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.
What type of architecture?...because Atlanta & Charlotte just has post modern 1980 /1990's skyscrapers but outside of that what architecture do those cities have?
What neighborhoods do these cities have that stand out architecturally?
St. Louis & Detroit should be ranked above the two if we are discussing major cities I just mentioned.
I probably like gothic architecture best, but appreciate all eras. I haven't visited Atlanta or Charlotte, but assumed they had some decent neighborhoods. I just considered their 1980s-2000s skyscrapers to be standout enough rank them higher. Detroit has definitely made some strides in recent years and with some more infill developments in addition to the many beautiful art deco buildings from its hey-day I would put it above Charlotte (maybe even Atlanta in the future).
But you can't separate the built from the natural anyway. New York's skyscrapers wouldn't count for much if you couldn't see them from across the East River on Long Island or from the bluffs above the Hudson River. Even approaching the city along the Henry Hudson parkway or from George Washington Bridge or from the harbor the vistas of city and water are what makes the skyline the skyline.San Francisco would be a beautiful hilly peninsula even if they'd built nothing on it but its so much more spectacular with the city and its bridges there in that landscape.
I can't think of a more beautifully set city/region than San Francisco and the Bay Area. Both city and metro are a fantastic mix of nature and man.
But I have to question whether SF would be "a beautiful hilly peninsula even if they'd built nothing on it". The natural environment that is SF tends towards being barren, made up of the same type of scrubby hills that one can see throughout the Bay Area and much of California.
A good portion of SF, the western parts of the city, was reclaimed from sand dunes, most famously the lush and incredibly green landscape that is Golden Gate Park. Looming above GGP is Mt. Sutro, covered with a forest of eucalyptus; but this forest was man made, planted with a tree that was an Australian import.
Yes, there are portions of the Bay Area covered with forest land, such as Muir Woods and other stretches of Marin redwoods, but much of the region is naturally barren, made all the more beautiful by man.
For a parallel to what man does to change an environment and make it more beautiful, look at the westside of LA, that stretch from Beverly Hills to Westwood, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, and Santa Monica. Those gorgeous landscapes would look dry and desert like in its natural state.
I can't think of a more beautifully set city/region than San Francisco and the Bay Area. Both city and metro are a fantastic mix of nature and man.
But I have to question whether SF would be "a beautiful hilly peninsula even if they'd built nothing on it". The natural environment that is SF tends towards being barren, made up of the same type of scrubby hills that one can see throughout the Bay Area and much of California.
A good portion of SF, the western parts of the city, was reclaimed from sand dunes, most famously the lush and incredibly green landscape that is Golden Gate Park. Looming above GGP is Mt. Sutro, covered with a forest of eucalyptus; but this forest was man made, planted with a tree that was an Australian import.
Yes, there are portions of the Bay Area covered with forest land, such as Muir Woods and other stretches of Marin redwoods, but much of the region is naturally barren, made all the more beautiful by man.
For a parallel to what man does to change an environment and make it more beautiful, look at the westside of LA, that stretch from Beverly Hills to Westwood, Bel Air, Brentwood, Pacific Palisades, and Santa Monica. Those gorgeous landscapes would look dry and desert like in its natural state.
Mankind does a very good job in creating beauty. Great for correcting assets that nature never bore.
Well, so here's my top 10:
1. New York City
2. San Francisco
3. Seattle
4. Miami
5. Chicago
6. Los Angeles
7. Houston
8. Las Vegas
9. Philadelphia
10. Boston
List the top 10 cities that you think are the most beautiful (either a blend of architecture and environment or separately up to you). Only rule:
-City must have a population of at least 350k in the city proper
-List your top 10 in order from most beautiful and better if you can add why for each one
Mine:
1. San Francisco - The blend of beautiful architecture and the landscape make this easily the most beautiful.
2. Seattle - While the city is beautiful, the natural surroundings put this towards the top
3. San Diego - Same as Seattle, the city is pretty but the natural surroundings are what put it over the top.
4. Chicago - Beautiful architecture, trees everywhere, and the lakefront can't be beat.
5. New Orleans - The architecture of the city is just so great and the vegetation as well.
6. Miami - Water everywhere, modern architecture, and tropical vegetation, and Biscayne Bay and the turquoise water.
7. DC - Elegant European-like architecture
8. Boston - the hill streets, the bay, and the colonial architecture
9. Los Angeles - Mountains are beautiful, but what knocks this city down the list is the ugly
10. NYC - New York has so much beauty and at the same time so much ugly, but still top 10 most beautiful cities IMO
Pretty good. Will return later with my list, I think Denver could be top 10, Phoenix too.
