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.
Furthermore, I think people don't realize how redundant this thread is. Humans and urbanity are nature, as is everything in this universe.
You are correct, but also I hate how these types of threads always go to Seattle so I like to argue with them on how that's not true. 4 out of 5 people believe Seattle is not the best blend of wilderness and city, and there's a reason for this.
Not that Seattle is no slouch, but it's not so much better than all these other places in the US.
Spot on. Blend is key there. Boston definitely has an advantage with how interspersed parks are in its central neighborhoods and how the town is built embracing the harbor and river
If we are going for this interpretation of the question, Chicago should win, rather than Boston.
Lake Shore Drive, Hyde Park, Lincoln Park etc. Much larger area consistently.
Portland's Forest Park is the largest urban park in any major US city. It also has the fairly unique feature of a few large buttes within the city limits for great views (Powell, Rocky, Kelly) as well as Mt. Tabor. The Columbia River along Marine Dr is also great, with fairly close views of the Cascades and Mt. St. Helens.
Fairmont Park in Philly is the largest urban park in the world.
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.