Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
 [Register]
Seattle area Seattle and King County Suburbs
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-23-2012, 09:00 AM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,710,757 times
Reputation: 12943

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind View Post
Well, it looks to me that the majority of people in this thread talk about the beauty of Seattle's natural setting, not about the "beauty" of the city itself.

You may argue that you cannot take the city out of it's geographical location, but I don't find much beauty in the city of Seattle itself. However, I do find the city's geographical setting spectacular.

I just find it a shame that the city itself does not even come close to the beauty of it's geographical location. Take that away, and I'm not sure Seattle would be even in the top 10 of the most beautiful ciites in the US.

Would Seattle be able to stand alone as a city without all the gorgeous nature around against cities like SF, Chicago, Boston, NYC, DC, Philadephia and so on?
First the OP says the city is not integrated with the surrounding nature (wrong) and now it's the city would not be so beautiful were it not in its natural surroundings. If you take SF out of the Bay Area, the bridges and surrounding waters wouldn't be there. Take NYC off of Manhattan? Boston? These cities on the water have an advantage because of their natural setting and Seattle is no different. But it takes more than a coastline - Biloxi is on the coastline and it's unattractive with brownish water.

Seattle is unique because of it's setting, the way the surrounding islands have been integrated using ferries, the bridges across Lake Washington and the deeply green trees and plants that only get greener in December. The dark blue water, deep green vegetation and the white ferries are as much a part of Seattle as the Space Needle.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-23-2012, 09:51 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,054,610 times
Reputation: 3614
If for instance Vancouver was not located where it is, I would find very little appealing about the city itself.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 10:18 AM
 
1,314 posts, read 2,054,460 times
Reputation: 1995
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind View Post
Well, it looks to me that the majority of people in this thread talk about the beauty of Seattle's natural setting, not about the "beauty" of the city itself.

You may argue that you cannot take the city out of it's geographical location, but I don't find much beauty in the city of Seattle itself. However, I do find the city's geographical setting spectacular.

I just find it a shame that the city itself does not even come close to the beauty of it's geographical location. Take that away, and I'm not sure Seattle would be even in the top 10 of the most beautiful ciites in the US.

Would Seattle be able to stand alone as a city without all the gorgeous nature around against cities like SF, Chicago, Boston, NYC, DC, Philadephia and so on?
I noticed that when i was there recently some of the new commercial construction seemed to be taking cues from the natural surroundings as far as materials and lines. Am I imagining this, or are some developers trying to mirror the natural beauty around them?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 10:45 AM
 
1,863 posts, read 5,149,500 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelenogirl View Post
I noticed that when i was there recently some of the new commercial construction seemed to be taking cues from the natural surroundings as far as materials and lines. Am I imagining this, or are some developers trying to mirror the natural beauty around them?
This is what Vancouver, BC has been doing for many years now and the results are spectacular.

Unfortunately, many architectural mistakes were made in Seattle, too many bad choices, and I'm not sure Seattle will learn anything from these mistakes.

IMO, Seattle library and EMP are absolutely ugly. I also think, leaving this ugly rusty factory in the middle of the park in Wallingford was a huge mistake. And I don't even want to talk about the ugly freeway that goes right across the downtown. These are just few examples that come to mind.

So much about Seattle's "beauty". It looks to me as if they had money to spend but had no idea of what to do with it. So many ugly (and very expensive) projects. Do they think with their arses or what? Why should locals endure those ugly monstrosities day after day? They could make city look much more pleasant to the eye. If anything, they could take the natural surroundings as an example of what is beautiful and what is not, if it makes sense at all.

Or... they could ask Vancouver how they did it.

You can start calling me a troll and other names now. It's OK.

Last edited by movingwiththewind; 08-23-2012 at 10:59 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:04 AM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,710,757 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind View Post

You can start calling me a troll and other names now. It's OK.
Nah. You don't even live here. Neither does the OP, so...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:11 AM
 
1,863 posts, read 5,149,500 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by Seacove View Post
Nah. You don't even live here. Neither does the OP, so...
No, I don't. But I made many trips to Seattle and had some extended stays, so I know Seattle prettty well. At least, well enough for somebody who does not live there. I also have some good friends living all around the place whom I visit often.

