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.
Dictionary.com -
1. the general appearance of a place; the aggregate of features that give character to a landscape.
Merriam Webste:
1. the painted scenes or hangings and accessories used on a theater stage
2. a picturesque view or landscape
3. one's usual surroundings <needed a change of scenery>
Vocabulary.com
Scenery is a word for how a place looks, especially a beautiful, outdoorsy place.
Whoa! Thanks for the free education!
I know what scenery is and I know this is about scenic flat cities. HOWEVER, someone posted photos of NYC hills, to which I responded. Don't lose sight of what I was originally talking about (hills of NYC).
Quit making NYC out to be like Pittsburgh or something. Its got some hills. Most cities do, even including Chicago's suburbs. NYC is hardly what anyone calls scenic, its "flat" to most people.
Pittsburgh elevation ranges from 738 feet to 1204 feet above sea level (466 ft difference)
NYC elevation ranges from sea level to 410 feet above sea level (410 ft difference)
(Manhattan elevation peaks at Hudson Heights (265 ft))
NYC appears "flat" as it is mostly built up, which masks much of the terrain from view.
I know what scenery is and I know this is about scenic flat cities. HOWEVER, someone posted photos of NYC hills, to which I responded. Don't lose sight of what I was originally talking about (hills of NYC).
Sorry that wasn't intended towards you at all, haha. This was meant for two other posters that are saying Houston is more scenic than places like Chicago, Toronto or London, because it doesn't have cold winters and its vegetation stay green all year. They were also saying that buildings, architecture and urban design don't count as scenery.
you honestly can't believe that Houston is a more scenic city...
Chicago easily has one of the best and attractive cityscapes. I cannot believe that someone would post a kroger and a strip mall and say it is scenic in any way.
I agree. Chicago's shoreline and river in the middle.
you honestly can't believe that Houston is a more scenic city...
Chicago easily has one of the best and attractive cityscapes. I cannot believe that someone would post a kroger and a strip mall and say it is scenic in any way.
Lol, when I saw that link I was legitimately confused. If that's the best scenery Houston has to offer I don't want to see the worst.
See and that's your problem, you only refer to scenery as being something natural. Scenery is a landscape that can be just natural or a combination of natural and built environment.
London is considered to be one of the most beautiful cities in the world, you can agree to that no? Then how can London be a beautiful city, but not scenic. It doesn't make sense.
Well...yeah, because that's the beauty of scenery, it's something that can't be altered by man, it's natural. If I'm traveling to a city for scenery I'm not spending hundreds of dollars going to London I tell you that, there's other places in Europe that have way better scenery. London is beautiful because of it's architecture, it's urban environments, it's history, and etc.; honestly that's the reason I'd travel to London, not because of scenery.
Still doesn't change that Chicago lacks great scenery.
Well...yeah, because that's the beauty of scenery, it's something that can't be altered by man, it's natural. If I'm traveling to a city for scenery I'm not spending hundreds of dollars going to London I tell you that, there's other places in Europe that have way better scenery. London is beautiful because of it's architecture, it's urban environments, it's history, and etc.; honestly that's the reason I'd travel to London, not because of scenery.
Last time I checked, Houston was all grassland for the most part before it became a city, so I wouldn't consider the vegetation, especially those palm trees, you showed on the concrete landscape to be "natural". The beautiful vegetation you talk about actually isn't natural to that area, it was brought in when they were building the city. Houston's natural scenery was altered by man. It was mostly grasslands before that. So I guess in that sense what you have shown shouldn't count right? It's something that can't be altered by man per your definition.
Houston was a swamp and marshes/wetland mostly, not a grassland entirely. Only the western edges are prairie.
Ok I was wrong then. The point is the Houston boosters can't use the argument that it's current scenery is Houston's natural scenery. That's all.
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.
