# Big cities with most beautiful scenery in the U.S.



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

MikeHunt said:


> You don't know what you're talking about. NYC is surrounded by beautiful green hills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 I do know what I'm talking about. Not one time did I say New York didnt have any hills. Its just not the most beautiful IMO. Lighten up, New York cant have everything....
Again, the main contenders IMO are Seattle, SF ,etc....


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

NY's natural beauty is much greater than many realize:



















Those photos were taken from Manhattan Island. These mountains are 1 hour from NYC:


----------



## *Sweetkisses* (Dec 26, 2004)

^ But I can say the same thing for any other city and its surrounding areas.
Please dont take this as a knock against New York. Its still the greatest city to me, but when it comes to natural setting ,it just doesnt stack up to the others.


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Central Pk and Jamaica Bay are pretty beautiful.


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> ^ But I can say the same thing for any other city and its surrounding areas.
> Please dont take this as a knock against New York. Its still the greatest city to me, but when it comes to natural setting ,it just doesnt stack up to the others.


This is all subjective, but for instance, someone mentioned Chicago, and yet, I can't see that. It's surrounded by flat plains.

No US City has beautiful geography other than SF. In fact, the only cities that I've ever been to that have beautiful geography are HK, Rio and SF.


----------



## pwright1 (Jun 1, 2003)

Seattle
San Francisco
Portland Oregon
Los Angeles
San Diego


----------



## SDfan (Apr 7, 2005)

San Fran
Seattle
Denver (more of surroundings)
San Diego
Portland

For the west coast a least...


----------



## sean storm (Nov 18, 2004)

rL428 said:


> A lot of the big major cities are often pretty dirty or are just complete concrete jungles for the most part (ala NY)
> And a lot of the places that are really "green & clean" and have nice natural settings are tiny and don't offer anything that the major cities do
> 
> What are the best of both worlds cities here in the U.S.? Major metropolitan area wraped in nice natural scenery


SF, obviously. no contest. SF epitomizes the best blend of urbanity and nature. 

seattle is a good contender simply because its surroundings are so lush. seattle's shortfall in this compared to SF is that it's hardly as urban as SF, plus it lacks the great landmarks and dramatic cityscape that define SF. 

SD has nothing over SF or seattle, sorry.


----------



## brooklynprospect (Apr 27, 2005)

I'll rep LA. Although downtown doesn't have much in the way of beautiful natural scenery (except perhaps the San Gabriel Mts in the far distance), the LA metro is a treasure trove of beautiful scenery. Deserts, mountains, beaches, palm trees, snow (well just outside the metro).


----------



## TalB (Jun 8, 2005)

Jamaica Bay Wildlife Refuge is probably one of the biggest ubran marshes in the country, and it's known for its birds mostly as well as giving views of the Manhattan skyline.


----------



## FastWhiteTA (Jul 24, 2004)

The cream of the Crop for the US (as far as natural setting goes):

San Francisco, Portland, and Seattle

Honorable mentions:

Salt Lake City is pretty, too (but I wouldn't necessarily want to live there).
Wash D.C.
Austin


----------



## United-States-of-America (Jul 19, 2005)

Anchorage has some beautiful scenery if you consider it a big city.


----------



## jmancuso (Jan 9, 2003)

i'm partial to tucson:


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

LA Lover said:


> Los Angeles
> San Diego
> Las Vegas
> Phoenix
> San Francisco


LA has nothing to look at. Las Vegas has some reddish sandy mountains I guess..


----------



## Imperfect Ending (Apr 7, 2003)

I'll say...

SF
Portland, OR
Seattle
Honolulu


----------



## MikeHunt (Nov 28, 2004)

*Sweetkisses* said:


> ^ But I can say the same thing for any other city and its surrounding areas.
> Please dont take this as a knock against New York. Its still the greatest city to me, but when it comes to natural setting ,it just doesnt stack up to the others.


... PS: I do respect your opinion, but you could not say this about any midwestern city unless you consider flat, treeless fields to be beautiful.


----------



## Stanpolitan (Jul 14, 2005)

I say, Seattle has a splendid natural setting . San Fransisco has a resemblance to Istanbul, but not as lush like Seattle around the bay, but as a US city is pretty daring. I think Portland is pretty scenic naturewise , too. 
So Seattle , SF and Portland , I say.


----------



## philadweller (Oct 30, 2003)

Seattle tops this along with San Juan and Honolulu.









"Boston, Mass.
New York City, NY.
Washington, DC."

If you think these cities really are you may as well through in Philly. Philadelphia has a lush hilly green river setting. Pittsburgh is actually in a wonderful natural setting too.
A nature scene from within city limits

















Personally I find the Hudson River Valley north of NYC stunning. Believe it or not I like the swampy landscape near New Orleans.


----------



## lokinyc (Sep 17, 2002)

The thing I love about NYC is that in an hour by commuter train, you can be on either a gorgeous Long Island beach, the foothills of the Hudson Valley or the quiet forests of Connecticut.


----------



## Sounder (Oct 10, 2002)

Seattle aerial tour


----------

