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's setting is more dramatic, but if we are talking cities and how they are integrated with their natural surroundings I'd go with SF. With Seattle I feel like you can see a lot of pretty things off in the distance, with SF you get the feeling you're in the middle of one of the most beautiful parts of the country - plus I consider weather to be a part of the natural setting and SF definitely wins on that count.
It was close, but I picked SF because:
- the sightlines from within the city are more often interesting than in seattle, where you can see mt rainier or the olympic mtns only occasionally
-the weather highlights it better (rolling fog and more sun per year, vs. half a year of overcast)
-there's more variation nearby, from mt diablo and dry inland valleys to Napa and the redwoods, vs endless forest and a further trip to get out to the dryness
In terms of natural setting it's a tie, but San Francisco is a much more beautiful city. Due to that combination of amazing scenery and stunning architecture, San Francisco wins
people usually use the word "stunning" very losely.
If SF were located in Europe, nobody would be talking about "how beautiful" it is. Lisbon pretty much as everything SF does, for example, yet few would say "Lisbon has stunning architecture" blah blah.
SF has some beautiful buildings in certain neighbourhoods of course, but overall it is not that pretty.
Speaking of "amazing scenery", again, there are probably a dozen citie off the top of my head that have just that.
people usually use the word "stunning" very losely.
If SF were located in Europe, nobody would be talking about "how beautiful" it is. Lisbon pretty much as everything SF does, for example, yet few would say "Lisbon has stunning architecture" blah blah.
SF has some beautiful buildings in certain neighbourhoods of course, but overall it is not that pretty.
Speaking of "amazing scenery", again, there are probably a dozen citie off the top of my head that have just that.
Hyperbolic.
I don't know. People all over the world consider San Francisco to be a "stunning" city. Architecturally it may not match Paris or some of the other European capitals for sheer opulence, but it's renowned for its architecture no less. All of the great European cities have a wealth of mediocre or downright ugly architecture (ever been outside of Prague 1, or in some of Paris's less famous arrondissements?). San Francisco has a wealth of Queen Anne style homes which may be its signature architectural style. The "Painted Ladies" are the flagship example, but there's an abundance of them in the Alamo Square area, Ashbury Heights, Pacific Heights and other areas. San Francisco also has a significant, and notable Italianate, Beaux-Arts, and Art Deco presence. "Stunning" is not an inappropriate or hyperbolic word when it comes to SF's architecture.
Seattle's greenery and more dramatic backdrops gives it the edge to me.
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.
