I just visited San Francisco this weekend, and I was just floored at the beauty of the city. From it's smart, liberal people to it's huge, green hills to it's year-long 60's-70's temperature, to it's relatively low crime rate, to it's clean downtown... there is nothing wrong with the city. Except prices. It's ludicrously expensive, with an average 3-person home costing more than 700,000 dollars and your "less than average" studio apartment running you 1400-1600 a month.

Successful, great cities are all liberal. From Madison (even though it's small) to Seattle to Boston to San Francisco- the greatest cities in the US are all notoriously liberal.

In the midwest, every city is ugly as hell during the winter, but during the summer I have to go with Minneapolis or Madison.

I'll add some pictures I took later- if this topic isn't locked.

I just visited San Francisco this weekend, and I was just floored at the beauty of the city. From it's smart, liberal people to it's huge, green hills to it's year-long 60's-70's temperature, to it's relatively low crime rate, to it's clean downtown... there is nothing wrong with the city. Except prices. It's ludicrously expensive, with an average 3-person home costing more than 700,000 dollars and your "less than average" studio apartment running you 1400-1600 a month.

Successful, great cities are all liberal. From Madison (even though it's small) to Seattle to Boston to San Francisco- the greatest cities in the US are all notoriously liberal.

In the midwest, every city is ugly as hell during the winter, but during the summer I have to go with Minneapolis or Madison.

I'll add some pictures I took later- if this topic isn't locked.

Evidently, some cities are pretty and liberal only to those that can afford it.
I know that liberal cities are almost always expensive and conservative ones are cheap. I prefer living in a conservative town with an easy commute to a liberal one.

I think that alot of these "liberal cities" are liberal on social issues only, not on economic ones.

Urban environments tend me more liberal than rurual, that's just a characteristic of urban environments. Cities aren't succesful and great because they're liberal, it's a characteristic of the city, not a factor involved in their development and success.

I have moderate views, so I'm not ripping on liberals, I'm just understanding how you came up with that.

Successful, great cities are all liberal. From Madison (even though it's small) to Seattle to Boston to San Francisco- the greatest cities in the US are all notoriously liberal.


chicago isn't nearly as liberal as mad-town, but it's a million times better in my opinion.

chicago kicks major ass in the city department. so does NYC, and they have a republican mayor!

...but during the summer I have to go with Minneapolis...

Downtown, or Uptown Minneapolis?

Cities aren't succesful and great because they're liberal, it's a characteristic of the city, not a factor involved in their development and success.

Bingo.

Cities aren't succesful and great because they're liberal, it's a characteristic of the city, not a factor involved in their development and success.

This just deserved to get repeated to be sure it gets proper attention and everyone can learn from it.

Urban environments tend me more liberal than rurual, that's just a characteristic of urban environments. Cities aren't succesful and great because they're liberal, it's a characteristic of the city, not a factor involved in their development and success.

I have moderate views, so I'm not ripping on liberals, I'm just understanding how you came up with that.

See- that is misleading. Big cities, like Chicago, are not as much "liberal" as they are "voting for the democrats." Many minorities don't necessarily have socially liberal views- many are quite socially conservative- but they know that Republicans dont give a flying fuck about them and that their only chance is with the guys who care about the little guy, too. Houston is a very conservative town- yet John Kerry won it.

"Liberal Towns" are totally different from just "big cities that go blue."

San Francisco- although ridiculously expensive- is also probably the "best off" city in the US- ranking first in almost every category from biotechnology to other things. It dwarves the other "small city powers" like Minneapolis and Austin- although maybe not Austin when it comes to various computer things.

"Liberal Towns" are totally different from just "big cities that go blue."

Agreed.

See- that is misleading. Big cities, like Chicago, are not as much "liberal" as they are "voting for the democrats." Many minorities don't necessarily have socially liberal views- many are quite socially conservative- but they know that Republicans dont give a flying fuck about them and that their only chance is with the guys who care about the little guy, too. Houston is a very conservative town- yet John Kerry won it.

"Liberal Towns" are totally different from just "big cities that go blue."


Do you think the Democrats give a fuck about the minorities either--other than getting votes?

Man, it really pisses me off that you make that assumption about republicans.

That's one of the main misconceptions, I'm a Libertarian and I'd be intepreted as not having a flying fuck about minorities, despite being one, but conservatives and republicans just have a different feeling about how certain social programs should be administered.

Democrats, at least the ones that are elitist liberals, are condescending towards many minorities and don't give a flying fuck either, they want the votes, they want to tell people what feels good, and don't care about really changing anything. They think they're in some way superior.

But I'm not a republican, being a libertarian, it's just fiscally I'm very conservative and I don't believe in certain things.

Prettiest US city has got to be New York, and then SF.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v646/i_am_hydrogen/sf11.jpg

Man, it really pisses me off that you make that assumption about republicans.

