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.
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 agree with this... By quite a margin I'd say, too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charlotte485
I’ve been to both. Tampa as recently as last month.
I like Tampa a lot but to me, Miami is more scenic.
The key to me is how much of the Tampa Bay region is wrapped around large bodies of water, which are stunning to see up close (Old Tampa Bay, Tampa Bay, multiple bayous, sounds, etc., between mainland and Gulf Coast, whereas pretty much all of the Miami Metro away from the immediate coast is quite bland...
Quote:
Originally Posted by sobchbud1
I grew up in the Tampa Bay area. Never thought of those 3 as really cool - laid back, quiet, and yes pretty. Cool? not really. Maybe not your style but Metro Miami has its share of its cool places stretching from the Keys to Palm Beach.
Tampa Bay has powdery squeeky white sand, but by almost every other metric I think Miami wins it and its why I live here.
I just saw the "natural" proviso in the question, but my vote would still be Miami - Instead of hills and changes in elevations my preference is for the blue waters, islands, palms, mangroves, and glades. To each his own. There is vegetation down here unique only to this area in the cont. USA As is the diverse and exotic wildlife in abundance (I consider that natural scenery). I really appreciate the Everglades and its quiet beauty. Its uniqueness and importance to birds and other wildlife make it even more special. And as I have already observed our reef and underwater environment is unquestionably the best in this hemisphere.
And I think the exact opposite. I guess having lived in the Orlando area for so long (some 15 years or so) has gotten me overly used to swampland, but I don't see much excitement in the Everglades. It's not much different than all of the other large swamplands found inland.
I think what JMatl meant about those places being "cool" was more about their natural beauty than anything else... Tarpon Springs is a gorgeous place, as are parts of Safety Harbor, Dunedin, etc.
I love Biscayne Bay in South FL... The rest, not so much.
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.
Yeah and the northeast portion of Houston is covered in pine forests and not as flat as the rest of the metro and the Brazos area of the metro is quite scenic. Every metro has areas that are more scenic than others, but when you are talking about Nashville, Birmingham, Atlanta, Charlotte.... large portions of the metro are scenic. And that includes areas of the metro people are familiar with.
No one on here is voting for the north east portion of Nashville or a certain area of Atlanta, they are voting those areas based on the general impression of the metro as a whole.
San Antonio's prettiest parts are no prettier than Houston’s prettiest parts, but that doesn't matter because the general population are not as familiar with those parts. I am sure that most Texas posters are not even familiar with the more scenic portions of Houston, so why talk about them? Same with San Antonio. Most people world associate Houston with the 610 loop and San Antonio with 410, the bases or 6 flags area. None of these places are scenic.
If the metro is scenic you should not have to look for scenery. SA is in the same boat as Houston and Dallas. Also, DFW has its scenic areas too. Possom Kingdom lake in the CSA is gorgeous
I don't consider Miami really scenic. Its got a great skyline but if one were to take away the buildings, its a flat swampy area. Atlanta and Austin have some great elevation, tree cover and water front. I pick Austin tops as its water is more accessible than Atlanta's, and it has better elevation in general. Atlanta benefits from having Stone Mountain nearby.
Yeah come to think of it, Birmingham probably beats Austin and Nashville.
I lived in B'ham and Atlanta. Visited Nashville more than once, and live now 3 hours from Austin. B'ham just isn't as scenic. Its not bad but not on their level.
Just to elaborate on this a bit. Here are a couple of videos to compare the hillier cities. I think all of these cities are beautiful in their own regards and it just comes down to personal preference.
This was really good! From a natural beauty plus architecture, Austin wins with Nashville. The hills, tree cover, lake front were superb. I would rank Nashville next because the latter's waterfront needs work but the downtown looked great and areas around Vanderbilt were really nice.
I found the Atlanta drone video disappointing as it seemed to overly focus on downtown and part of midtown. Maybe I missed it but it didn't seem to showcase much of Stone Mountain, Vinings, Duluth, or Piedmont Park.
I don't consider Miami really scenic. Its got a great skyline but if one were to take away the buildings, its a flat swampy area. Atlanta and Austin have some great elevation, tree cover and water front. I pick Austin tops as its water is more accessible than Atlanta's, and it has better elevation in general. Atlanta benefits from having Stone Mountain nearby.
How much different is Austin and Atlanta elevation wise? I feel like ATL varies a lot, especially outside 285 and north of US 78. I think the much heavier tall tree cover of ATL versus Austin cancels out some of the views one would see.
DC is the most scenic, IMO. It offers the most diverse terrain...marsh to mountains, tidal river and rapids (Great Falls is just about the most scenic place in the South) on the list. It also has the best architecture and the best maintained small towns.
All of these cities are pretty though and scenic but there’s just a lot of sameness in Atlanta, Austin, New Orleans...
I haven’t been to Tampa. It definitely looks very pretty though.
I lived in D.C. (VA side). There are no mountains within 30 miles that I recall. And you could not have visited Austin to call it the same as New Orleans, Atlanta etc. Its got better elevation than D.C.
I'm going with Atlanta. The tree converage is unmatched and the hills make driving relaxing when off the freeway. Very green. Nashville comes close and I even think it has higher elevatoon points than ATL closer into the city.
Honestly surprised Miami has gotten so many votes. It looks nice along the coast but go inland and itslike any flat suburban area for the most part. No hills, forests, and the only waterways are there for drainage purposes.
Atlanta lacks riverfront access for most and most wouldn't know it was there as doesn't traverse the city like water does for Austin and Nashville. I'd rank Austin's tree canopy as good as Atlanta's and I lived in the latter and visit the former often.
If this was an outdoor recreational thread, I agree, but it's a scenic thread. Plenty of cities like rivers next to their downtowns like Nashville for example.
Water is scenery. People pay a premium for water front views or access to it. Look at NYC and especially Miami which lacks elevation.
Atlanta lacks riverfront access for most and most wouldn't know it was there as doesn't traverse the city like water does for Austin and Nashville. I'd rank Austin's tree canopy as good as Atlanta's and I lived in the latter and visit the former often.
Nah Austin's tree canopy is no where near Atlanta. It's not even close actually. Atlanta does not have huge swaths of treeless rolling prairie like Austin does. There are some specific areas of Austin that have a lot of trees like Atlanta but they also aren't as tall. ATL also has more variety and is more lush.
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.
). I really appreciate the Everglades and its quiet beauty. Its uniqueness and importance to birds and other wildlife make it even more special. And as I have already observed our reef and underwater environment is unquestionably the best in this hemisphere.
