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.
Seattle by far in my opinion. If we're including Canadian cities then Vancouver kills all of them. It's a more urban, dense city, too. Well maybe San Francisco is as urban and dense as Vancouver.. I haven't seen enough of that city to see if they have the suburban houses next to apartment buildings like San Francisco does in parts.
What are you talking about? San Francisco has no suburban houses next to apartment buildings - aside from the apartments/condos/highrises, it's primarily very urban rowhouses with no yards and corner stores/delis on every block. Meanwhile, Vancouver does actually have single family homes throughout a decent chunk of the City. SF is much, much more urban than Vancouver overall, and substantially more dense. I know both cities well, as I live in Seattle and visit Vancouver 4-5 times a year. I used to live in SF.
Seattle by far in my opinion. If we're including Canadian cities then Vancouver kills all of them. It's a more urban, dense city, too. Well maybe San Francisco is as urban and dense as Vancouver.. I haven't seen enough of that city to see if they have the suburban houses next to apartment buildings like San Francisco does in parts.
Vancouver is actually far more suburban in feel once you get outside of the downtown core/West End than San Francisco is. I'd say there really isn't that much of a comparison for the cities as a whole once you look at the entire city.
This is just across the bridge from the central part of Vancouver.
And this is not to say I don't like Vancouver or wouldn't mind living in those neighorhoods--but as far as being "urban", San Francisco is above Vancouver as far as density or having a walkable compact core. You wouldn't find any places like the first picture in San Francisco, except maybe far up in the hills--even the most "suburban" parts of San Francisco on the westside is mostly fairly dense townhomes. I've very familiar with both cities--and suburban houses next to apartment buildings more so sums up Vancouver than anywhere in San Francisco.
Seattle and San Francisco. San Francisco's skyline looks better in person while Seattle's looks better in pictures.
If we include Canada, Vancouver takes the cake. Though architecture in Vancouver is mostly awful, as a collective skyline it is quite striking due to it's contrast with the gorgeous natural scenery all around it.
There was just a press conference today about the new Wilshire Grand tower that is being prepared for construction in Los Angeles... It'll be the new tallest on the West Coast and tallest outside of NYC and Chicago.
Seattle and San Francisco. San Francisco's skyline looks better in person while Seattle's looks better in pictures.
If we include Canada, Vancouver takes the cake. Though architecture in Vancouver is mostly awful, as a collective skyline it is quite striking due to it's contrast with the gorgeous natural scenery all around it.
The Vancouver skyline looks best south of downtown with Yaletown in the foreground and the mountains in the background. If look at the skyline from the north towards the main CBD, it's just okay, but it's striking the other way with the mountains behind the dense residential towers.
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.