That's one of the main misconceptions, I'm a Libertarian and I'd be intepreted as not having a flying fuck about minorities, despite being one, but conservatives and republicans just have a different feeling about how certain social programs should be administered.

Democrats, at least the ones that are elitist liberals, are condescending towards many minorities and don't give a flying fuck either, they want the votes, they want to tell people what feels good, and don't care about really changing anything. They think they're in some way superior.

But I'm not a republican, being a libertarian, it's just fiscally I'm very conservative and I don't believe in certain things.

in my opinion..the democrat has always held the minority down. They like to make them think that only the government can provide and make them succesful with THEIR money and benefits. There are many black and hispanic people that have made their own money that are tired of this bullshit. They know that they can make their own future from hard work and sticking to something--not acting the stereotypical inner city minority like the democrats want.

San Fran is great...but I have to give a nod to Charleston and Savanah.

^Oh, yeah, you're right. Those cities are gorgeous. I guess I was thinking more in terms of larger cities.

Democrats don't give a fuck about minorities, but liberals do- and democrats are kind of running on this "false idea of caring about minorities" much like bush is pretending hes super-religious.

politics doesnt care about color really...its all about votes. Seeing as whites are a majority of politicians...then the minority population is a major part of getting votes. I think we are going to see major changes when more minorities run for office....and I dont mean sideshows like Al Sharpton.

As for Bush being religious...I believe he is. We cant question what his private life is like...because we dont know. Starting the Iraq War is hardly a huge red slash against his Christianity.

As a right of center black man with radical anti-government friends I would say that San Fran is nice but I also like my own nati.

SF, to me is the nicest city in America, but its so expensive(but thats another topic)..

There are many pretty cities in our country...too many to name them all. Lexington is not the prettiest but I think she ranks up there. Here are a few pics....the downtown is very nice but what gives Lexington her charm is the 500 horse farms that circle her....she truely is a "city within a park".

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/krosejr/Lexington%201/Untitled-1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v511/krosejr/Picture369.jpg

I really like Lexington...great pictures with the skyline in the distance.

that is nice to see... hills, grass, horses, and farms rather then row after row of suburbian houses.

as far as large cities go, I pick San fran. but for smaller cities Savannah and Charleston. Pittsburgh is pretty impressive. Not on the same level as San fran but it's still nice.

New Orleans
Savannah
Charleston
Roanoke
San Fran

This is a hard one because "pretty" can be defined in different ways. Like my favorite city in the USA is New York followed by Chicago, but they aren't always "pretty" from the strict definition of the word. Going with that, my two large city favorites are San Francisco and Seattle. New Orleans is also a contender with its beautiful French Quarter. Savannah and Charleston are my two favorite small cities. All in all, if I had to live in any of the ones I listed I'd actually chose Savannah, mostly for climate but also because I prefer its charm and southern low country sophistication.

I think Little Rock is a pretty city...especially during the fall foliage...when the trees in Downtown are red, yellow, orange, ect....i know its not the largest and its probably not the prettiest city, but it is on my list of one of one of the prettiest because of all the natural beauty it has....

http://www.blue4.us/ach/ach1/3.JPG

http://skyscraperpage.com/gallery/data/849/6393view_from_hillcrest_neighborhood.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v605/Duckwings/lr_skyline_002_l.jpg

the prettiest cities that i have seen in pictures or whatnot so far are savannah and charleston, far and away. i think there are countless small towns in new england and new york that are just as pretty but pretty towns is another topic for another day.

I would have to say San Francisco. Expensive it is, but the beauty is tops imo.

Honestly inw ays of 'pretty' Yosemite is pretty cool...Salt Lake City is a 'pretty' city...I mean most bigger cities are not PRETTY

Savannah should be considered.
2,500 pics... http://www.pbase.com/savannahga

SF, Springfield,IL(if you like Lincoln), Sausalito, CA

Many Many other cities, especially the ones with abousolute no pollution, such as rural areas.

To the above poster, I agree that Little Rock is a beautiful city. It's very much an underdog on these boards. Little Rocks downtown area is really turning into something great.

As I thought about it more, I couldn't help but come to the conclusion that there are many beautiful cities in the US that we forget, too many to count if you really think about it. A couple others I think deserve mentioning are St Augustine and Santa Fe.

Just from pictures that I have seen, San Francisco takes the cake.

In terms of small cities, hands down Flagstaff, AZ. In terms of larger cities, my vote would go to Baltimore. Baltimore's gorgous row-houses, it's georgian architecture (especially in the Bolton Hill and Charles Village areas) is just fantastic (first word that came to mind. Pittsburgh has a nice setting with the rivers, hills, and forests but the areas surrounding the downtown area are just to run-down. There are waaaay too many abandonned warehouses, factories, and industrial areas. It has pretty nice residential areas but above-ground powerlines are hideous and detract from the ambience.

Washington, DC is nice too, as is Tucson despite being invaded by mexican illegals.

