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.
Well, I said something along the lines of, "I'd rather take entertainment than rowhomes." But then I read that he mentioned how Scranton has outdoor entertainment, which I can't argue with.
Nice try but I'm not impressed. I Googled "Omaha rowhomes" and all I found were some pics of really ugly, unappealing new construction. Scranton has some beautiful classic architecture--yeah, Omaha has a few nice older neighborhoods as well but nowhere near as prolific as in east coast cities.
If you'd go to the Omaha thread, you'd find some better pictures. My DH grew up in Omaha in the 50s and 60s. He lived a pretty urban lifestyle, riding buses, shopping downtown, went to a high school that was the territorial capitol building, etc. He is a "city boy from Nebraska".
Oh, and Omaha is NOWHERE NEAR Chicago. Come on. What is it, an 8 hour drive? And the other cities you mentioned are barely worth a visit. Kansas City has a few things to offer, but let's see...living 3 hours from KC vs. living 2 hours from New York AND Philly?
The comparison of "hilly woods" and a few man-made lakes to real mountains, forest and the Atlantic ocean is laughable as well.
Scranton is sounding more and more appealing the more I think about it!
You might stop laughing if you actually saw the place.
Well, I said something along the lines of, "I'd rather take entertainment than rowhomes." But then I read that he mentioned how Scranton has outdoor entertainment, which I can't argue with.
I had to vote for Scranton, as that's where my mom is from and so I have many, many relatives there. Having been to both (Scranton more frequently, though) I'd say Omaha is definitely the bigger, more developed, city but the surroundings of Scranton are much nicer (mountains vs. prairie).
"The Office" being set in Scranton, though, is a way of making fun of Scranton. It's nice to see that it hasn't really had that effect, though.
I intentionally try to avoid capturing people in my images. Why, may you ask? Well one time I was photographing homes and didn't realize one of the owners was sitting on the front porch. I was met with a very unpleasant confrontation because apparently some people don't like the fact that others want to show off their homes' beauty for others on the Internet to enjoy. Now I just wait (and wait...and wait) until pedestrian traffic clears most of the time to snap my images.
well in residential areas, not only are pedestrians not nessescary in a photo, but it may be seen as invading private space. in public areas like downtown, you should try to get shots of people to make the place seem a bit more alive. For the record I don't dislike Scranton, just stating my issue with the pictures provided.
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.
).
vs. living 2 hours from New York AND Philly? 
