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 natural beauty: Vancouver followed closely by San Francisco. Vancouver is highly integrated into it's natural environment, with gorgeous, accessible wilderness easily accesssible from pretty much anywhere in the city. You can take the damn city bus to go skiing if you want to, or walk to Stanley Park which is home to wild bald eagles from downtown! Beyond these obvious ones there's vast forests at Pacific Spirit regional park with huge wild coastline you can explore basically alone and that's accessible with one short bus ride to UBC from downtown. There's the Capilano and Lynn Valley suspension bridges, and tons of little known parks around the area, and they're wild! Simon Fraser University is on an undeveloped mountain int eh middle of the urban area and the forest surrounding it is inhabited by actual wild black bears (who have never hurt anyone and keep their distance from humans). The Sea to Sky highway up to Squamish alone would blow your mind.
San Francisco on the other hand is no slouch. A few fantastic urban parks. There's some remarkable coastal areas, shorelines, and redwood forests in the area. Quite gorgeous, as are the fogs and the wild coasts where you can see stuff like elephant seals. Seattle is less naturally awesome, but still in great country, with big mountains like Ranier nearby.
Urbanity: San Francisco wins without a doubt, on basically every metric. Seattle vs. Vancouver is a weird fight because they actually have radically different kinds of urbanity. Seattle has an older, relatively small downtown that its millions of residents go to for work and entertainment. As such its typically American with slight decay and seediness but with great urban edifices like a grand art museum and a very cool public market. Vancouver's proper urban areas are much larger in extent, but less concentrated in use compared to Seattle's. Everything urban is right there in downtown Seattle, in Vancouver it's a bit more spread out, so you have to go like a kilometre from DT for example to get to Granville Island which is our answer to Pike Place Market. Our urban areas are much more residential and reflect that, so the interesting things are a bit further apart and may feel less impressive, but I think in terms of volume there might be more going on. It's a different kind of urbanism which confronts visitors in unfamiliar ways because it's kind of unique in the nodal patterns it assumes in the absence of highways and the presence of meticulous planning.
Overall, I'd personally choose San Francisco, I think it's got the most interesting tourist experiences depending on what you're used to and a pretty exotic setting (for me).
Which city would you rather visit for a vacation? Why (Assume visiting each city costs the same amount of money)
Which city has the most and least natural beauty? Why?
Which city is the most urban and least urban? Why?
I can't talk about Vancouver but I can give you my views on Seattle and San Francisco.
Natural beauty: While SF has wonderful vistas of the bay and surrounding hills, Seattle has it beat by a mile. The Olympic Mountains rise to 7000 feet to the west and on a clear day, there is no view like Mount Rainier. Now as far as having wild area close to the city, SF wins. 15 minutes north or south takes you into forested wilderness type areas and 30 minutes east gets you to them as well.
Urbaness: San Francisco. It's the second most dense city after New York City and even it's residential areas are dense and compact. Seattle has an urban downtown but it's residential areas, while beautiful are more suburban in feel.
Now you are going as a tourist so, here are some things you might want to see. Both cities have wonderful waterfronts that are the main attraction of both. San Francisco's is really long compared to Seattle's more compact waterfront. Both waterfronts have public markets; the famous Pike's Place Market in Seattle and San Francisco's Public Market at the Fairy Building. Both waterfronts have aquariums you can visit. San Francisco's has Pier 39 and helicopter rides. While I personally like Seattle's waterfront better, I think as a tourist, San Francisco's has more to offer. having grown up across the bay from SF, I guess I just don't get too excited about it anymore but you quite likely will. If you like Seafood, both San Francisco and Seattle are known for it and both have largely the same selection.
In addition, SF has the Cable cars, Coit Tower and many other things the city is famous for which Seattle doesn't have, although I find the space needle awesome! Overall I guess I would pick San Francisco for a first time visit.
If you are flying in from half the world away, you might want to consider arriving at SFO (San Francisco International Airport) and departing from YVR (Vancouver International Airport), or the other way round. You can travel by Amtrak Cascades from city to city.
I drove 30 minutes to a wilderness area in Seattle's Eastside to go hiking when I lived there... So yes, the wilderness is close by and accessible in Seattle, not to mention the islands in the sound and all of the wonderful beaches in the city proper. Because of the hilliness, you can pretty much see a mountain or body of water anywhere you go in Seattle. That said, each of these cities is endowed with a huge amount of natural beauty. I agree that SF is the most urban of the group, however.