The whole "liberal city" vs. "conservative city" is a bunch of Bull. Camden and Trenton NJ are as liberal as they come and they are shitholes... It all has to deal with socio-economics... If you can draw the people with the dough, your city is bound to be nice.

I'd have to say New Orleans the architecture is spectacular and the vegetation is Amazing! there are some parts though that are a little bit scummy

I think Seattle deserves some mention here.

Tie: Boston and San Francisco.

Salt Lake City, Tulsa, Seattle, Evanston, and Santa Fe.

Any city with Mountains/Hills and a courgeous body of water...

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/seattle2/seattle3131.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/DowntownSeattle202.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/seattle2/seattle3/seattle5224Small.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v453/pwright1/seattle2/seattle4003Small.jpg

Seattle is GOURGEOUS, but isnt it grey most of the year...I guess that is more of a question because I have heard it is but never been for most of a year..... grey to me is very sad :(

Seattle is GOURGEOUS, but isnt it grey most of the year...I guess that is more of a question because I have heard it is but never been for most of a year..... grey to me is very sad :(

Believe me if you came to Seattle you would not be sad. It has its fair share of overcast days and rain but the truth is the majority of the rain falls between November - February. Even then I find the rain to be misty and people just continue with life. Winters are quite mild compared to the midwest and the east. The landscape turns a lush green, there's flowers all year around. Summers are the absolute best. Sunshine and very little rain, if any at all. The temps are usually in the high 70's through the low 80's with low humidity. The sun starts to rise around 3 am and sets around 10pm. Summer weather continues thru September and most of October. You would definately be happier in Seattle than Cleveland, Cincinnati, Indianapolis and Louisville combined. lol!!

haha yeah....I am tired of midwest (at least the midwestern areas I have been) weather and it is not even the cold...it is the perpetual grey cloud over me.... I presume what I have heard about Seattle is alot of stereotype of a 'rainy' and 'grey' city.

It's too grey for me.......it is an absolutely gorgeous city, but I've probably spent a total of 3 months there in all the different seasons, and each trip I usually have 1 or 2 beautiful days and 3 or 4 dreary days.......I often considered moving, but each time I visit, I end up feeling depressed and not wanting to explore on the overcast, coolish days. While most Seattlites will be quick to point out that in total rainfall, they get far less than many cities, the total number of days with some percepitation is very high there. It's also not hot enough for me personally, and always feel that I need long sleeves.....granted though it never gets bitterly cold in the winter.

All that said, I do think Seattle is the most beautiful city in America when it is clear enough to enjoy it.....though if this were a North American poll, I think Vancouver gets the award.

Asheville for a small city. And RDU gets more rain more consistantly than seattle. But I like San Diego for large cities.

We Seattlites are quick to point out the annual rainfall in inches because 35 inches of rain is rather small even spread out over time. I had my reservations when I took a job out here coming from D.C. I've been out here for 5 years now and it is by far the most enjoyable, most beautiful city I've ever lived in. It definately took some getting use to with the weather. Not the typical hot and humid east coast summers or cold winters. But when I hear people say 'oh it rains all the time' or 'its so depressing', those kinds of statements just make me laugh. If it was really like that, I wouldn't be here.

Its not so much the rain alot of times, it is when it is grey for a month and it only rains two times. Daytime is supposed to be light :(.

:Edit: That statement was in responce to the post on RDU getting mroe rain and a general statement about where I live in Cincinnati...I have been here 6 or 7 months now and dont see much sun....

savannah easily

and I like miami alot also

Asheville is definitely an attractive small city.

Savannah, by a mile.

Second, there is no Georgian Architecture in Baltimore's Bolton Hill, or Charles Village sections. There is not much Georgian left in Baltimore, but there is a ton of Federal/Adam, and Greek Revival, and endless amounts of Italianate. Bolton Hill is full of late Victorian styles (Romanesque, Queen Anne etc), while Charles Village seems to have a lot of Neo-Classical and Neo-Colonial.

Third, as far as minorities being liberal or conservative, Blacks, in particular, will never go Republican in large numbers, as long as the party provides a comfortable home for unreconstructed racists like Jesse Helms, and Samuel Francis.

:) Salt Lake City, San Francisco, Seattle...lots of s's.

Charlotte is 'pretty' in terms of skyline and the neighborhoods due south.

Columbus, Ohio is very pretty as well! Check it out:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/crw_3341a.jpg

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/DSCF0357.jpg

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/29021918.jpg

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/DSCF0125.jpg

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/42971093.jpg

politics doesnt care about color really...its all about votes.

American politics does....and that color is green.

I have to break it down into two categories:

prettiest city in the US: San Francisco
handsomest city in the US: Chicago

Seattle is GOURGEOUS, but isnt it grey most of the year...I guess that is more of a question because I have heard it is but never been for most of a year..... grey to me is very sad :(

let's face it, for all the incedible beauty of San Francisco, fog can often totally obscure it. more than a few tourists, i'm sure, have taken a ferry into the bay and were drinking up the fabulous view when an unexpected fog bank rolled through the Golden Gate and made it impossible to see the person sitting next to them.

