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.
Portland and Seattle are both breathtaking, but I think one needs to look at what scenic views you would have if standing directly IN one of the cities, instead of counting what you can get to within an x number of hours drive. You can stand at a point in Seattle and look to the west to see the Puget Sound and the rugged Olympic Mountains. You look to the south/southeast and see towering Mount Rainier, look to the east and see the Cascade Mountains and Lake Washington. Portland doesn't have that level of scenery, nor does any other city.
Portland and Seattle are both breathtaking, but I think one needs to look at what scenic views you would have if standing directly IN one of the cities, instead of counting what you can get to within an x number of hours drive. You can stand at a point in Seattle and look to the west to see the Puget Sound and the rugged Olympic Mountains. You look to the south/southeast and see towering Mount Rainier, look to the east and see the Cascade Mountains and Lake Washington. Portland doesn't have that level of scenery, nor does any other city.
Seattle
Portland
San Francisco
Los Angeles is also beautiful, but the smog does ruin much of the scenery. 50 years ago before the overdevelopment and pollution L.A. would be my #1.
50 years ago the smog was much higher in L.A. than it is today.
"According to the non-profit Environment California, air pollution from cars and trucks across the state has decreased since the 1970s by more than 85 percent, with peak smog levels in the city of Los Angeles itself dropping some 70 percent. Meanwhile, California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has been tracking smog levels in the area since 1976, and reports the number of ozone advisories—where residents are advised to stay indoors due to unhealthy local accumulations of smog—fell from a high of 184 days in 1977 to between zero and a few days a year now."
50 years ago the smog was much higher in L.A. than it is today.
"According to the non-profit Environment California, air pollution from cars and trucks across the state has decreased since the 1970s by more than 85 percent, with peak smog levels in the city of Los Angeles itself dropping some 70 percent. Meanwhile, California’s South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) has been tracking smog levels in the area since 1976, and reports the number of ozone advisories—where residents are advised to stay indoors due to unhealthy local accumulations of smog—fell from a high of 184 days in 1977 to between zero and a few days a year now."
Yeah, emission standards are much MUCH stricter than they were in the 1970s, in addition to cars (including my all time favorite Pontiac GTO) being built with much more fuel efficient engines and fuel being of a more refined octane than they used to be.
However, for most people, even a little smog can ruin the whole experience, so much so that they won't even bother trying to explore nature. For people like me, who grew up in the 90s, it's better than it used to be so I appreciate it a lot more. And thanks to that stereotype, most of the parks around here are pretty empty. It's always nice to go to Verdugo Hills, hike around and have a nice view of the SFV, LA Basin, and San Gabriel Mountains without any yuppie bothering me.
Honolulu and San Diego. But I do love my Bay Area!!
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.