Honolulu: It is on an island in the Pacific, the island is home to mountains, forests, volcanoes, coastline, caves, waterfalls, and probably a multitude of things even beyond that I have no knowledge of.
San Juan: It is on an island in the Caribbean, the island is home to steep elevations and mountains, forests, coastline, waterfalls, and like Honolulu (on Oahu), probably a multitude of things that I have no knowledge of.
Seattle: Green and extremely lush (emerald like in color), near a large body of beautiful water (Pudget Sound), entrenched between the Olympics and the Cascades, and the shadows of Mount Rainier are cast all over the Pudget Sound Region.
San Francisco Bay Area: The city is built beautifully with the lowlands being in the northern terminus of the city and the more south you go, the higher the elevation. The mountains around San Francisco, while not exactly towering like the Himalayas or Alps or Andes, are very rigged, jagged, and sharp looking with dramatic vistas. The city's built urban environment adds and enhances the sight. Mount Diablo, the San Francisco Bay, the Pacific Ocean, the steep valleys, some of the islands in the Bay Area, and the evergreen Redwoods nearby only work to enhance the imagery.
Miami: Ocean-barrier islands-Bays-the 20 mile wide by 100 miles long mainland-the Everglades Wetlands. That's a whole lot of water in every direction for a metropolis located on the mainland of America. If you want to be technical about it, there's also a massive lake (Lake Okeechobee) to the northwest of much of the metropolitan area as well. The architecture is conducive to an environment built in the topics, as is the infrastructure, and the trees and plants in the area are likewise oriented towards life in the tropics.
New York: the mountains around the Hudson River Valley, the green and lush forestation, the immediate location on New York Bay and the Long Island Sound and the Atlantic Ocean. One of the few places in all of America where you can go whale watching in the morning on a ferry and then go skiing in the evening at a resort. More or less, other than deserts, the region appears to have a little bit of it all. Small waterfalls, dense forestations, immediate and useful coastal location, rivers, lakes, bays, sounds, islands, you name it, Greater New York probably has it. Obviously in addition to the natural environment there is also the city's human built environment with includes its uber-urban cityscape, massively iconic and ever-encompassing skyline, and vertically built up high-density footprint.
Los Angeles: The most scenic spots are on a whole different level, if you want to get an idea of what I mean, then you have to see Avalon on Santa Catalina Island for yourself (Google it). Los Angeles also has the Channel Islands as well, in addition to forests in the interior, mountain ranges (some like Big Bear with skii resorts), deserts, valleys, coastline, islands, and the like. Also one of the few places where you can partake in activities on the coast for part of the day, while also snow skiing in the mountains the other part of the day.
San Diego: the mountains, coastline, forestation in the area, the lagoons and bays, and the peninsula features as well. Similar aesthetic look and feel to the topography as Los Angeles with similar advantages as well.
Portland: Dense forestation, rolling hills, volcanoes, mountain ranges, the coast 80 minutes away, rivers, and Mount Hood in particular.
Boston: Greater Boston is home to the likes of Cape Cod, Martha's Vineyard, and Nantucket, as well as urban coastline areas without sacrificing New England's trademark dense forestation, rolling hill terrain that eventually become rigged and sharp mountains the further into the interior you go. The area goes beyond just natural scenery as well, the built environment is pretty as well; well taken care, looks much nicer than its age would suggest, clean, prosperous and storied looking architecture.
New Orleans: the stereotypical swampy look. The mossy trees with the hanging branches and twigs with the coated leaves and stuff like that. In addition to the lush greenery and forestation in the area. It gives the city a pretty distinct look and feel, in particular pockets, it can be extremely beautiful in its own right especially when you see the plants and trees growing on top of building walls and stuff like various spots in core New Orleans. The human built environment and cityscape in core New Orleans is picturesque as well. Even more picturesque than the surrounding area's natural environment.
LMAO, the way you describe NYC is laughable. We are talking CITIES. No one in Queens or Da Bronx is thinking of whale watching and Sking! Fagetaboutit! Concrete jungle in Queens and Staten Island.
New Orleans. No...sorry..its like you are describing Savannah!. Portland yes and Seattle. These are naturally beautiful. San Diego...ok but I've seen pics of San Diego from the early 1900s. It was brown and dry. Water pumped in from elsewhere makes it a man made beauty whereas S.F bay area is more naturally beautiful
In no real order;
Austin (amazing I see no or little mention of this area).
Portland
Seattle
S.F.
L.A.
Denver (except eastward view is basically Kansas, flat and treeless)
Atlanta
Nashville
Miami (Architecture as the metro has no elevation)
Pittsburgh/DFW due to a great skyline.
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.
