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.
I'm a native Seattleite, but I've been to Portland many times. I voted for Seattle.
I'm only voting based on how interesting and unique each city is, not by financial statistics or anything like that.
Seattle is much more urban than Portland, and much more modern. When you're in Portland it feels more like a large country town and not a big city. It's strange, but Portland looks and feels like it should be in the kind of environment you would find east of the Cascades (grassy, agricultural, open, minimal trees.) It seems sort of out of place west of the Cascades. Not to mention (even though I am now) that Seattle's skyline dwarfs Portland's and is IMO North America's best. Also depending on where you are in Seattle the feeling is different. Each neighborhood is almost like its own town, they vary greatly.
Seattle has a more interesting environment IMO. Its beautiful lakes and evergreen trees are a refreshing sight any day of the year. Portland has lots of trees too, but they don't stick out as much. Seattle also has a much better view of the mountains, with two major mountain ranges and several large volcanoes visible from the city. Despite the clouds, the mountains are visible most days of the year, with the exception of Mt. Rainier, which is otherwise the most beautiful mountain on the planet IMO. When you round certain bends headed south on I-5 you are instantly humbled by Mt. Rainier looming on the horizon, you almost forget it's there until you see it again, and you think "Oh yeah, there's a mountain there." Portland only has Mt. Hood, which isn't nearly as impressive. The rest of the Cascades drop in elevation suddenly once they get into Oregon and aren't anything special viewed from Portland.
Basically, if you want a more urban experience while still having the most amazing views and activities, Seattle is your best bet.
I'm a native Seattleite, but I've been to Portland many times. I voted for Seattle.
I'm only voting based on how interesting and unique each city is, not by financial statistics or anything like that.
Seattle is much more urban than Portland, and much more modern. When you're in Portland it feels more like a large country town and not a big city. It's strange, but Portland looks and feels like it should be in the kind of environment you would find east of the Cascades (grassy, agricultural, open, minimal trees.) It seems sort of out of place west of the Cascades. Not to mention (even though I am now) that Seattle's skyline dwarfs Portland's and is IMO North America's best. Also depending on where you are in Seattle the feeling is different. Each neighborhood is almost like its own town, they vary greatly.
Seattle has a more interesting environment IMO. Its beautiful lakes and evergreen trees are a refreshing sight any day of the year. Portland has lots of trees too, but they don't stick out as much. Seattle also has a much better view of the mountains, with two major mountain ranges and several large volcanoes visible from the city. Despite the clouds, the mountains are visible most days of the year, with the exception of Mt. Rainier, which is otherwise the most beautiful mountain on the planet IMO. When you round certain bends headed south on I-5 you are instantly humbled by Mt. Rainier looming on the horizon, you almost forget it's there until you see it again, and you think "Oh yeah, there's a mountain there." Portland only has Mt. Hood, which isn't nearly as impressive. The rest of the Cascades drop in elevation suddenly once they get into Oregon and aren't anything special viewed from Portland.
Basically, if you want a more urban experience while still having the most amazing views and activities, Seattle is your best bet.
Portland only has Mount Hood? Except that we also have Mount St. Helens and you can see Mount Adams from certain places, and also you can see the high Cascades which are very similar in appearance to the Olympics.
Portland is grassy, agricultural, and open, with few trees? Have you really been here ever? I would not use any of those adjectives to describe it at all and I'm from somewhere way more mountainous and forested. Seattle proper in my experience has way less tree cover than Portland...
Seattle does have Portland beat with its water features. I voted Seattle, but really?
Portland only has Mount Hood? Except that we also have Mount St. Helens and you can see Mount Adams from certain places, and also you can see the high Cascades which are very similar in appearance to the Olympics.
Portland is grassy, agricultural, and open, with few trees? Have you really been here ever? I would not use any of those adjectives to describe it at all and I'm from somewhere way more mountainous and forested. Seattle proper in my experience has way less tree cover than Portland...
Seattle does have Portland beat with its water features. I voted Seattle, but really?
I don't really know two much about the mountain situation. Where I've been in Portland I haven't been able to see them too well.
I didn't say Portland was grassy and open, I said it felt like an east-of-the-Cascades town. It didn't look like one, but it seemed to have the same kind of vibe. I suppose that's part of why Portland is unique.
Again, when dealing with tree cover, it depends on where you are. North Seattle especially has great tree cover.
Portland only has Mount Hood? Except that we also have Mount St. Helens and you can see Mount Adams from certain places, and also you can see the high Cascades which are very similar in appearance to the Olympics.
Portland is grassy, agricultural, and open, with few trees? Have you really been here ever? I would not use any of those adjectives to describe it at all and I'm from somewhere way more mountainous and forested. Seattle proper in my experience has way less tree cover than Portland...
Seattle does have Portland beat with its water features. I voted Seattle, but really?
Portland has much more of a forested feel than Seattle. Ever driven into downtown Portland from HWY 26?
Portland has much more of a forested feel than Seattle. Ever driven into downtown Portland from HWY 26?
No, I haven't. I notice in Google Earth that most of the heavily forested areas of Portland are on top of the hills. I've only been in the flat parts, which seem to make up most of the land area.
No, I haven't. I notice in Google Earth that most of the heavily forested areas of Portland are on top of the hills. I've only been in the flat parts, which seem to make up most of the land area.
Beautiful. I assure you you get similar views on I-5 southbound in the northern part of Seattle. Anyways, I know you have trees. But sometimes even heavy forest isn't the most stunning. I can look outside my upstairs window right now and see about a mile of residential area with hundreds of different varieties of trees, both deciduous and conifer up until the opposite hill, which provides the most beautiful sunsets all year round. I'll see if I can get a picture up at some point.
07-12-2010, 06:48 PM
Status:
"From 31 to 41 Countries Visited: )"
(set 4 days ago)
4,640 posts, read 13,913,974 times
Reputation: 4052
Wow Seattle is winning by almost 70% in this poll!
But people shouldnt speak condescendingly about Portland, because there are nice things about Portland! I enjoyed my visit to Northern Oregon and checking out Portland, Cannon Beach, and Mount Hood. Portland is actually technically closer to the ocean and a mountain like Mount Hood than Seattle. Portland can be a great place to visit and live.
I just wish Portland developed a skyline like Seattle or Vancouver(BC), had more diversity and cosmopolitanness, more buildings instead of houses, and more urbanity in general while still having an ultra laid back feel etc.
So I hope Portland becomes more like Seattle, Vancouver, and San Francisco, with some things, but maintaining its uniqueness.
Portland is actually technically closer to the ocean...
You realize that Puget Sound is part of the Pacific Ocean right? Seattle is defined in every atlas and almanac, as well by the USCB as a coastal city. Seattle has some pretty nice beaches, too. Obviously, they aren't like the beaches right on the open ocean, with big waves and such, they are more like lake front beaches, but still good.
Don't get me wrong, Portland is a fantastic place and has lots of great beaches nearby, I just want to make my point.
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.
Have you really been here ever? I would not use any of those adjectives to describe it at all and I'm from somewhere way more mountainous and forested. Seattle proper in my experience has way less tree cover than Portland...