I feel that it's a tie between San Francisco and Savannah, GA.

While San Francisco has amazing natural beauty and interesting terrain as well as some internationally-known landmarks, Savannah is probably the most intact colonial city in the United States with its beautiful public squares and massively tree-lined streets. I can't think of another American city that's built at such a human scale.

I would have to choose between Boston and DC, and SF. so beautiful. But arent all US cities?.. Okay... Most US cities?

Honolulu easily. It's the whole island of Oahu. How can you put anything against that?

. Houston is a very conservative town- yet John Kerry won it.

"."

One part of this quote is right. The other, however, is wrong. Houston is not a very conservative town at all.

chicago kicks major ass in the city department. so does NYC, and they have a republican mayor!


Yes..Chicago kicks major ass. About our Mayor though, he isn't Republican anymore.. We tend to think of him as demopublipendent... he's a wierd guy. He's no Fiarello LaGuardia.

Another beautiful pic of downtown Columbus, Ohio:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/562708293_3f15dcd8d7_b.jpg

Another beautiful pic of downtown Columbus, Ohio:

http://i163.photobucket.com/albums/t281/quadrunner_farmboy_2107/562708293_3f15dcd8d7_b.jpg

just a question, take no offense, are you from columbus?:)

just a question, take no offense, are you from columbus?:)

Actually, I live about 65 miles north of Columbus in a rural area of Ohio, but I am an Ohio State student, so I'll be there this fall.

Pittsburgh, PA skyline as you come through that tunnel across the bridge is one of the prettiest sights to see.

Duluth, Minnesota. :) Or Grand Marais. Very pretty little town.

Duluth, Minnesota. :) Or Grand Marais. Very pretty little town.

Definitely contenders for prettiest in the midwest, or prettiest US cities on the Great Lakes, although I think Grand Marais is more of a town than a city.

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/1012/duluthji8.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/9624/dlthduluthhillslux2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img85.imageshack.us/img85/7585/esunrise13filteredpj0.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img519.imageshack.us/img519/5586/so0333yg3.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

http://img515.imageshack.us/img515/8319/sf0003lx2.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Honolulu easily. It's the whole island of Oahu. How can you put anything against that?

Well, if we're talking Islands, I'll take Maui over Oahu. No big city on it, though...which makes it better.

I'd take Chicago over SF. If you're just talking about the city of SF, then it's not really a fair comparison because SF itself isn't all that big in comparison. Give me four seasons (five if you include "construction" season:lol: ) any day over just two (foggy and sunny).

As for the whole "liberal" vs. "conservative" logic...:nuts: . Yeah, those southern cities are just eyesores compared to beautiful city landscapes such as Newark, Detroit, and Gary, Indiana.:ohno:

This is an old thread, but I saw someone mentioned Springfield, IL :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: . I grew up there, and it's great.....if you like acres and acres of parking lots, and a mile long stretch of strip malls (literally). Although, it is nice for a day trip if you're a Lincoln buff, I will say that.

Grand Marais is officially called a city, but yes, it is more like a town. There are villages orbiting Thunder Bay that are bigger than that "city". :P

Yes..Chicago kicks major ass. About our Mayor though, he isn't Republican anymore.. We tend to think of him as demopublipendent... he's a wierd guy. He's no Fiarello LaGuardia.

Bloomberg has always been a Democrat. He just switched to be a "Republican" a few years ago because he thought he didn't think he could get through the Democratic primary and would have a better shot at winning coming from the other side. He's pretty liberal across the board. The whole talk of him running as a third party candidate for President is worrying those on the Democratic side a lot more than on the Republican side.

Well, if we're talking Islands, I'll take Maui over Oahu. No big city on it, though...which makes it better.
Well, I said Honolulu because it is a city/county which covers the whole island. Thus, it is all the city. Maui is not that way.

Honolulu easily. It's the whole island of Oahu. How can you put anything against that?My vote also goes to Honolulu too, with its natural waterfalls, dense rain forest, world class beaches along with America's third biggest skyline.

Since ive only seen NYC, Atlanta(From an airplane window), Miami. I would have to go with NYC. (Im biased since i live here. )

My vote also goes to Honolulu too, with its natural waterfalls, dense rain forest, world class beaches along with America's third biggest skyline.

I guess you forgot the 5+ pages of your worthless thread in which every one who posted beside yourself said you were completely wrong. Honolulu's "skyline" has absolutely no variances besides the fact that it isn't tall at all. It's all a bunch of minimum height condominiums, however, Emporis (:ohno:), has convinced you otherwise, so that's your problem to deal with.

Yeah, not that Honolulu BS again. Why do people post things they (should) know will get jumped on? For the attention we so readily give them? Surely not to convince anyone.

