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.
Frustratedintelligence: I am actually frustrated by your intelligence about Chicago and responding. Chicago is ringed by the Cook County forest preserve system; some areas such as the Palos preserve area have hills, lakes and hardwood oak woodlands with roads that wind through them. When I first moved to Chicago from California, I was amazed at the amount of wooded areas were in the metro area. Areas further out have their own systems; drive the lakeshore north of Chicago and you will run into wooded ravines ( ala Ferris Buellers Day Off ) and bluffs overlooking the lake. To the south, the Indiana Dunes are better than anything I saw at Padre Island/Galveston.
Cool, but I never denied any of this.
Quote:
Houston has an ugly city reputation you mentioned because it is in fact, ugly. Sorry, the what ifs - if it were on the bay, landscaped, organized, and frankly less of an oil refinery field, just don't exist.
So, like me, your issue with Houston's aesthetics is the infrastructure not the natural scenery. We don't disagree at all.
Chicago's lakefront as well as proximity to Indiana Dunes and lower Michigan beaches are impressive. But, away from the Lakeshore, the land in greater Chicago is pretty damn boring. Sure there are some nature preserves with very gently rolling topography and tree cover. But pretty much everywhere will have that. The vast majority of greater Chicago is flat Ag land. Starved Rock is the only real natural landmark in proximity to Chicago.
Chicago's lakefront as well as proximity to Indiana Dunes and lower Michigan beaches are impressive. But, away from the Lakeshore, the land in greater Chicago is pretty damn boring. Sure there are some nature preserves with very gently rolling topography and tree cover. But pretty much everywhere will have that. The vast majority of greater Chicago is flat Ag land. Starved Rock is the only real natural landmark in proximity to Chicago.
Chicago's flatness, is the reason its skyline is one of the most impressive in the world. And, to the boring, many of the neighborhoods have a beautiful built presence (Lincoln Park). The norther suburbs have hills, trees, and ravines. Did you not ever see Ferris Bueller's Day Off? That garage wasn't exactly overlooking a flat back yard.
This is a pretty interesting topic. I was really impressed with the natural environment of Seattle and its dramatic hills, and thought that the built environment, despite not having that "historic elegance" that was well described elsewhere in the thread, had its own quasi retro-futuristic appeal.
I really enjoyed Seattle, especially its natural environment, but I am also partial to hilly topography. I assume this is why I'd really enjoy the natural scenery of San Francisco as well.
I actually feel that Seattle's charm is in its built environment more. They have an impressive skyline and urban core. In terms of the natural scenery, I can't say it's over the top spectacular.
I actually feel that Seattle's charm is in its built environment more. They have an impressive skyline and urban core. In terms of the natural scenery, I can't say it's over the top spectacular.
I do find Seattle's natural environment quite gorgeous, but one thing I think people don't realize is that 80%+ of the time, it does not look like it does in most popular photos, which are taken during the summertime when the skies are clear. If you search Seattle on Google Images, nearly every single promotional photo of it is taken with clear skies, which are absent for much of the year.
Mt. Rainier, the Puget Sound, etc. are not nearly as attractive when it's overcast and depressing outside.
The most unappealing aspect of Seattle’s surroundings IMO are the repetitive nature of its vegetation. While lush, the endless conifers get kind of old as a backdrop after a while
I do find Seattle's natural environment quite gorgeous, but one thing I think people don't realize is that 80%+ of the time, it does not look like it does in most popular photos, which are taken during the summertime when the skies are clear. If you search Seattle on Google Images, nearly every single promotional photo of it is taken with clear skies, which are absent for much of the year.
Mt. Rainier, the Puget Sound, etc. are not nearly as attractive when it's overcast and depressing outside.
Right. Sunlight and nice weather make for much better lighting and enhance the scenery.
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.
