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.
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 disagree with Houston, at least in the northern and eastern half of the metro. Absent the city, you have a lush canopy of oaks, magnolias, 100-ft pines and hardwoods, bamboo, palms and wildflowers.
I think calling Houston's natural scenery mediocre may even be too complimentary.
Parts of the Gulf Coast near Galveston, or areas closer to Huntsville are where one must go from Houston to find the better natural scenery. Even inside the loop along Buffalo Bayou, while good looking, is not natural but a man-made park. Otherwise, meh.
I think calling Houston's natural scenery mediocre may even be too complimentary.
Parts of the Gulf Coast near Galveston, or areas closer to Huntsville are where one must go from Houston to find the better natural scenery. Even inside the loop along Buffalo Bayou, while good looking, is not natural but a man-made park. Otherwise, meh.
Those last two links you posted look like Northeast Houston to me.
When you have vast swaths of this country that are both flat and virtually treeless, I think calling Houston's scenery mediocre is unfair. Is it the PNW? No, but it can still call itself one of the most lush and biodiverse cities in the nation.
The only reason things in Houston don't look as good is because razing is so common, and the city hasn't done enough in the way of replacing the greenery that existed before agriculture and urbanization were thrown on top of it.
I (good built environment, meh nature): Chicago, DC, NYC, Philadelphia, Sacramento, St. Louis
II (meh built environment, good nature): Portland, Las Vegas, Spokane, Phoenix
III (good built environment and nature): SF, New Orleans, LA, Miami, Seattle, Pittsburgh, Albuquerque/Santa Fe, Reno
I can agree with Tier I
Las Vegas has some remarkable architecture and there is Boulder Dam not too far away so I would consider it more in I or III, depending on your preference for desert scenery.
The New Orleans built environment is unique and almost defies categorization but I think it would not fall into a "good nature" category in comparison to other places. I'd stick it in Tier I. I feel pretty much the same with Miami. It takes more than sunsets or sunrises to make my list. The Everglades might be scenic in some respects. (If Miami has good nature then so would Chicago.)
If the OP’s benchmark for amazing scenery is the swamps and beaches of the Gulf his head would explode if he ever went to Hawaii. I’m still chuckling over his statement that San Francisco’s natural scenery is merely average. To each their own I guess?
Those last two links you posted look like Northeast Houston to me.
When you have vast swaths of this country that are both flat and virtually treeless, I think calling Houston's scenery mediocre is unfair. Is it the PNW? No, but it can still call itself one of the most lush and biodiverse cities in the nation.
The only reason things in Houston don't look as good is because razing is so common, and the city hasn't done enough in the way of replacing the greenery that existed before agriculture and urbanization were thrown on top of it.
The last 2 images were in NE Houston.
All I gotta say if that if you are impressed with the woods outside of Houston, then you will really lose your s*** pretty much anywhere East of the Mississippi River.
See? I thought those were somewhere in Louisiana or Mississippi
Quote:
All I gotta say if that if you are impressed with the woods outside of Houston, then you will really lose your s*** pretty much anywhere East of the Mississippi River.
Lol...I've lived east of the Mississippi for several years now, and unless you're talking about Appalachia and environs, most of the scenery out this way isn't a far cry from North Houston at all.
What's different is the poplar trees, more longleaf pines and less clear cutting in general, but most of the vegetation is the same. Like Texas, it can still get pretty "mediocre" in the Southeast. Basically anywhere that isn't old growth forest.
This is not me saying that Houston is gorgeous or top tier in terms of scenery. But I do feel its natural beauty can be enhanced by simply planting more trees.
I think calling Houston's natural scenery mediocre may even be too complimentary.
Parts of the Gulf Coast near Galveston, or areas closer to Huntsville are where one must go from Houston to find the better natural scenery. Even inside the loop along Buffalo Bayou, while good looking, is not natural but a man-made park. Otherwise, meh.
But I'm talking about Metro areas. Galveston is within Houston's metro area. And that photo of Dayton, Texas during the summer, with the pine woods, looks mighty impressive. I was born and raised in California, and those woods look better than the vast majority of forests in California or the Pacific Northwest (been to Oregon and Seattle).
Oh, and those pics of the coastal plains look quite pretty. At least they're green and lush in the summer. I know the grass turns brown in the winter, though.
If you thought Houston was ugly in terms of natural scenery, try Modesto or Stockton, California. They have terrible natural scenery.
If the OP’s benchmark for amazing scenery is the swamps and beaches of the Gulf his head would explode if he ever went to Hawaii. I’m still chuckling over his statement that San Francisco’s natural scenery is merely average. To each their own I guess?
Never been to Hawaii, but I have been to San Fran, have been to Seattle, Portland, etc. And still, New Orleans' natural beauty beats them all.
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.