I guess you forgot the 5+ pages of your worthless thread in which every one who posted beside yourself said you were completely wrong. Honolulu's "skyline" has absolutely no variances besides the fact that it isn't tall at all. It's all a bunch of minimum height condominiums, however, Emporis (:ohno:), has convinced you otherwise, so that's your problem to deal with.Yes Honolulu's buildings averages the height of 400-430 feet (Which is decent) but its 500+ buildings spans for miles. Show me a picture of another U.S. skyline that is so wide and dense as Honolulu's. I rest my case.

http://img182.imageshack.us/img182/5777/honoluluhighwaymn3.jpg
http://img514.imageshack.us/img514/329/waikikiad6.jpg

It looks like a wannabe Miami.

It looks like a wannabe Miami.That's your opinion but the matter of fact, Honolulu has more than twice as many buildings than Miami and a lot more under construction. Okay, lets move on and talk about what cities do skyscrapercity forumers think is the most prettiest.

It looks like a wannabe Miami.

haha, it does look like miami, i didn't know honolulu had such a big skyline, wow definetively an underrated city

That's your opinion but the matter of fact, Honolulu has more than twice as many buildings than Miami and a lot more under construction. Okay, lets move on and talk about what cities do skyscrapercity forumers think is the most prettiest.

more buildings under construction? thats not true!!!!

"Today, Miami is undergoing a massive building boom that ranks second worldwide (and first in the United States) for the MOST BUILDINGS UNDER construction that will be over 492ft (150m), with over 24 of such buildings currently under construction."

I'd take Chicago over SF. If you're just talking about the city of SF, then it's not really a fair comparison because SF itself isn't all that big in comparison. Give me four seasons (five if you include "construction" season:lol: ) any day over just two (foggy and sunny).

say that.

And you can keep all the 4 seasons to yourself. I cant stand it. Earlier this month I spent a few days in the eastern US and the weather was just icky. Humid and Steamy. Add to that frigid winters? Sorry but that's not living as far as Im concerned.

To each his own.

Natural beauty: San Francisco

Man-made beauty: I am torn between Chicago and New York.

This, of course, is all very subjective. PERSONALLY, I think San Francisco blows every other city out of the water. It's got a nice blend of natural beauty, architecture, and urbanity.

This photo speaks for itself:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/131857286_a0761ba345_b.jpg

i never seen honolulu from that perspective before.

That's your opinion but the matter of fact, Honolulu has more than twice as many buildings than Miami and a lot more under construction. Okay, lets move on and talk about what cities do skyscrapercity forumers think is the most prettiest.

Your entire posts this thread have been blatant lies::ohno:

1) Using your beloved Emporis, Houston is better than Honolulu:
Houston: 3,632
Honolulu: 3,423
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/

2) Honolulu has only ten buildings that come close to 400+ feet, the rest are only 350 or less. (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=102596)

3) Miami's top 25 are all taller than the tallest building in Honolulu. (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101321)

4) Honolulu having more under construction?

High-rise Building Statistics for Honolulu (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=102596&bt=3&ht=2&sro=1)

427 completed
14 proposed
11 under construction
10 never built
4 demolished
3 approved
1 under reconstruction

High-rise Building Statistics for Miami (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/sk/li/?id=101321&bt=3&ht=2&sro=1)

233 completed
79 approved
64 proposed
56 under construction
15 never built
8 demolished
1 vision

The best part about this is that the comparison is only for official city limits. Honolulu is what, over 4 times the size of Miami? And, Miami's Urbanized Area totally blows away anything Honolulu can muster. These have all been facts, not opinions.

When I visited Pensacola it was very "pretty". Although it's clean, for the most part too hot for me!

I have to break it down into two categories:

prettiest city in the US: San Francisco
handsomest city in the US: Chicago

That could world.

This, of course, is all very subjective. PERSONALLY, I think San Francisco blows every other city out of the water. It's got a nice blend of natural beauty, architecture, and urbanity.


Yeah, it really is just such a unique gem.

Man-made beauty: I am torn between Chicago and New York.

Both cities are really quite awesome in terms of natural beauty as well. Have you ever been to upper Manhattan? Then there's the lakefront setting of Chicago.

Your entire posts this thread have been blatant lies::ohno:

1) Using your beloved Emporis, Houston is better than Honolulu:
Houston: 3,632
Honolulu: 3,423
http://www.emporis.com/en/bu/sk/st/sr/

2) Honolulu has only ten buildings that come close to 400+ feet, the rest are only 350 or less. (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=102596)

3) Miami's top 25 are all taller than the tallest building in Honolulu. (http://www.emporis.com/en/wm/ci/bu/?id=101321)

4) Honolulu having more under construction?





The best part about this is that the comparison is only for official city limits. Honolulu is what, over 4 times the size of Miami? And, Miami's Urbanized Area totally blows away anything Honolulu can muster. These have all been facts, not opinions.First off, Emporis is horribly outdated, everyone agreed on that so that automatically debunked your entire post. Second, Honolulu is the 36th biggest city in the world and is U.S. biggest major city. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_surface_area.

