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.
July 4th or so through August (and sometimes until September) is drought season for Seattle. During this time period there is very little rain and its typically sunny most days.
May-July can be pretty cloudy/drizzly (Think at least a 50/50 shot), as can September some years.
Ben
September is my favorite month. It's sunny most days.
To me, I found SF to be decidedly lacking in trees. I like trees, so my vote went to Seattle. SF is pretty in its own right but as expected with highly dense urban areas, the lack of trees was not unexpected. I also found Seattle to be less congested and I dislike urban crowding to the extent of SF.
The urban setting in SF is actually IMVHO getting tired looking. Everything is starting to get a little grimy and crumbling, and outside of the nicer, upscale neighborhoods, I found SF's infrastruture to be in need of repair. I also found the touristy areas to be really kitschy and lacking in any class.
I really don't have any drive to go back to SF at all, really. I saw what I wanted to see in 7 days.
Now I'm sure if I lived there I'd have a different opinion, and my opinion is entirely that of the tourist, and my own opinion is probably shaped by growing up in a very tree-lined and old neighborhood with class in Chicago, but I just find Seattle more balanced, on the whole.
Mt. Rainier is also awesome, nothing like that near SF.
To me, I found SF to be decidedly lacking in trees. I like trees, so my vote went to Seattle. SF is pretty in its own right but as expected with highly dense urban areas, the lack of trees was not unexpected. I also found Seattle to be less congested and I dislike urban crowding to the extent of SF.
The urban setting in SF is actually IMVHO getting tired looking. Everything is starting to get a little grimy and crumbling, and outside of the nicer, upscale neighborhoods, I found SF's infrastruture to be in need of repair. I also found the touristy areas to be really kitschy and lacking in any class.
I really don't have any drive to go back to SF at all, really. I saw what I wanted to see in 7 days.
Now I'm sure if I lived there I'd have a different opinion, and my opinion is entirely that of the tourist, and my own opinion is probably shaped by growing up in a very tree-lined and old neighborhood with class in Chicago, but I just find Seattle more balanced, on the whole.
It sounds like you mostly stuck to the touristy areas for those seven days... which I could see would paint a sort of "blah" picture of the place, but I don't really understand the comments about the trees and all that. The downtown core doesn't have many trees, no, but in the rest of the city, you'll see plenty.
Quote:
Mt. Rainier is also awesome, nothing like that near SF.
True. But, Seattle doesn't have the Marin Headlands!
It sounds like you mostly stuck to the touristy areas for those seven days... which I could see would paint a sort of "blah" picture of the place, but I don't really understand the comments about the trees and all that. The downtown core doesn't have many trees, no, but in the rest of the city, you'll see plenty.
I love SF. It's a truly amazing and gorgeous city. But I totally understand where the poster was coming from. There are plenty of barren hills covered with homes one right adjacent to the other with no yard and no trees. There's a charm to that. But it also cuts down on yards and trees.
I love SF. It's a truly amazing and gorgeous city. But I totally understand where the poster was coming from. There are plenty of barren hills covered with homes one right adjacent to the other with no yard and no trees. There's a charm to that. But it also cuts down on yards and trees.
Unless you are talking about row houses in S Sf, then that makes little sense.
I love SF. It's a truly amazing and gorgeous city. But I totally understand where the poster was coming from. There are plenty of barren hills covered with homes one right adjacent to the other with no yard and no trees. There's a charm to that. But it also cuts down on yards and trees.
To me, more trees makes a city look less urban, therefore not making for a truly amazing urban setting. By I think Seattle looks fine.
Unless you are talking about row houses in S Sf, then that makes little sense.
Little sense indeed.
Explain to me how this doesn't make sense/
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.
Seattle Washington
