|
View Poll Results: Better scenery?
|
|
Los Angeles
|
  
|
119 |
70.83% |
|
Chicago
|
  
|
49 |
29.17% |
 |
|
|

11-19-2009, 05:13 PM
|
|
|
|
581 posts, read 474,985 times
Reputation: 305
|
|
|
Los Angeles. It's just more diverse in scenery. Chicago is mostly it's skyline and the lake.
|
|

11-19-2009, 08:31 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: New York, NY
79 posts, read 11,265 times
Reputation: 58
|
|
|
Los Angeles.
|
|

11-19-2009, 09:57 PM
|
|
|
|
331 posts, read 315,006 times
Reputation: 91
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben Around
It doesn't get more lush than Western Washington state. Not as many deciduous trees, though.
|
The key word is "Western" Wa, state. The "eastern" part is anything but lush, actually it's high desert.
|
|

11-20-2009, 10:52 AM
|
|
|
|
Location: in the sun with all shadows behind me, in a small town with no "culture" to malign me
80 posts, read 12,612 times
Reputation: 30
|
|
|
If by scenery you mean natural backdrop, then there are hundreds of places in the U.S that have better "scenery" than Chicago IMO. L.A. would most certainly be one.
If you love skyscrapers, classic architecture, and ferris wheels... then Chicago's scenery is hard to beat.
|
|

11-20-2009, 12:05 PM
|
|
|
|
1,784 posts, read 3,173,479 times
Reputation: 841
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
I'm talking about how lush and green the parks are there. Here everything is irrigated and unless it's winter there will be brown spots and the grass is not as green or well kept. It's something I immediately noticed about Chicago and NYC over the summer. But yes LA does have an advantage with the surrounding mountains and canyons. It's just different but I felt people weren't giving Chicago the credit it deserved b/c I was very impressed with it's park and scenery at the street level. But once you get a view from up high there really isn't anything that impressive except the lake.
Conversely, have you ever been out east during spring or summer? I gotta agree, the west is more brown than it is green, especially compared to areas east of the Mississippi River. The east coast doesn't go months w/o rain, CA does and that is why it's not as green or lush. Not saying it's better or worse it's just the way it is.
|
Except for The Northwest, the mountain west, the sierra nevada region, and many areas within 2 hours of LA. Additionally, in winter the "brown" west sure looks a lot greener to me!
|
|

11-20-2009, 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: SF Bay Area
8,559 posts, read 9,541,323 times
Reputation: 4339
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by JakeDog
Except for The Northwest, the mountain west, the sierra nevada region, and many areas within 2 hours of LA. Additionally, in winter the "brown" west sure looks a lot greener to me!
|
Well I never said the entire West was brown, just a lot of it. And I also said "unless it's winter" it's generally brown in Ca. And even with the mountains around LA and the Sierra's it's not that green in summer. Sure there are plenty of evergreen trees and vegetation but on the ground the grass and vegetation is generally brown and dry. Northern CA has lots of trees and vegetation but below that canopy it's brown and dry outside of winter and early spring. It's just different b/c the climate but of course the eastern US is probably pretty brown looking in winter. I've just always been impressed how during summer everything is green out east, the grass and trees.
|
|

11-20-2009, 01:49 PM
|
|
|
|
4,085 posts, read 2,657,723 times
Reputation: 2947
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Inquirer
Oh come on is this conjecture? Have you actually been to the west to atcually know what your saying?
|
No conjecture here; after travelling through such states as Colorado, Utah, New Mexico, Arizona, it's easy to come away with the impression that many Western states are "parched". Of course, the rainfall in these states is quite low, so it's not surprising.
Have you been to the Northeast, especially New England? Nothing but "green" here, especially in the forests of VT, NH, and ME.
|
|

11-21-2009, 11:53 AM
|
|
|
|
358 posts, read 271,670 times
Reputation: 251
|
|
|
Let's be frank here, Chicago is an awesome city, but it will never win a beauty contest...natural setting-wise, that is. Take away Lake Michigan and you may as well be in Des Moines (no offense to Des Moines, of course)
|
|

11-21-2009, 08:07 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Chicagoland
4,030 posts, read 3,176,745 times
Reputation: 1201
|
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by maxposure
Let's be frank here, Chicago is an awesome city, but it will never win a beauty contest...natural setting-wise, that is. Take away Lake Michigan and you may as well be in Des Moines (no offense to Des Moines, of course)
|
Think about that for a second. 
|
|

07-27-2012, 01:02 PM
|
|
|
|
Location: Southeast Aurora, Colorado
2,299 posts, read 1,246,692 times
Reputation: 1173
|
|
|
Seriously? I could see how people could like Lake Michigan (it's beautiful), but we're comparing...
Chicago: Flatland, and a huge lake, with some trees.
Los Angeles: Hills, Mountains, Palm Trees, Pacific Ocean, Valleys, Canyons...
I enjoyed my time in Chicago, and could see why people consider it beautiful, but imo, LA & SF are unmatched for beauty.
|
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $53,000 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.
|
|
Similar Threads
-
Better scenery: Miami or Los Angeles, City vs. City, 29 replies
-
Los angeles vs chicago, City vs. City, 694 replies
-
Phoenix AZ vs. Los Angeles CA(Which city has better weather, geographical location, Mexican food and scenery), City vs. City, 16 replies
-
Chicago vs. Los Angeles, City vs. City, 27 replies
-
Los Angeles or Chicago, City vs. City, 347 replies
-
Chicago vs. Los Angeles, City vs. City, 170 replies
|