The Golden Gate without the bridge or SF skyline/city view? Big Sur without the bridge? (San Francisco: home)

[MrJester]

Golden Gate and Big Sur are some of the most iconic scenes in California.

But imagine this: What if Golden Gate and Big Sur didn't have bridges? What if the entire Bay Area was wilderness, and there was no skyline or cityscape to be seen at all from the Golden Gate Bridge?

I would think that both Big Sur and the Golden Gate would yes, be scenic for its coastal hills and cliffs, but they wouldn't stand out from other areas of the Northern or Central California Coast, which is lined with coastal hills and cliffs.

I'd even go so far as to say that while San Francisco does have a nice built environment, there are other cities in the U.S. that have natural environments as scenic as San Francisco. It's the fact that San Francisco has a striking skyline, iconic bridges, Victorians, Coit Tower, The Presidio and Golden Gate Park, and Chinatown that makes San Francisco stunning. SF's BUILT environment is really what gives SF MOST of its charm. Want proof? If the San Francisco Peninsula was wilderness, it wouldn't stand out that much--the rest of the Northern/Central California coast is equally, if not even more, naturally scenic. BUT even if San Francisco was completely flat and located inland (like where Sacramento is now), but all of SF's icons were still there--the skyline, the Victorians, Chinatown, Coit Tower, etc.--SF would still be among the most charming U.S. cities, simply for its built environment.

[04kL4nD]

The Big Sur area has several bridges, including Bixby which is frequently photographed. I know many of us are working from home for the time being, but let's all try to be more interesting in the meantime.