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.
But the trouble with picking Seattle is that the view of the mountains is often obscured by the constant clouds. Clear days seem to only occur during summer. Denver has a more consistent view of the mountains and Los Angeles probably has the best view of mountains and ocean of any city in the nation.
Agree 100%
How is Seattle winning this then? Mt. Ranier is over 50 miles away. With Portland, Mt. Hood is over 70 miles away. A mountain that far away doesn't really qualify as a "mountainous backdrop" in the way that LA, Vancouver, or Denver has. The mountains being that much closer has a much more awe inspiring affect.
In order would be:
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Denver
Seattle
Portland
How is Seattle winning this then? Mt. Ranier is over 50 miles away. With Portland, Mt. Hood is over 70 miles away. A mountain that far away doesn't really qualify as a "mountainous backdrop" in the way that LA, Vancouver, or Denver has. The mountains being that much closer has a much more awe inspiring affect.
In order would be:
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Denver
Seattle
Portland
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.
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.
First off it's pretty obvious you've never been within 100 miles of Denver...
How is Seattle winning this then? Mt. Ranier is over 50 miles away. With Portland, Mt. Hood is over 70 miles away. A mountain that far away doesn't really qualify as a "mountainous backdrop" in the way that LA, Vancouver, or Denver has. The mountains being that much closer has a much more awe inspiring affect.
In order would be:
Vancouver
Los Angeles
Denver
Seattle
Portland
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.
If the question was which city had the best skyline and natural setting, San Francisco would be up there (if not #1).
But its true that SF has no natural skyline in the immediate vicinity of its skyline, so it doesnt techincally apply here.
If mountains 50-70 miles away qualify for some of cities in this poll, then SF sould definately qualify. Though not as tall and dramatic, they are closer and prominent in many pictures depending on the angle. In particular Mt. Tam and the Marin headlands behind the Golden Gate bridge.
Mt. Tam 10 miles north of SF is almost 2,500 ft. tall.
Mt. Diablo 30 miles to the east of SF is almost 3,900 ft tall.
San Bruno Mountain which borders the southern part of SF is over 1,300 ft. tall.
I can't decide between LA and Seattle. I am trying to not let my Seattle dislike cloud my vision, but I think they both have great skylines and natural settings.
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.
