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
Chicago
San Francisco
New York
San Diego
Washington
Los Angeles (at night)
Boston
Miami
Houston (at night)
Phoenix (at night)
Los Angeles/Houston/Phoenix (day)
Philadelphia
Street level. Difference between San Francisco and Seattle is the street level dirtiness of San Francisco takes some away from it but I cant see it being below a top 4-5.
Cleanliness and dirtiness add to how beautiful a city can or will look.
Agreed. You can take a beautiful backyard and if one day it's spotless and then the other days it as five pieces of litter on it, which day do you think it will look more beautiful?
Agreed. You can take a beautiful backyard and if one day it's spotless and then the other days it as five pieces of litter on it, which day do you think it will look more beautiful?
Yeah exactly.
The fact that Boston, Washington, and especially Chicago look like cities that invest several hundred million dollars to up-keeping their cleanliness on a day to day basis has the result for how pristine clean (and in addition, beautiful) they look. Manhattan itself does a pretty spectacular job at looking nifty clean and gleaming these days. Beauty is mostly aesthetics and scenery, it's possible to prefer one to the other in some arguments.
San Francisco is built in a gorgeous setting with gorgeous architecture, if they can up-keep better, then no doubts but aesthetically the litter takes a small toll. Which is where Seattle takes the one up, since it has both and up-keeps well. Again, talking from what is seen at street level. Experience varies from the vista of the Twin Peaks.
Cleanliness and dirtiness add to how beautiful a city can or will look.
Thats only one aspect though.
This isnt simply about whats clean and what isnt. Its about beauty, which is what his point was. I dont think he disagrees that clean/dirty cant tie into beauty.
This isnt simply about whats clean and what isnt. Its about beauty, which is what his point was. I dont think he disagrees that clean/dirty cant tie into beauty.
I used to the word add, to describe the relation of cleanliness/dirtiness of a place in regards to beauty.
Is that different in context from it being only one aspect?
To his point though, he meant city propers, which is all I made a basis on in the first place. Nor did I say how clean a place is determines how beautiful is, my own list is hacked with Seattle first and a city with little to no scenery second and then San Francisco. Aesthetically, Seattle in my opinion has it all to make it work.
What makes sf so beautiful? Have you ever been there. Thats one of the dirtiest cities in the u.s.
Case in 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.