Miami lacks the wide range of architecture that I would expect from an American skyline, especially considering the age of the city. I'd rank it below ten, personally. Just because a skyline has a lot of buildings doesn't make it better. It's the architecture and innovation that counts in my books.

First off, Emporis is horribly outdated, everyone agreed on that so that automatically debunked your entire post. Second, Honolulu is the 36th biggest city in the world and is U.S. biggest major city. Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_surface_area.

First of all, we all agreed that the analysis of Emporis was horrible, not the data, and the information was tagged with an updated in June of 2007, so it seems pretty recent.

Second, please don't tell me that you are trying to use the surface area of a city as a ranking that anyone would care about. What does that prove? :nuts:
Hahahahahahaha, oh dear.


On Urbanized Area, a relevant statistic, Honolulu ranked 51st (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Urban_Areas_%26_Urban_Clusters), right between Tucson, AZ, and Dayton, OH.



On MSA rankings, it's 53rd, again behind Tucson, although now its ahead of Bridgeport/Stamford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

Miami lacks the wide range of architecture that I would expect from an American skyline, especially considering the age of the city. I'd rank it below ten, personally. Just because a skyline has a lot of buildings doesn't make it better. It's the architecture and innovation that counts in my books.

Cough, Honolulu, cough.

I'm not particularly fond of Honolulu either, though I haven't seen enough of it to make a final decision.

Miami lacks the wide range of architecture that I would expect from an American skyline, especially considering the age of the city. I'd rank it below ten, personally. Just because a skyline has a lot of buildings doesn't make it better. It's the architecture and innovation that counts in my books.

Spot on!

Personally, I would rate the skylines of San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston above Miami. Sure Miami has the size and is growing as we speak, but it lacks architectural diversity. I prefer the more established look of the aforementioned skylines over a skyline with nothing but a bunch of residentials. I don't like "condo parks."

Spot on!

Personally, I would rate the skylines of San Francisco, Seattle, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, and Houston above Miami. Sure Miami has the size and is growing as we speak, but it lacks architectural diversity. I prefer the more established look of the aforementioned skylines over a skyline with nothing but a bunch of residentials. I don't like "condo parks."

well who cares what u think, the point is that honolulu is not as tall as other cities in the US.

I agree with your list and would like to add a Minneapolis/St. Paul and Pittsburgh.

well who cares what u think, the point is that honolulu is not as tall as other cities in the US.

That matters why? :dunno:

BTW it's spelled Niagara, there is an a, unlike Viagra. ;)

First of all, we all agreed that the analysis of Emporis was horrible, not the data, and the information was tagged with an updated in June of 2007, so it seems pretty recent.

Second, please don't tell me that you are trying to use the surface area of a city as a ranking that anyone would care about. What does that prove? :nuts:
Hahahahahahaha, oh dear.


On Urbanized Area, a relevant statistic, Honolulu ranked 51st (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Urban_Areas_%26_Urban_Clusters), right between Tucson, AZ, and Dayton, OH.


On MSA rankings, it's 53rd, again behind Tucson, although now its ahead of Bridgeport/Stamford. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Table_of_United_States_Metropolitan_Statistical_Areas)

yea, thats true bro

well who cares what u think, the point is that honolulu is not as tall as other cities in the US.

I'm just giving my honest opinion. ;)

I'm just giving my honest opinion. ;)

i don't know but i don't like Los Angeles skyline that much, i mean for a city that has over 4 million people don't u think it should be a little more impressive? thats just my opinion i hope u guys are k with that. :)

i don't know but i don't like Los Angeles skyline that much, i mean for a city that has over 4 million people don't u think it should be a little more impressive? thats just my opinion i hope u guys are k with that. :)

Well, then you would have to raise the same question for London. London is a city of 7.7 million with a skyline that's barely even existent. Personally, I could care less about what you think of the Los Angeles skyline. People will always have a hometown bias. ;)

Well, then you would have to raise the same question for London. London is a city of 7.7 million with a skyline that's barely even existent. Personally, I could care less about what you think of the Los Angeles skyline. People will always have a hometown bias. ;)

i wish miami's skyline had mountains in the background, that looks so awsome :banana: , thats the only thing i miss from LA. westsidelife why don't u post a pic of LA. :D

Well, then you would have to raise the same question for London. London is a city of 7.7 million with a skyline that's barely even existent. Personally, I could care less about what you think of the Los Angeles skyline. People will always have a hometown bias. ;)

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/70/201668300_5ffc4cc640.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/alex_e14/201668300/)

And that is just a part of London's skyline. ;) Again, it isn't the height that makes it great, it's the architecture.

And that is just a part of London's skyline. ;) Again, it isn't the height that makes it great, it's the architecture.

