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.
Pretty ugly if you ask me. All of those above ground power wires hanging everywhere and no trees or any plantings. Heck I'm not sure if I see any street lights!
...very unimpressive...no foliage whatsoever, not even a blade of grass.
A $1 million bucks is a petty hefty price to pay just to avoid mowing the lawn
And an almighty can-do-no-wrong East Coast city like Baltimore has its fair share of “bleak†areas with a small amount those precious trees: baltimore - Google Maps
Keep in mind that much of San Francisco used to be a sand dune. It wasn’t built on a naturally heavily forested area like the East Coast cities were, so of course it’s not going to have as many trees.
A lot of SF is pretty treeless. I wonder if it has to do with the climate. Since it doesn't get warm that often there really isn't a need for shade trees. With the temps there you kind of want to be in the sun.
And an almighty can-do-no-wrong East Coast city like Baltimore has its fair share of “bleak†areas with a small amount those precious trees: baltimore - Google Maps
Keep in mind that much of San Francisco used to be a sand dune. It wasn’t built on a naturally heavily forested area like the East Coast cities were, so of course it’s not going to have as many trees.
...I agree with you, esp. about Balto; but for 1.2 million, I would still expect something with more attractive physical attributes; it just looks like a trumped-up string of warehouses..
...I agree with you, esp. about Balto; but for 1.2 million, I would still expect something with more attractive physical attributes; it just looks like a trumped-up string of warehouses..
It really is all about location and very little about the house itself in SF’s case. Since SF is on a peninsula and surrounded by a massive bay/ocean on three sides, living outside the city limits usually removes you much more from the city center than living just outside the city in say, DC. In the case of DC, you can live just over the city line in Silver Spring, Chevy Chase, and Bethesda, yet still be within walking distance of the city. You’re basically in DC even though you’re technically in Maryland. This is not the case with San Francisco due to the water boundaries and therefore, anyone who wants to live “in†San Francisco actually has to technically be in San Francisco. IMO, this has played a major role in SF’s high real estate prices since people who would’ve chosen the Silver Spring’s of the world in DC, are less inclined to live outside city limits in San Francisco.
I'm gonna have to go with Philadelphia, the city that brought rowhouses to the US
Here is a photo of the oldest residential street in America, Elfreths Alley
And an almighty can-do-no-wrong East Coast city like Baltimore has its fair share of “bleak” areas with a small amount those precious trees: baltimore - Google Maps
Keep in mind that much of San Francisco used to be a sand dune. It wasn’t built on a naturally heavily forested area like the East Coast cities were, so of course it’s not going to have as many trees.
lol, on the link for Baltimore turn around and you will see some trees haha as well as some directly down the street when the window first comes up
I'm gonna have to go with Philadelphia, the city that brought rowhouses to the US
Here is a photo of the oldest residential street in America, Elfreths Alley
Look at that Philly picture!! Hardly any trees lining the sidewalks! Not even one blade of grass. That's so ugly!
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.