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.
IMHO...I KNOW...PITTSBURGH????? Even though the "mountains" pale in comparison to the cities mentioned...I love the way the "hills" surround and are included literally within the city itself. Add this to the confluence of two rivers...forming the Ohio river and Pittsburgh lookas as if it is surealistically floating within green rolling hills. I feel this acentuates the skyline. The mountains do NOT compete with it's skyline, like the other cities. Just my 2 cents...LOL.
Pittsburgh has a very impressive skyline but there were no photos of what I think is called the cathedral of Learning. A beautiful gothic/deco skyscraper by a university.
Pittsburgh has a very impressive skyline but there were no photos of what I think is called the cathedral of Learning. A beautiful gothic/deco skyscraper by a university.
Actually both Mt. Hood and Mt. St. Helens are less than 50 miles from Portland. If you're high up in the west hills on a clear day you can also see both Mt. Adams and the top of Mt. Rainier. That's 4 mountains.
That aside, it doesn't really matter how far away the mountains are, if you can see them and they add significantly to the skyline then they should be considered part of the backdrop.
Denver is flat, Portland has the west hills less than a mile from downtown which make for a great backdrop. Portland is also much greener than Denver as well.
L.A. does indeed have underrated natural settings, but only very rarely do the mountains there have very visible snow on them, making them less striking in my opinion.
If we're considering mountains then the hills west of Portland have nothing to do with this thread. Yes they are beautiful but they are not mountains, it sounds like you're ranking cities by hills?. Denver has a spectacular mountain backdrop (so does Portland by the way, I agree!) but they are only 20 miles away vs 55 for Portland and are just incredible. Also Denver is uniformally flat You're right, but other than the west hills Portland is flat too. Now before you loose your temper or respond agrily and say I have no clue what I'm saying, what I mean by this is even though Portland has some prominent hills looking east of the city (Where the cascade mountains are) they are scattered far apart and only go 600 feet or so above the ground in a distance of about two miles or so. Again I agree it's very beautiful but it is by no means anything incredible, and the terrain around them and the rest of Downtown Portland (again looking east) is very flat. But if we're just considering mountains then this is irrelevant (not sure why you're associating it with the mountain views of Hood, Rainier, etc). Anyway overall I think all of these cities are beautiful in their own ways. As far as green goes yes Portland has many more trees and is lush, but every city has its distinctive beauty! Remember everyone, Beauty= (opinion of beholder).
How bout you showcase some of Denver's hills for us?
We're talking mountain scenery with a skyline. Hills have nothing to do with this! Besides unless you're looking at a skyline with a mountain backdrop from the air, the skyline blocks any view of hills. Even so I think you two are just looking at this in a different way. Denver does have hilly areas (even if you don't think so), and while they are not as high or close together like the hills in Portland, they are noticable (you don't have to agree by the way, just telling you what the other person probably meant). But again when viewing a city skyline with mountains, small shallow sloping hills like in Portland (>700 feet over a 1 mile or < radius) don't stand out at all really (again in relation to mountain backdrops). This goes for ANY city!
Actually seattle has the Cascade Mountain Range behind Lake Washington and the Olympic Mountain range across the Puget Sound .Seattle also has water on three sides of it lake union,lake washington and pugetsound. When I lived downtown I spent as much time as I could outside .The view from Pike Place market of the Olympic mountains isn't photo choped. and Seattle may be 50 miles to Mt Rainer but the mountain Is big and can be seen from all over washington no photo chopping needed. And the Cascade Mt range can be reached by car in thirty min By I 90.
Mt. Rainier is not the only mountain in the Seattle area, though (simply the largest). The Cascade foothills begin 30 miles E of Seattle, and the Olympic mt. range is about 20 miles to the west. Both of these mountain ranges are visible at all times, regardless of cloud cover. Mt. Rainier disappears with the overcast sky, but when it comes out, it is a sight to behold.
Check out these photos of Seattle, posted to another forum. Someone must have photoshopped in this mysterious mountainous backdrop.
Mount Rainier is just so much bigger than anything else around, and that's why people always think of it over anything else, I think this is what he/she means. The Olympic and Cascade ranges are actually 35 or so miles away in a straight line, but you're right they are very visible and beautiful (the olympic's are much more beautiful than the cascades surrounding Rainier in my opinion)
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.