What, the fact that I don't live in Seattle disqualifies me from the "beauty contest"?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:22 AM
 
Location: Seattle Area
3,451 posts, read 7,054,610 times
Reputation: 3614
Quote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by angelenogirl<br />
I noticed that when i was there recently some of the new commercial construction seemed to be taking cues from the natural surroundings as far as materials and lines. Am I imagining this, or are some developers trying to mirror the natural beauty around them?
<br />
<br />
This is what Vancouver, BC has been doing for many years now and the results are spectacular. <br />
<br />
Unfortunately, many architectural mistakes were made in Seattle, too many bad choices, and I'm not sure Seattle will learn anything from these mistakes.<br />
<br />
IMO, Seattle library and EMP are absolutely ugly. I also think, leaving this ugly rusty factory in the middle of the park in Wallingford was a huge mistake. And I don't even want to talk about the ugly freeway that goes right across the downtown. These are just few examples that come to mind.<br />
<br />
So much about Seattle's "beauty". It looks to me as if they had money to spend but had no idea of what to do with it. So many ugly (and very expensive) projects. Do they think with their arses or what? Why should locals endure those ugly monstrosities day after day? They could make city look much more pleasant to the eye. If anything, they could take the natural surroundings as an example of what is beautiful and what is not, if it makes sense at all. <br />
<br />
Or... they could ask Vancouver how they did it. <br />
<br />
You can start calling me a troll and other names now. It's OK.
Vancouver has its own set of problems, and also has its share of ugliness as well...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:25 AM
 
1,863 posts, read 5,149,500 times
Reputation: 1282
Quote:
Originally Posted by seattlerain View Post
Vancouver has its own set of problems, and also has its share of ugliness as well...
Well, sure. I agree with you on that. Just look on all those old ugly concrete towers built in 60s and 70s all around the downtown peninsula. However, they are trying...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:26 AM
 
21,989 posts, read 15,710,757 times
Reputation: 12943
Quote:
Originally Posted by movingwiththewind View Post
No, I don't. But I made many trips to Seattle and had some extended stays, so I know Seattle prettty well. At least, well enough for somebody who does not live there. I also have some friends living all around the place whom I visited often.

What, the fact that I don't live in Seattle disqualifies me from the "beauty contest"?
You're entitled to your opinion, sure. You are an apparent part-time resident of Vancouver and you like it which should thankfully keep you there (whew!). It feels we're being overrun sometimes so one less car on 5/405 is not going to be missed; half of the Bellevue Square parking lot are BC plates on the weekends. We like BC visitors, they come, spend money, leave and they're polite, so it's all good.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-23-2012, 11:51 AM
 
Location: Seattle-Tacoma, WA Area
100 posts, read 242,822 times
Reputation: 108
I find that Seattle's downtown architecture to be quite immaculate especially with the backdrop of the water and mountains. Personally, I think the skyscrapers of Seattle are very aesthetically pleasing. Yeah, every city has some ugly buildings and if I were to nitpick, you can find eyesores in every city. I actually find the architecture of the homes and buildings in Seattle to be very nice. Driving around West Seattle, you get a very similar feel to the Hawthorne Portland, with the Cape Cods and Victorian homes.

Yeah, it's missing some of the old rowhomes or early 1800 architecture you see in Philly, Detroit or New York, but considering how dilapidated most of those cities are in many areas, I would consider them to be uglier. I mean my family grew up on the East Coast and I have heard stories of how ugly, dirty and run down most of the cities are there, outside of the few prestigious neighborhoods. Seattle, is actually very clean and the buildings are in good condition throughout most of the city.


Seattle's skyscrapers are also some of the coolest, esp rising out of the water.. I mean San Francisco probably had the blandest skyscrapers I ever seen, except that funky pyramid building.

I mean seriously, this is one of the most awesome skyscrapers I have ever seen:
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > Washington > Seattle area
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 07:48 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top