I was using the London skyline as a counterexample to kevin22's assertion that a city's skyline should be proportionate to its population. I never expressed my opinion of the London skyline.

I was using the London skyline as a counterexample to kevin22's assertion that a city's skyline should be proportionate to its population. I never expressed my opinion of the London skyline.

i think london has an outstanding skyline, london is one of my favorite cities in the world. :banana: :banana:

i think london has an outstanding skyline, london is one of my favorite cities in the world. :banana: :banana:

That's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't single out Los Angeles when you could easily make the same claim for London. ;)

This conversation is over.

That's not the point. The point is that you shouldn't single out Los Angeles when you could easily make the same claim for London. ;)

This conversation is over.

yea let's just get back to topic: "what do you think is the prettiest city in the USA?"

both london and LA are great cities :) i am actually proud to be an angelino

oh and btw my vote for the prettiest cities in the us are the following:

Miami: the crystal blue water, miles of warm beaches, awsome skyline, latin flavor, girls!!!!!!, 30min away from the bahamas, and south beach. make miami one of the most beutiful cities in the country in both natural beauty an in urbanity.

Los Angeles: mountains, skyline, beaches, Hollywood, urbanity, latin flavor, make los angeles what it is today!!!!!!

NYC: i don't have to say anything, lol

Here's a picture of the rural side of Honolulu county, away from the hustle and bustle of Honolulu core.

http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/940/palihighwaypt2.jpgAmazing ? Yes. There's also tons of other natural beauties that can be found in Honolulu such as tons of natural waterfalls, world class beaches, dense rain forest etc.. (Honolulu is basically compose of the whole entire island of Oahu and many other North Western Hawaiian islands making it the World's longest city.)

Yeah, I think Honolulu can hold its ground with San Francisco and Seattle; they have a similar thing going on. Geographic beauty mixed with architectural beauty.

I tend to like cities that have seasons though, and in that regard, a lot of smaller cities like Little Rock and Asheville have incredible seasonal beauty, along with the proximity of mountains, rivers, and dense downtowns. Those probably would win out for me.

Are we talking street scene or skylines? 'Cause there are some cities with truly beautiful skylines but their streets are littered with trash and graffiti.

Are we talking street scene or skylines? 'Cause there are some cities with truly beautiful skylines but their streets are littered with trash and graffiti.
I'm guessing it's strictly skylines and "natural beauty" that exists well beyond city limits.

Sometimes, lost tourists on their way to Modesto or Chico will comment as they stop for gas that San Francisco is an okay place to take a pottie break.:banana:

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/35/97158106_239b65aa07.jpg?v=0

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/160/345582138_36f7fe17b9_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/211/450318911_25c9b63bda_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/201/510783863_eaf07e3e4f_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/149/345158413_1a46cce31a_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/339245158_a7d7992791_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/66/188167789_5f8fa308b4_b.jpg

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/13/18184223_bf409e75ba_b.jpg




http://farm1.static.flickr.com/190/491760049_4124fa07c2_b.jpg

NYC,i mean Manhattan...definitly is the prettiest part of USA...and than San Francisco,Miami,Chicago,San Diego,Los Angeles...

San Diego,San Fransisco,Portland,Seattle,SLC,Denver,Austin,Tulsa,Miami,Tampa,Charlotte,Boston!Just a few I could think of!

^^
I'm glad you are being nice about Tulsa but it isn't clearly in the same league as San Francisco or Boston. Charlotte, Tampa Bay, and Denver are more clean than pretty imo and Miami and Portland have some work to go. San Diego is definitely pretty though

Not sure why this thread was resurrected again after 3.5 years, but seeing as it's active again, I might as well bite.

I'm surprised NO ONE has mentioned Washington, DC. It's undoubtedly one of the most beautiful in the country (even outside of the National Mall/Capitol/White House area), and the low-rise law keeps it looking amazingly dense. From an urban standpoint, it's a gorgeous city.

Not sure why this thread was resurrected again after 3.5 years, but seeing as it's active again, I might as well bite.

I'm surprised NO ONE has mentioned Washington, DC. It's undoubtedly one of the most beautiful in the country (even outside of the National Mall/Capitol/White House area), and the low-rise law keeps it looking amazingly dense. From an urban standpoint, it's a gorgeous city.

Ive never been to San Francisco but I have been to Washington and you are right, it is absolutely stunning. The low rise urban feel and the neo-classical look are definitely unique and gorgeous.

san francisco ... obviously, beautiful city, not chaotic. beach and forest near :D

Out of the places I've been, not so many yet, KC is pretty with all our fountains and what not.

Madison is beautiful in the spring and summer, and San Fran is just always beautiful.

Austin

Seriously, I do not find cities like New York or Chicago all that "pretty" or "beautiful in the sense that I would consider something beautiful or pretty. Those cities are definitely urban and have amazingly beautiful architecture and skyscrapers. Austin is a nice combo of both(although not near as urban and gritty). I also recommend Portland, Seattle and Denver.

