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.
Yes, that is why it feels more natural as opposed to man made/landscaped features.
Much of the river looks like this cutting through it
I find this to be advantageous, although it would be nice if downtown Atlanta did have a riverfront. Because Atlanta was built as a significant rail hub due to its geographical location along a strategic bend in the Eastern Continental Divide, that is the geographic feature that serves as our "riverfront" in a manner of speaking. It goes right through Underground Atlanta.
I find this to be advantageous, although it would be nice if downtown Atlanta did have a riverfront. Because Atlanta was built as a significant rail hub due to its geographical location along a strategic bend in the Eastern Continental Divide, that is the geographic feature that serves as our "riverfront" in a manner of speaking. It goes right through Underground Atlanta.
Yeah, it would make a big difference. Seems like I75/I85 and the non-stop line of cars flowing through the city serves as our riverfront...
Right - that's a similar view to the one I get when I visit the Chattahoochee park right by my house. Personally, I find it more interesting to be in a city that has a larger river or body of water within the built landscape. When I'm in Jacksonville, for instance, I enjoy walking along the pedestrian trail next to the St. Johns River near downtown. The St. Johns is a very impressive river. Don't get me wrong, Atlanta's a pretty city (much more so than Jax). I just wish it had a major body of water.
Well yeah. That is cool too, but the thread was about superior natural beauty. While useful, I just wouldn't call it natural beauty so much, you still feel like you are in a manmade environment. The lakefront of Chicago is pretty and useful, yes. Natural beauty, eh... not so sure. On up in Wisconsin, Michigan, or even the northshore suburbs, the lake areas are *much* nicer with ravines and forests and whiter sandy beaches.
Well yeah. That is cool too, but the thread was about superior natural beauty. While useful, I just wouldn't call it natural beauty so much, you still feel like you are in a manmade environment. The lakefront of Chicago is pretty? Natural beauty, eh... not so sure. On up in Wisconsin, Michigan, or even the northshore suburbs, the lake areas are *much* nicer with ravines and forests and whiter sandy beaches.
But the river in Jax and the lake in Chicago are integral natural features of those cities. I don't think we need to be so restrictive in the definition of natural beauty.
After all, the question is which CITY has superior natural beauty. Without its lake, Chicago would be more like Dallas. As for D.C., I don't think the Potomac is nearly as prominent a natural feature as Lake Michigan or the St. Johns.
But the river in Jax and the lake in Chicago are integral natural features of those cities. I don't think we need to be so restrictive in the definition of natural beauty.
After all, the question is which CITY has superior natural beauty. Without its lake, Chicago would be more like Dallas. As for D.C., I don't think the Potomac is nearly as prominent a natural feature as Lake Michigan or the St. Johns.
Very true. That's why I think the two cities are more or less even here.
My apologies to St. Louis... that view of the city combined with the smog/fog just don't make for a very nice image.
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.