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.
It doesn't matter. I'm simply pointing out that there are valid options missing from the poll. New Orleans only got one vote but it's still up there. There are only 4 more metros that needed to be listed in place of "other".
As far as whether or not Houston or Dallas can ever be called scenic, well I'm not about to beat that dead horse. But San Antonio has some of the same Hill Country scenery as Austin, so its absence is glaring. Atleast to those of us familiar with it.
Too me adding those cities would just be a distraction.
They are clearly not going to garner any substantial votes, people are just going to see them on the list, post overly negative comments about them, then posters are going to come to the defense of this cities and before your know it there goes the thread.
Trust me, both the threads and the cities in question are better off with those cities left off.
Plus San antonio isn't scenic enough to be in the running.
The parts people are familiar with are just as nondescript as Houston and DFW. You may be familiar with New Braunfels, Bourne or other more pleasant parts of the metro but when the average citydata poster thinks of SA they are generally thinking of the city.
Plus San antonio isn't scenic enough to be in the running.
The parts people are familiar with are just as nondescript as Houston and DFW. You may be familiar with New Braunfels, Bourne or other more pleasant parts of the metro but when the average citydata poster thinks of SA they are generally thinking of the city.
All matters of opinion that should be up to the voters to decide. If New Orleans deserves to be up there with only one vote then so does every southern metro over one million people.
And like someone else pointed out, the OP suggests that the entire metro should be considered as a whole. They didn't ask which metro has the most scenic part of town.
If we're talking metros, New Orleans has to be anything but last. The largest urban wildlife refuge is in city limits in Bayou Sauvage, Venice is also in the metro area and is one of the furthest south you can drive in Louisiana. Definitely unique at least.
Wow this is a tough poll. I'll have to mull this over before I actually vote.
I'm tossing out Washington DC and New Orleans. Both are flat and swampy, and their rivers aren't particularly scenic - especially New Orleans.
DC is not swampy and a very very small portion is low-lying. Can we please stop with these absolutely ridiculous assertions? Sounds like you have never been to DC metro. (FYI the tidal basin doesn't reflect DC metro).
DC is close to Shenandoah and does have the river, bay, falls (Great Falls), and estuaries. It's completely ridiculous to lump it in with New Orleans as "swampy".
Too me adding those cities would just be a distraction.
They are clearly not going to garner any substantial votes, people are just going to see them on the list, post overly negative comments about them, then posters are going to come to the defense of this cities and before your know it there goes the thread.
Trust me, both the threads and the cities in question are better off with those cities left off.
Plus San antonio isn't scenic enough to be in the running.
The parts people are familiar with are just as nondescript as Houston and DFW. You may be familiar with New Braunfels, Bourne or other more pleasant parts of the metro but when the average citydata poster thinks of SA they are generally thinking of the city.
I don't know about comparing San Antonio to Houston or DFW. The North side of the city is pretty similar to Austin in terms of scenery, and that's where the nicest and most amenity-filled neighborhoods generally are as well. Nothing in San Antonio matches the lakefront areas in Austin, but there is still a decent amount of San Antonio with nice rolling forested hills.
San Antonio is also close to some really nice hill country escapes between New Breunfels, Fredericksburg, Garner State Park, etc.
I don't know about comparing San Antonio to Houston or DFW. The North side of the city is pretty similar to Austin in terms of scenery, and that's where the nicest and most amenity-filled neighborhoods generally are as well. Nothing in San Antonio matches the lakefront areas in Austin, but there is still a decent amount of San Antonio with nice rolling forested hills.
San Antonio is also close to some really nice hill country escapes between New Breunfels, Fredericksburg, Garner State Park, etc.
I agree. San Antonio should not be compared to Dallas or Houston.
Miami is nice but there's no way it's more scenic and beautiful than Tampa/St Pete area. People obviously haven't been to Tampa to visit.
I’ve been to both. Tampa as recently as last month.
I like Tampa a lot but to me, Miami is more scenic.
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.
