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.
Most of the United States between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains and outside the Ozarks, the Texas Hill Country, and along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts are not very scenic. Most people don't move to those areas for the scenery or the climate. They move there for the jobs or family ties.
You seem like someone who hasn't traveled much. That is categorically false. Have you never been to the North Woods of the Upper Midwest? The Black Hills or the Badlands? The MN/WI Driftless area?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ivory Lee Spurlock
I've always believed there's a reason why the Rust Belt developed in the area of the country that it did. If the US is going to have a "junk yard", it certainly will not be located in an area of the country that is full of breathtakingly beautiful scenic views.
Your theory is illogical. The Rust Belt formed due to a decline in American manufacturing; it has absolutely nothing to do with how "scenic" a place is. How do you explain places like Tacoma, Duluth, Pittsburgh, the entire state of West Virginia, Upstate New York, western Massachusetts, etc.? All of these places are in more or less beautiful settings, but a decline in industry didn't seem care about that.
Tell me how Sacramento is more exciting than Houston. And don't say it's because Sacramento is two hours from this, 90 minutes from that, etc. We're talking about Sacramento and its suburbs vs. Houston and suburbs, only.
I'd take that poster with a grain of salt. He seems to have a serious axe to grind against Houston for whatever reason. I wouldn't expect him to give you any real rationale for why he considers Sacramento the more exciting city.
I'd take that poster with a grain of salt. He seems to have a serious axe to grind against Houston for whatever reason. I wouldn't expect him to give you any real rationale for why he considers Sacramento the more exciting city.
The poster you posted said Dallas was better than LA for skiing and Houston has a better skyline than Fresno or Bakersfield. He hates all things California and loves all things Texas.
Most of the United States between the Rocky Mountains and the Appalachian Mountains and outside the Ozarks, the Texas Hill Country, and along the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts are not very scenic. Most people don't move to those areas for the scenery or the climate. They move there for the jobs or family ties.
I've always believed there's a reason why the Rust Belt developed in the area of the country that it did. If the US is going to have a "junk yard", it certainly will not be located in an area of the country that is full of breathtakingly beautiful scenic views.
Your proposition holds no water. Have you ever been to Niagara Falls? The city of Niagara Falls, NY is one of the Rust Belt's most prominent poster boys. It has many dystopian looking neighborhoods and has lost over half of its population over the past 50 years. The reason is because up until the 1970s, it was heavily industrialized with metal processing facilities, manufacturing plants, chemical plants, and a giant hydroelectric generating station. All of these grew and thrived from the first decade of the 20th century due to the presence of (wait for it) Niagara Falls! The same scenic wonder that people still come from all over the world to see. The falls are not just beautiful to behold, but also created a thriving industrial city that didn't start to look like a "junk yard" until the deindustrialization of the US.
As for your comment about scenery, climate and the Gulf Coast, have you ever been to Houston and the surrounding area? 'Nuff said.
As for your comment about scenery, climate and the Gulf Coast have you ever been to Houston and the surrounding area? 'Nuff said.
I think you were trying to make a valid counterargument, but forgot that one city (which people exaggerate about, anywho) does not change the generality of the entire region.
Last edited by kemahkami; 10-16-2018 at 06:59 AM..
Two cities that people mentioned on here that they considered visually boring were Pittsburgh and Charlotte. They have either never been to these cities or they have some sort of personal ax to grind, lol.
Pittsburgh has one of the most beautiful downtown areas in the nation, with the rivers coming together the way they do. The downtown park at the point of the river is so beautiful. The neighborhoods have such great architecture. Nice skyline. Beautiful hills.
Charlotte is one of the cleanest and greenest cities I've ever seen (and I've been to every major U.S. city in the nation, most multiple times). When you fly into Charlotte, you see just how green and lush it is. Their parks and greenways are just gorgeous. A compact, but very beautiful skyline (especially at night). The neighborhoods throughout the city are green, flowery, and tree lined. Beautiful oaks canopy many of the streets.
Yes, there are some pretty drab cities out there. But let's at least stick to reality a little, lol.
Two cities that people mentioned on here that they considered visually boring were Pittsburgh and Charlotte. They have either never been to these cities or they have some sort of personal ax to grind, lol.
Pittsburgh has one of the most beautiful downtown areas in the nation, with the rivers coming together the way they do. The downtown park at the point of the river is so beautiful. The neighborhoods have such great architecture. Nice skyline. Beautiful hills.
Charlotte is one of the cleanest and greenest cities I've ever seen (and I've been to every major U.S. city in the nation, most multiple times). When you fly into Charlotte, you see just how green and lush it is. Their parks and greenways are just gorgeous. A compact, but very beautiful skyline (especially at night). The neighborhoods throughout the city are green, flowery, and tree lined. Beautiful oaks canopy many of the streets.
Yes, there are some pretty drab cities out there. But let's at least stick to reality a little, lol.
Where was Pittsburgh mentioned as a visually boring city? I think it got lumped into a side discussion about rust belt cities, but not much to do with the actual topic. Pittsburgh has to be one of the least visually (and otherwise) boring cities there is, its pretty dramatic in most of the city.
There are lots of visually bland cities in the U.S. with boring aesthetics and mile after mile after mile of cookie cutter development. Of the fairly recent places I've been, DFW was the area I've had the most negative reaction toward. Yes, it has every amenity, but I just don't like the look of the area. Mostly flat and concrete. The trees are somewhat scrubbier than farther east. If I wanted to live in a very large southern metropolitan area with endless suburbs, I would choose Atlanta because of the greener, woodsier, hillier terrain. I would probably pick Houston over DFW because of the better greenery. I know all of this is highly subjective.
????? It has one of the most dramatic views in the country. Second only to San Francisco.
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.
