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.
Is the Charles River Basin technically a lake? Either way, I do think it would still be a stunning, natural feature even without the skyscrapers in the background. If anything, the [largely fugly] back bay towers detract from the basin’s beauty more than they add to it.
I'm sure it would be fine. "Stunning" is a reach in my opinion, but agree to disagree on the terminology. I don't see how it would be any prettier than Back Cove or anywhere else in the Portland area.
Quote:
And you were the one who brought up lighthouses in the first place. It’s not like Portland Head is so much more accessible from downtown than Boston Light.
I guess that depends on your definition of "accessible." To me, being able to get to Portland Head Light from downtown quickly by car or bike makes it more accessible than Boston light which is only accessible by private boat or from a distance on a limited run lighthouse boat tour which costs $25/35 per person.
Quote:
The Fens and Casco Bay definitely aren’t equivalent. While there are some swamps and marshes in Portland, I don’t think the city has turned any into a park. Maybe the Back Cove is the closest thing?
In the city proper you have Back Cove, Fore River Sanctuary, and the Stroudwater Trail. Just outside of the city limits you have the Scarborough Marsh and Gilsland Farm. Scarborough Marsh in particular is very impressive with a ton of walking, biking, kayaking, canoeing, etc.
For natural beauty the nicest metropolitan area in the Northeast would go to Portland ME.
I'd go Burlington for the best natural beauty. By far, actually. I'm an ocean guy, but Boston Harbor and Casco Bay hardly represent the best or most scenic waterways in their respective states. Lake Champlain, on the other hand, is stunning right in the heart of Burlington. You have great views of the Adirondacks and water from anywhere in town. And if you're on the water looking back towards Burlington you have Camel's Hump and Mt. Mansfield as a backdrop. Portland has mountains in the distance, but nowhere near as close as Burlington. Burlington is also a whole lot less industrial than Portland or Boston so there's very little industry along the water (which puts a damper on views from downtown Portland and Boston).
i'd go burlington for the best natural beauty. By far, actually. I'm an ocean guy, but boston harbor and casco bay hardly represent the best or most scenic waterways in their respective states. Lake champlain, on the other hand, is stunning right in the heart of burlington. You have great views of the adirondacks and water from anywhere in town. And if you're on the water looking back towards burlington you have camel's hump and mt. Mansfield as a backdrop. Portland has mountains in the distance, but nowhere near as close as burlington. Burlington is also a whole lot less industrial than portland or boston so there's very little industry along the water (which puts a damper on views from downtown portland and boston).
Boston has better urban parks without a doubt. Frankly, I think the built environment in Boston is infinitely better than Portland which isn't particularly attractive outside of the small footprint of the downtown area. But Portland is much smaller and sparsely developed natural scenery exists within and just outside the city limits. For example, this is in the city of Portland. This is 10 minutes from downtown. This is only about 15 minutes from downtown. There are places on Cape Ann that are comparably beautiful, the Harbor Islands are wonderful, and Boston has great access to Cape Cod and beyond. But it doesn't have nearly as much that's so beautiful, so accessible, and so close to the city center. Boston's a very pretty major city. But it can't compete with Portland on the natural beauty front. If you wanted to talk built environment, Boston wins easily. If you want to talk a combination of natural beauty and built environment, I'd also give it to Boston. But purely in terms of natural beauty, I have a hard time saying that Boston is better. Having lived in both, there's no question that there's a lot more natural beauty close in to the center of Portland.
This is spot on, in my opinion. I was a little underwhelmed by Portland, but the setting is gorgeous.
I think you're conflating natural beauty and overall beauty.
This is an interesting question--where/how you draw line between the two. To deconstruct the original post...
Thread title declares a "scenery battle."
Poll asks which "city/metro is more naturally beautiful."
OP text says "...both are forces to be reckoned with when it comes to natural beauty. From Boston's fantastic trails and iconic harbor to Portland's stunning coastline, which city/metro better deserves to be called the scenic crown jewel of the far northeastern U.S.?
Scenery per se can be constructed or natural and in urban contexts is a mixture of both. Boston's "fantastic trails" must be a reference to the freedom trail which is entirely constructed. The "iconic" harbor is pretty much constructed too. However, the "stunning coastline" must be referring to the Casco Bay shore and islands rather than to the city's waterfront. At least that's how I read it, and to me the original post conflates natural scenery with urban aesthetics, which is fine since they're so interrelated. As such my original response to the post was along the lines of "You're kidding, right? Boston way over Portland." But when you disentangle the urban from the natural scenery then greater Portland, as a less developed place with somewhat more dramatic geographical forms, gets the win for natural scenery.
This is an interesting question--where/how you draw line between the two. To deconstruct the original post...
Thread title declares a "scenery battle."
Poll asks which "city/metro is more naturally beautiful."
OP text says "...both are forces to be reckoned with when it comes to natural beauty. From Boston's fantastic trails and iconic harbor to Portland's stunning coastline, which city/metro better deserves to be called the scenic crown jewel of the far northeastern U.S.?
Scenery per se can be constructed or natural and in urban contexts is a mixture of both. Boston's "fantastic trails" must be a reference to the freedom trail which is entirely constructed. The "iconic" harbor is pretty much constructed too. However, the "stunning coastline" must be referring to the Casco Bay shore and islands rather than to the city's waterfront. At least that's how I read it, and to me the original post conflates natural scenery with urban aesthetics, which is fine since they're so interrelated. As such my original response to the post was along the lines of "You're kidding, right? Boston way over Portland." But when you disentangle the urban from the natural scenery then greater Portland, as a less developed place with somewhat more dramatic geographical forms, gets the win for natural scenery.
Good points. I think that realistically, it's hard to disentangle the two. What you see is what you see, and I think the whole package easily goes to Boston. All around, it's a more aesthetically pleasing city. Portland has some level of quaint small town seaside charm in the few small blocks that make up the Old Port. Boston' can't replicate the small town charm because it's a large city, but I don't even think the Old Port is as aesthetically pretty as many of Boston's nicer neighborhoods (Beacon Hill, Back Bay, South End, North End, Charlestown, etc.).
But I really have a hard time giving the "natural beauty" accolade to Boston. I do think Casco Bay beats Boston Harbor. And because of Portland's small size, there's a lot more nature so close to the city center.
I agree with you, Portland is not as pretty of a city as Boston. But this is about natural scenery. In that case, I think Portland wins. It's a prettier natural setting. but the gap isn't that big. There are parts of the Boston metro (i.e. Cape Ann) that rival the Portland area's prettiest spots. But Portland has more widespread natural beauty.
Naturally speaking, I think Burlington Vermont is the prettiest city in New England by a solid margin.
I'm biased, but I really feel that this is true. Compared to Worcester, Hartford, Providence, Portland, Springfield, Manchester, etc, Burlington is the most attractive, because of Lake Champlain and because of its neighborhoods.
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.
