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.
My ranking goes Nashville, Atlanta, Washington DC, Austin, Miami.
Ones not listed, Birmingham, Charlotte, Raleigh are ranked high as well. Birmingham would be second if listed.
I give Nashville the advantage for having a combination of the large hills(some over 1000 ft), tree foliage and water features(a river and three sizable lakes) all within the metro area.
LOL, sounds like almost as good as Austin. Highest point in ATX is over 1,000, great tree canopy, has Canyons in the city, a string of lakes including Travis, deepest in the state with great water clarity.
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.
San Antonio's Riverwalk is great but overall its not nearly as scenic as Austin. I was just down there in May from DFW. SA's good scenery isn't as widely available as it is for Austin. Its skewed two the north and NW side north of 410 and really 1604 and heading up I 10 as it curves northwest.
San Antonio's Riverwalk is great but overall its not nearly as scenic as Austin. I was just down there in May from DFW. SA's good scenery isn't as widely available as it is for Austin. Its skewed two the north and NW side north of 410 and really 1604 and heading up I 10 as it curves northwest.
Austin has more scenery inside the city thats true, but its pretty much a wash once you get outside the cities.
DFW was not included but in terms of scenery for a metro of its size and character, it has some rolling hills and most significantly, more water within a 40 mile radius than any of the metros listed:
1. White Rock lake just north of downtown with a great view of the CBD
2. Lake Grapevine, Lewisville, Joe Pool, Worth, Arlington, Benbrook, Lavon. and Roberts. Farther out - Tawokoni, Cedar Creek, Possum Kingdom, Granbury and Texoma.
Houston could actually have a better scenery if the people didn't mess up the terrain. I like the subtropical swampy to forest area of Southeast Texas. Could have been so much better.
Houston could actually have a better scenery if the people didn't mess up the terrain. I like the subtropical swampy to forest area of Southeast Texas. Could have been so much better.
Well it's not the terrain that's messed up since it still looks like that. I think maybe specifically you could be referring to the east side where the refineries are, but outside of that Houston is still pretty lush and green with plenty of waterways. It's not like they leveled hills or anything. Then when you go north of the Grand Parkway, the land starts to roll a bit within the thick pine forest. Plus some areas got more scenic (for example around Bridgeland in NW Harris County) due to planting more trees which looks nice in the rolling prairie.
The developments happening in the NW side along 290 has helped highlight that this side of the Houston metro is also not completely flat. People in ATL or Austin might laugh but it's a nice change of pace that may approach Orlando's level of hills eventually if development spreads far enough.
DC is flat and swampy? Apparently many of you have never ventured off the National Mall judging by the scoring thus far.
In my defense, it's all relative.
I'm no stranger to DC. As recently as 2019 I stayed several nights in Barnaby Woods and visited Rock Creek Park, so I'm familiar with more than just the touristy areas.
I still stand by my opinion that DC is not on the same level as Nashville, Atlanta, or Austin in terms of natural beauty/scenery.
Houston could actually have a better scenery if the people didn't mess up the terrain. I like the subtropical swampy to forest area of Southeast Texas. Could have been so much better.
I agree. Planting more trees will help, but so much damage has already been done with all the wide roads and concrete everywhere.
Miami is definitely easy on the eyes, but I've said before that what most people see as a beautiful area is really the result of decades of smart planning. Houston is the exact opposite of that.
DC looks like Atlanta but with a huge river (and a few smaller rivers and dozens of creeks). I’ll say it again, Great Falls is more scenic than any natural element in any of the other cities on this list. Then there’s Harper’s Ferry! With the horse farms in Loudon, gorgeous towns like Frederick, Middleburg and Alexandria...DC easily wins this.
I just don’t see the Atlanta enthusiasm on this poll. It’s very pretty but geographically it looks just like Fairfax, Montgomery, Raleigh, Charlotte and Henrico
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.
