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.
And because you wanted to live in a town that's a great place to be alive.
Colma is split by the highway on one side are the cemeteries and the other side are the residential areas which are by extension of Daly City. Colma is really nothing more than a neighborhood of Daly City. I like Colma because of the weather and location, not really a bad place to live but I can see why its an issue for outsiders with this cemetery talk. Even though the cemeteries are an after thought for most people because they're on the other side of the hill and highway. Its 2 square miles, .5 miles is residential and the other 1.5 is uninhabitable land. I picked Colma because I picked Daly City, they're one in the same.
Driving through I80 from the bay to NYC is hell in the midwest.
I actually grew up about 1,000 feet away from I-80 in Iowa. I'd certainly never judge the Midwest based on the route of I-80, it's the least interesting part as far as topography, etc. North and south of there are much more interesting. Even going 50 miles further north in Iowa gets you to the driftless area with huge bluffs and forests, etc.
I actually grew up about 1,000 feet away from I-80 in Iowa. I'd certainly never judge the Midwest based on the route of I-80, it's the least interesting part as far as topography, etc. North and south of there are much more interesting. Even going 50 miles further north in Iowa gets you to the driftless area with huge bluffs and forests, etc.
I should have known that I80 would suck, our cheap ass country would so build interstates in the crap flat boring areas. Midwest is a huge area that I would like to see more of one day.
I should have known that I80 would suck, our cheap ass country would so build interstates in the crap flat boring areas. Midwest is a huge area that I would like to see more of one day.
Thank your for opening up to the possibility of Midwest natural beauty. Granted, it is not as majestic as other areas of North America obviously, but I'm sure you will be pleasantly suprised if you did some research and exploring.
Thank your for opening up to the possibility of Midwest natural beauty. Granted, it is not as majestic as other areas of North America obviously, but I'm sure you will be pleasantly suprised if you did some research and exploring.
And I have to say that there is also some majesty in the wide-open, lush, green, vast spaces in the middle of the country. It requires a certain type of appreciation, but there is beauty in it.
Thank your for opening up to the possibility of Midwest natural beauty. Granted, it is not as majestic as other areas of North America obviously, but I'm sure you will be pleasantly suprised if you did some research and exploring.
I think the midwest is underrated and I have no problems with the region, I can take a step back and put my hands in the air and concede it has enough for 70 million people to live by. I want to see more of it, underrated places just fascinate me.
Location: Pittsburgh (via Chicago, via Pittsburgh)
3,887 posts, read 5,518,046 times
Reputation: 3107
Quote:
Originally Posted by Maintainschaos
And I have to say that there is also some majesty in the wide-open, lush, green, vast spaces in the middle of the country. It requires a certain type of appreciation, but there is beauty in it.
absolutely.
there is something haunting and beautiful about watching a storm approach from 50 miles away.
Of the four cities LA is the least walkable. That being said huge areas are interconnected and highly walkable and definitely not just the low income areas, and a top 10 city for walkability. To me, walkability is how far moat amenities are to a given place. My neighborhood offers everything within a mile walk. To me, that makes it highly walkable.
top 10 in the u.s. isn't saying much when america is known for car culture anyway. I mean Chicago isn't even that walkable compared to nyc or cities in europe. but chi and sf core are much better than la and far more pedestrian/transit friendly. NYC is probably the only true don't need a car city in the U.S... Chicago, SF and Boston somewhat but not to the degree of nyc or euro/asian cities, unless you want to limit your life a lot. nyc is the only american city that can compare for density and walkability to london, paris, rome, berlin, madrid, tokyo, etc...
For instance Paris and NYC both have areas over 200k ppsm, Paris core has 2.2 million in 34 square miles. Manhattan is 1.6 million in 23 square miles. Manhattan doing this via skyscrapers, Paris doing it via narrow ultra walkable streets. These are essentially the city centers with highest value resident, primo urban living. So saying LA is 10k-20k in these outer ring disconnected neighborhoods isn't exactly interesting. That is why New Yorkers and Parisians laugh at LA being "walkable" ... and so do I. Walkable cities should be measured of what the world has to offer, not america really... but since America *does* have NYC... then NYC is the benchmark.
Great poll question but i think everyone on here is bias
NYC and chi been around longer and have a head start but how do you get any bettet than L.A & San Fran
How about we compare east vs West
L.A vs NYC
Las Vegas vs D.C
San Diego vs Philly
San Francisco vs Boston
Phoenix vs Jersey
Hawaii vs Baltimore lmao
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.