Most natural beauty: Vancouver followed closely by San Francisco. Vancouver is highly integrated into it's natural environment, with gorgeous, accessible wilderness easily accesssible from pretty much anywhere in the city. You can take the damn city bus to go skiing if you want to, or walk to Stanley Park which is home to wild bald eagles from downtown! Beyond these obvious ones there's vast forests at Pacific Spirit regional park with huge wild coastline you can explore basically alone and that's accessible with one short bus ride to UBC from downtown. There's the Capilano and Lynn Valley suspension bridges, and tons of little known parks around the area, and they're wild! Simon Fraser University is on an undeveloped mountain int eh middle of the urban area and the forest surrounding it is inhabited by actual wild black bears (who have never hurt anyone and keep their distance from humans). The Sea to Sky highway up to Squamish alone would blow your mind.
San Francisco on the other hand is no slouch. A few fantastic urban parks. There's some remarkable coastal areas, shorelines, and redwood forests in the area. Quite gorgeous, as are the fogs and the wild coasts where you can see stuff like elephant seals. Seattle is less naturally awesome, but still in great country, with big mountains like Ranier nearby.
Urbanity: San Francisco wins without a doubt, on basically every metric. Seattle vs. Vancouver is a weird fight because they actually have radically different kinds of urbanity. Seattle has an older, relatively small downtown that its millions of residents go to for work and entertainment. As such its typically American with slight decay and seediness but with great urban edifices like a grand art museum and a very cool public market. Vancouver's proper urban areas are much larger in extent, but less concentrated in use compared to Seattle's. Everything urban is right there in downtown Seattle, in Vancouver it's a bit more spread out, so you have to go like a kilometre from DT for example to get to Granville Island which is our answer to Pike Place Market. Our urban areas are much more residential and reflect that, so the interesting things are a bit further apart and may feel less impressive, but I think in terms of volume there might be more going on. It's a different kind of urbanism which confronts visitors in unfamiliar ways because it's kind of unique in the nodal patterns it assumes in the absence of highways and the presence of meticulous planning.
Overall, I'd personally choose San Francisco, I think it's got the most interesting tourist experiences depending on what you're used to and a pretty exotic setting (for me).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gentoo
I can't talk about Vancouver but I can give you my views on Seattle and San Francisco.
Natural beauty: While SF has wonderful vistas of the bay and surrounding hills, Seattle has it beat by a mile. The Olympic Mountains rise to 7000 feet to the west and on a clear day, there is no view like Mount Rainier. Now as far as having wild area close to the city, SF wins. 15 minutes north or south takes you into forested wilderness type areas and 30 minutes east gets you to them as well.
Urbaness: San Francisco. It's the second most dense city after New York City and even it's residential areas are dense and compact. Seattle has an urban downtown but it's residential areas, while beautiful are more suburban in feel.
Now you are going as a tourist so, here are some things you might want to see. Both cities have wonderful waterfronts that are the main attraction of both. San Francisco's is really long compared to Seattle's more compact waterfront. Both waterfronts have public markets; the famous Pike's Place Market in Seattle and San Francisco's Public Market at the Fairy Building. Both waterfronts have aquariums you can visit. San Francisco's has Pier 39 and helicopter rides. While I personally like Seattle's waterfront better, I think as a tourist, San Francisco's has more to offer. having grown up across the bay from SF, I guess I just don't get too excited about it anymore but you quite likely will. If you like Seafood, both San Francisco and Seattle are known for it and both have largely the same selection.
In addition, SF has the Cable cars, Coit Tower and many other things the city is famous for which Seattle doesn't have, although I find the space needle awesome! Overall I guess I would pick San Francisco for a first time visit.
Seattle and Vancouver have evergreen trees and snow capped mountains, feels like cities in the middle of the wilderness in a way.
SF doesn't have mountain-scape, but plenty of rolling hills, still a true California coastline with legitimate beachscape. Mediterranean-like setting and scenery, and even arid-like as you get further south or east. SF itself has such interesting architecture and housing styles.
Urbanity- certainly SF is the most bustling and compact- with the most sites of interest, although the other 2 are pretty good too.
I actually like San Francisco the best in natural beauty. Having the hills on the city and looking down to the bay does it for me. Vancouver is pretty, but it feels a bit separated
Which city would you rather visit for a vacation? Why (Assume visiting each city costs the same amount of money)
I would choose SF because there is so much nearby...the city itself is interesting, you can go to Yosemite (special place), Monterey, Napa.
Which city has the most and least natural beauty? Why?
SF is the 2nd naturally beautiful city in the USA...behind Seattle and also behind Vancouver. Seattle and Vancouver or so much greener and lush that it's much prettier. Seattle has the snow capped Olympics to the West, Rainier and the Cascades to the east, islands with beautiful ferries to bring you and your car or motorcycle.
Which city is the most urban and least urban? Why?
SF is most urban and Seattle 2nd.
I've vacationed often in Vancouver because it's close to my house and I stay there to avoid time in the USA which affected my income tax....it's a beautiful and pleasant place but a little quiet. Seattle is a bit more intense but not much a vacation city imo.
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.
