Quote:
Originally Posted by mjlo
If the title of the topic is which city has the most beautiful setting, wouldn't it's immediate surroundings be more important than how quick they can get to a beautiful setting? I don't have a bunch of experience with San Antonio, but from what I remember it's setting wasn't all that remarkable no?
|
I haven't visited too much, but I would say from my understanding San Antonio has significant elevation change still within city limits on its western side, in addition to geologic features Natural Bridge Caverns and Government Canyon. The San Antonio River itself is smaller than Lady Bird Lake and narrow, but that doesn't mean it isn't beautiful. Austin seems to have more tree canopy and greenery surrounding out but I would assume SA does also. Often, just looking at a downtown when determining natural setting paints an incomplete picture IMO. It's obviously a different aspect of it, but the fact that SA residents can get to Hill Country State Natural Area in an hr. or even less depending on location in metro I think factors in some at least, but perhaps I'm misinterpreting. If we're only talking city limits, then this strongly favors coastal (esp.) Great Lakes cities, apart from Pittsburgh of course, which is legit built inside a mountain valley.
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.
