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.
To be fair, Seattlites have both the skyline and the mountain as their backdrop. And nobody in their right mind considers skylines for moves, or else nobody would move to DC or Phoenix. People consider their budget, where jobs and career advancement are in their industry(s) of choice, their family or personal matters, and then other considerations.
Often a skyline can imply things like large or bustling economies and jobs, but that's it. Some of the best cities (DC for instance) have no real skylines.
The person who said Philly isn't adventurous is wrong. The city is located conveniently between DC and NYC--a lot to see for long weekend trips or even day trips. Plus, Philly's got lots to do within its city limits and its suburbs. Also, the Boston area is just a 5-hour drive away, and the Poconos and Jersey Shore are nearby as well.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,179,323 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist
To be fair, Seattlites have both the skyline and the mountain as their backdrop. And nobody in their right mind considers skylines for moves, or else nobody would move to DC or Phoenix. People consider their budget, where jobs and career advancement are in their industry(s) of choice, their family or personal matters, and then other considerations.
Often a skyline can imply things like large or bustling economies and jobs, but that's it. Some of the best cities (DC for instance) have no real skylines.
I'd say skylines fall under other considerations, to be fair. No where near as important as budget, jobs, etc, but it's there. An added bonus if you will, unless you're an enthusiast--then it would be like mountains to a hiker. Inseparable. Point being, skylines matter, even outside CD. The degree of which depends on the person, but to discount it is a disservice at best.
SF and LA are close but I would give the nod to SF. Both SF and LA are on a whole different level than Philly in terms of adventurous lifestyle.
Honestly the average person living in the Philly metro can be at the beach in an hour or so. They have the same marinas, the same water sports, the same paradise-like beaches as LA. The waves are probably a little smaller but you get the same magnificent summer vibe in Philly/South Jersey beaches as you do in LA.
Now Philly obviously doesnt have the iconic mountains as out west but I believe it does have the largest urban park system of any major city in the country. Wissahickon Gorge running through NW Philly offers a 500 foot vertical which is great for hiking /mountain biking. Quite honestly Id take the lush green NW suburban valleys of Philly over any suburban area in Cal. You can have the San Fernando Valley give me Valley Forge,Brandywine, Bucks County any day.
Honestly the average person living in the Philly metro can be at the beach in an hour or so. They have the same marinas, the same water sports, the same paradise-like beaches as LA. The waves are probably a little smaller but you get the same magnificent summer vibe in Philly/South Jersey beaches as you do in LA.
Now Philly obviously doesnt have the iconic mountains as out west but I believe it does have the largest urban park system of any major city in the country. Wissahickon Gorge running through NW Philly offers a 500 foot vertical which is great for hiking /mountain biking. Quite honestly Id take the lush green NW suburban valleys of Philly over any suburban area in Cal. You can have the San Fernando Valley give me Valley Forge,Brandywine, Bucks County any day.
The beaches do not have the same 'paradise vibe' at all. While the boardwalk culture is interesting and the grassy dunes are pretty, the waves are smaller, as you said. For much of the year, the ocean is ice cold and so is the weather on the beach, while in CA, even in NorCal, the weather is much more pleasant and the water is warmer for most of the year out there. There are also palm trees in the beaches of CA--in NJ, they import them for the summer months and put them out in planters, but otherwise there is nothing there. And CA has the mountains and cliffs, and salt marshes, right near or by the beach: NJ beaches are flat.
As for the lush greenery, I agree with you that it's lovely, but many areas of CA are also green and lush. Out in the Northeast, the trees are bare and ugly for a few months. While CA does suffer from the brown hills, there are evergreens and palm trees that stay green and lush-looking for the entire year, as well as a number of other trees and shrubs.
Honestly the average person living in the Philly metro can be at the beach in an hour or so. They have the same marinas, the same water sports, the same paradise-like beaches as LA. The waves are probably a little smaller but you get the same magnificent summer vibe in Philly/South Jersey beaches as you do in LA.
Now Philly obviously doesnt have the iconic mountains as out west but I believe it does have the largest urban park system of any major city in the country. Wissahickon Gorge running through NW Philly offers a 500 foot vertical which is great for hiking /mountain biking. Quite honestly Id take the lush green NW suburban valleys of Philly over any suburban area in Cal.
You are allowed to have your opinion, but I disagree.
Quote:
You can have the San Fernando Valley give me Valley Forge,Brandywine, Bucks County any day.
Do you really think that using San Fernando Valley in that comparison is fair?
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.