San Francisco VS Pittsburg Vs Seattle (Natural senery) (best, bigger, life)
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.
wow of course you would be the one too mess it up for everyone..
Right, b/c you don't down SF at every opportunity.
As if you didn't make this thread just to sh*t on SF. I don't believe you've ever even lived here, and you have the makings of the typical SF-basher who comes from elsewhere. Get a life.
There are pretty large swaths of Pittsburgh that are impractical to develop because the hills are just too steep. That leaves a lot of untouched wooded areas within the city. A satellite view of the North Hills area in particular really brings home the point. Then there's the two huge parks on the East End that are nearly contiguous, and if they were, would be bigger than Central Park. Frick Park in particular is big enough and wooded enough to sustain a sizable deer herd. Pittsburgh is a very green city -- in the literal sense, not necessarily in the leaf-licking do-gooder sense.
I love Seattle in so many ways(its my 2nd as far as natural beauty-absolutely), its definitely one of those cities I would gladly move to, but Im gonna have to say San Francisco for natural beauty. I love the mediterrenean feel of SF. The California Coast is so different from the rest of the US as far as nature, I adore it.
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.