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.
A lot of cities with truly gorgeous parts also have really ugly parts. These include Philly, New York, Miami, and especially San Francisco.
Seattle is too architecturally mundane with the housing stock; parts of it just look like suburbia. Honolulu looks like suburbia in some magical fairyland, which is why I voted for it.
I just realized, though, that this list is missing Pittsburgh. That would have been my choice had it been present. Beautiful architecture AND natural beauty, with seemingly few ho-hum spots.
No St. Louis, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh? These three historical river cities have some of the best architecture in the country.....hands down. Not too many cities have as many Victorian neighborhoods as these towns, hell most of these cities housing is 100 years old atleast. Very picturesque indeed.
Yeah please explain,San Francisco definitely has it's ugly parts but not quite like NY,MIA or Philly do,and I grew up in probably the "ugliest" part of the city,HP.
Out of the "major US cities", which is really the top 10, SF gets my vote. It really is breathtaking to see all the sweeping views of the bay from so many different angles. Boston would be a distant second.
Really? I cannot find much that is "stunning" about Chicago except for the area immediately surrounding the Chicago River which has a kind of "corporate" beauty about it I guess.
But still, Chicago has lots and lots and LOTS of grids for buildings. Flat boring landscape surrounds you in Chicago. It's in Illinois still right? Freezing, crappy weather much of the year in Chicago. Winter-washed and rusty burned out buildings around Chicago. Dirty run down neighborhoods mix and mingle with the nicer hot spot 'hoods. Kinda smelly in Chicago, like poo poo and exhaust. This detracts from the "beauty". Strip malls galore away from the core of the city. Oodles of chain restaurants.
Chicago is probably the least beautiful of the large cities, and that includes L.A. Landscape and weather give L.A. a huge advantage, even though L.A. is one big suburb.
I know that your probably just trying to get a rise out of Chicagoans...but either way its a good time to show off Chicago's beauty. While it doesn't have some of the stunning natural beauty of areas like SF, Seattle, or San Diego...it does have quite a bit of charm and more than makes up for the disparity with its great architecture.
Do I think its the most beautiful city in the country? No. But I'd put it neck and neck with LA out of the big 3 simply for its architecture. LA's natural scenery is breathtaking though.
Really? I cannot find much that is "stunning" about Chicago except for the area immediately surrounding the Chicago River which has a kind of "corporate" beauty about it I guess.
But still, Chicago has lots and lots and LOTS of grids for buildings. Flat boring landscape surrounds you in Chicago. It's in Illinois still right? Freezing, crappy weather much of the year in Chicago. Winter-washed and rusty burned out buildings around Chicago. Dirty run down neighborhoods mix and mingle with the nicer hot spot 'hoods. Kinda smelly in Chicago, like poo poo and exhaust. This detracts from the "beauty". Strip malls galore away from the core of the city. Oodles of chain restaurants.
I agree.
History of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Due to the geography of Chicago, early citizens faced many problems. The prairie bog nature of the area provided a fertile ground for disease-carrying insects."
"The first road went west, crossing the dismal Nine-mile Swamp"
Swamp to City (http://www.chicagohistoryfair.org/curriculum/swamp-to-city.html - broken link)
"Swamp to City: Chicago History from the Portage Site to Metropolis"
I just find this really humorous. These early beginnings sure sound familiar, kind of like a few other cities bashed so often here on City-Data (Houston anyone?)
As for the negative comments on San Francisco, I must have been in the good parts when I was there because I thought it was lovely.
I do really like Chicago, but in no way is it more beautiful than San Francisco.
History of Chicago - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"Due to the geography of Chicago, early citizens faced many problems. The prairie bog nature of the area provided a fertile ground for disease-carrying insects."
"The first road went west, crossing the dismal Nine-mile Swamp"
Swamp to City (http://www.chicagohistoryfair.org/curriculum/swamp-to-city.html - broken link)
"Swamp to City: Chicago History from the Portage Site to Metropolis"
I just find this really humorous. These early beginnings sure sound familiar, kind of like a few other cities bashed so often here on City-Data (Houston anyone?)
As for the negative comments on San Francisco, I must have been in the good parts when I was there because I thought it was lovely.
I do really like Chicago, but in no way is it more beautiful than San Francisco.
Agreed.
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.
