roll my eyes. I hate almost everything about mountains, to be honest, as silly as that may sound. They're not my thing. Mountains aren't the only natural formation or aspect that make a place nice to look at. Have an open mind. I understand people appreciate mountain views but I also understand others appreciate other forms of natural beauty just as well, though you may not find it appealing or even think it counts.
Last edited by JerseyGirl415; 12-27-2013 at 12:31 PM..
I agree other natural aspects of beauty exist. I love the marshes of the Southeast, especially FL's Everglades, though many find this unattractive. But it is a fact that NYC is not known for its natural beauty.
Sorry, some trees does not count as natural beauty. Every city has trees. Take San Francisco for example. Many trees in their neighborhoods. But they also have sunning hills and mountains right there in the city, coupled with the redwoods on close by islands and the ocean (which looks clear!). NYC...has trees...and some views of faraway mountains. Which is fine, but it doesn't have immediate natural beauty.
You have no clue what you are talking about and have probably never stepped foot in Metro NYC, and it sounds like you have also only seen SF in pictures. Your comments are frankly delusional. Faraway mountains??? There are 1000 foot climbs right across from the city on the other side of the Hudson. There are way more trees in NYC than in SF by the way, SF is one of the most treeless cities in the country. Not sure what you are even talking about. Are you talking about San Bruno Mountain??? The ocean does not look clear there either, its freezing and kind of dark compared to anywhere on the East Coast...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hawaii4evr
I agree other natural aspects of beauty exist. I love the marshes of the Southeast, especially FL's Everglades, though many find this unattractive. But it is a fact that NYC is not known for its natural beauty.
Actually NYC is quite pretty, I'd take it over Charlotte or Atlanta in Natural Beauty any day, you have more dramatic topography right around both than either of these places. Sure NYC isn't KNOWN for it, but it has it, it's known for so much else. You are really underrating it. Most of the nature stuff in SF is outside the city also by the way...You have the Palisades, Jamaica Bay, Hudson Valley... all are pretty nice.
I'm not saying it's as good or better than SF, I've lived there twice, I know, it's great, but you are clearly underselling it and making it out like it is Dallas or Oklahoma City or something. NYC has far more natural beauty than New Orleans around it, one of the worst places for nature for sure unless you want to catch frogs in a swamp boat or something.
I have been to NYC-Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn. And nobody is comparing NYC to New Orleans, but since you mentioned it, Louisiana has beautiful wetlands.
I have been to NYC-Manhattan, Bronx and Brooklyn. And nobody is comparing NYC to New Orleans, but since you mentioned it, Louisiana has beautiful wetlands.
What do you do in the wetlands though? You can't swim in them b/c of alligators, snakes or leeches. Same with a lot of Florida swamps unless it is a natural spring. Basically all you can do is boat, fish and shoot ducks. Kind of redneck activities for the most part. It was the same in Florida but at least Florida has springs and gorgeous beaches. Around NO doesn't, unless you drive over to AL or FL.
It is pretty...but not naturally. Like the pictures said, the natural beauty is OUTSIDE the city.
Most of it is definitely outside the city (as with most cities unless they include a massive annexation of undeveloped land) though there is a nice areas of coastline fronting the Long Island Sound and the Atlantic. The beaches of the Rockaways can be really beautiful. There are also some forests reserved within the city though generally pretty small such as with Inwood Hill Park and Forest Park. There's also the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge which is a pretty massive salt marsh they left, but you're not allowed to do anything but bird watch from afar since it's an, uh, wildlife refuge.
It's not the best with natural scenery (Portland probably is for a major US city), but it does better than I think most people would expect for such a massive urban city. It is tied with DC for the highest percentage of area set aside for greenspace of any major city (about a quarter of the city), but the vast majority of it is tucked away in different parts of the boroughs and not necessarily easy to get to by subway.
Most of it is definitely outside the city (as with most cities unless they include a massive annexation of undeveloped land) though there is a nice areas of coastline fronting the Long Island Sound and the Atlantic. The beaches of the Rockaways can be really beautiful. There are also some forests reserved within the city though generally pretty small such as with Inwood Hill Park and Forest Park. There's also the Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge which is a pretty massive salt marsh they left, but you're not allowed to do anything but bird watch from afar since it's an, uh, wildlife refuge.
It's not the best with natural scenery (Portland probably is for a major US city), but it does better than I think most people would expect for such a massive urban city. It is tied with DC for the highest percentage of area set aside for greenspace of any major city (about a quarter of the city), but the vast majority of it is tucked away in different parts of the boroughs and not necessarily easy to get to by subway.
These areas are nice, but wouldn't compare them to CA cities. Possibly better than many other U.S. cities though. You can get pretty good views of the city from the top of Forest Park by the Oak Ridge building, and in some of the boroughs there is some decent topography where you can walk or jog on steep inclines for awhile. Supposedly you can see the Rockaways from Forest Park but I couldn't really tell where it was. Problem with NYC is, you can still often hear the city or see the city from most of these parks. But overall, NYC is somewhat underrated nature wise. Ft Tryon has some good views from Manhattan also, and the Cloisters feels like a sanctuary in Europe or something.
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.
