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.
Savannah does have more oaks lining the streets in the historic district in particular, but saying there's nothing in Charleston that looks like that picture in Savannah misses the mark big time.
Savannah and Charleston kill New Orleans in terms of natural beauty. No other cities in the whurl can out do those two for sheer beauty.
None.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Newsboy
"A few more trees ..." LOL!
This is how the tree thing works between these three cities:
1. Savannah
2. Charleston
3. New Orleans
As Isawooty said, Savannah and Charleston blow New Orleans out of the water in the beauty department.
Are we discussing facts here or just your bloated opinions? Correct me if I'm wrong but you guys seem to be operating on the misconception of everything further east being absolutely more green than everything west of it which isn't true. As someone else pointed out New Orleans is wetter than both Savannah and Charleston. I also stated that the North Shore is more green than anything I remember seeing in those specific areas of Charleston and Savannah.
I think New Orleans has exceptional southern beauty and a respectable amount of tree cover. It is however larger and more urban than the other two so it should be expected that there will be less trees.
As someone who's lived in New Orleans, there are certainly areas that are beautiful, like Audubon Park, City Park, the swamps. Charleston and Savannah, though, have huge advantages in that they have these swamps but are also close to some beautiful beaches.
Savannah does have more oaks lining the streets in the historic district in particular, but saying there's nothing in Charleston that looks like that picture in Savannah misses the mark big time.
Exactly Charleston has numerous streets like this.
As someone who's lived in New Orleans, there are certainly areas that are beautiful, like Audubon Park, City Park, the swamps. Charleston and Savannah, though, have huge advantages in that they have these swamps but are also close to some beautiful beaches.
True, one disadvantage is that NOLA has no beaches of any quality within proximity. The closest really good beaches are Gulf Shores/Orange Beach, AL area (right before you hit FL).
Never been to N.O. so I would choose to visit there over others. I doubt Id want to live there though, or any of them for that matter, I guess I would choose Charleston maybe...I like the Gullah people.
Gullah are in Savannah as well if not more so. New Orleans sits in a bowl below sea level you could not pay me enough to live there. Outside of the French Quarter its a very depressing and ugly city.
Gullah are in Savannah as well if not more so. New Orleans sits in a bowl below sea level you could not pay me enough to live there. Outside of the French Quarter its a very depressing and ugly city.
Natural beauty. Lush landscapes. Very nice suburbs. Beaches.
You mean those beaches with mud colored water? Your beaches suck compared to any up here where the water is more clear and green. I was never so disappointed as when I went to Hilton Head and SSI and saw that disgusting ocean water that looked like a muddy river. Ugh. You can keep your lousy beaches.
True, one disadvantage is that NOLA has no beaches of any quality within proximity. The closest really good beaches are Gulf Shores/Orange Beach, AL area (right before you hit FL).
The beaches in Charleston and Savannah are no better than NO. Have you ever seen? The sand is like mud, and the water is brown and murky. Yuk.
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.