Small towns would be Bend, Oregon, Santa Fe, Durango, Colorado and Flagstaff

Boston
http://www.buckinghambostonapartments.com/images/images/boston2.jpg

http://dguides.com/images/boston/areas/back-bay.jpg

http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/89795/89795,1229183799,2/stock-photo-residential-district-of-boston-back-bay-21959743.jpg

http://www.blogcdn.com/www.thewirelessreport.com/media/2006/06/boston.jpg

http://www.planetware.com/i/photo/trinity-church-boston-ma065.jpg

http://www.usetda.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/boston1.jpg

Savannah, by a mile.

Second, there is no Georgian Architecture in Baltimore's Bolton Hill, or Charles Village sections. There is not much Georgian left in Baltimore, but there is a ton of Federal/Adam, and Greek Revival, and endless amounts of Italianate. Bolton Hill is full of late Victorian styles (Romanesque, Queen Anne etc), while Charles Village seems to have a lot of Neo-Classical and Neo-Colonial.


So I guess you are calling this "Federal/Adam" but most people, including me who stared at it daily for 4 years, would call it "Georgian":

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000431.jpg?t=1242448929

This too?

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000424.jpg?t=1255277742

Meh...

Is there a thread on the prettiest small town in the US? There are gazillions, I would love a thread like that.

san francisco ... obviously, beautiful city, not chaotic. beach and forest near :D

San Francisco, far from being "chaotic", is actually rather refined in its urban form. It has at least 2 (I would argue 3) classic "central piazzas" in the European fashion:

Union Square:

http://www.aerialarchives.com/stock/img/AHLB3648.jpg
http://www.aerialarchives.com/stock/img/AHLB3647.htm

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/ce/Union_Square%2C_SF_from_Macy%27s_1.JPG/800px-Union_Square%2C_SF_from_Macy%27s_1.JPG
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Un...Macy%27s_1.JPG

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000210.jpg
Mine

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/P1000208.jpg
Mine

Civic Center Plaza

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1f/San_Francisco_City_Hall_2.JPG/640px-San_Francisco_City_Hall_2.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fb/SFLibrary.jpg/640px-SFLibrary.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Grahamauditorium.jpg/640px-Grahamauditorium.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3d/Earl_Warren_Building_%28San_Francisco%29.JPG/640px-Earl_Warren_Building_%28San_Francisco%29.JPG

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0c/SFAsianArtMuseum.jpg/640px-SFAsianArtMuseum.jpg
All images from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_Center,_San_Francisco

Yerba Buena Gardens

http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/img/home/main.jpg
http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/

http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/img/gar-esplanade-30-19CD1.jpg
http://www.yerbabuenagardens.com/features/gardens.html

http://www.sfcityguides.org/images/guidelines/ybP8270031.jpg
http://www.sfcityguides.org/public_guidelines.html?article=637&submitted=TRUE&srch_text=&submitted2=&topic=neighborhoods

Based on the cities I've been to, I can say San Francisco, Boston and Philadelphia are pretty damn beautiful major cities. Honolulu is also beautiful, mostly due to its location but the urban landscape itself is not as beautiful

I believe "Federal" style architecture is what it's called in the U.S. instead of "Georgian". Same thing, maybe not as quite elegant as in the motherland, but we tried.

Boston


Those are older pictures aren't they?

San Francisco, New York, Charleston, SC, & Savannah for sure....but, I'll give my own city credit where creidit is due, as well.....New Orleans isn't mentioned enough on all of these pages. I may be from here, but, I'm a seasoned traveler, and I'll be truthful....I live in a beautiful city....

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y161/alon504/NewOrleans.jpg

^^Let others judge:

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0875.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0885.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0889.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0898.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0834.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0900.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0870.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0879.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0850.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0818.jpg

http://i185.photobucket.com/albums/x128/BSTJr/IMG_0865.jpg

SF v. Seattle (not starting a debate, just posting one, in pictures, that already exists)--really, very few cities appreciate each other as much as these 2 (plus Portland):

http://blog.sfgate.com/stew/2012/07/09/san-francisco-vs-seattle-which-city-wins/#6088-1

New Orleans looks amazing in those pictures... almost un-American. My sister always goes there every few months, and now I see why. It's an unappreciated and underrated beauty

The most?? Hmm I think is hard to say, every city is unique... But in my opinion the top 5 would be in random order: San Diego, Washington, D.C., San Francisco, Seattle, and Boston.

New Orleans is my contender for the most unique city in the lower 48, but it's a bit too gritty and swampy to make my "beautiful" list.

My list:
San Francisco
San Diego
Miami (especially bayside)
Washington
Salt Lake City
Honolulu

From an outsiders point of view. I was pretty imprssed by New Orleans, Natchez and Chattanooga.

Other cities that I really liked were Rapid City, Cody and Durango.