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.
I love the setting of both but the Seattle natural setting gets my vote. With Seattle being so hilly the views of the water, the skyline, the water, the Cascades and Mt Rainier and the Olympics can't be beat.
I don't know if you know how hilly San Francisco is. It's REAL hilly.
Nonetheless, they both have massive amounts of hidden staircases.
If you're into different views, San Francisco has tons of garden stairways. Like the Filbert Steps that lead up to the Coit Tower. And Baker Beach has the Battery to Bluffs steps, which you can view the Golden Gate.
I don't think any area has more hidden staircases than the bay area. San Francisco has over 700, Oakland and Berkley combine for 400, and Mill Valley has over 100. Seattle and Portland have their fair share amount of staircases though. I'm actually going to Seattle in a couple months.
They're both beautiful, easily the top 2 in the country as far as major cities go. Green is my favorite color and Seattle is intensely green. I prefer the heavily forested landscape of Western Washington to the primarily montane chaparral of the Bay Area. Also, the surrounding mountains are simply more stunning in Seattle, particularly Rainier. The built environment goes to SF easily though.
They're both beautiful, easily the top 2 in the country as far as major cities go. Green is my favorite color and Seattle is intensely green. I prefer the heavily forested landscape of Western Washington to the primarily montane chaparral of the Bay Area. Also, the surrounding mountains are simply more stunning in Seattle, particularly Rainier. The built environment goes to SF easily though.
Would you say that a more hilly city is more attractive than a flat city like Chicago?
Would you say that a more hilly city is more attractive than a flat city like Chicago?
Yes, I think so for the most part. Varied topography can afford unique views you can't really get otherwise (unless you're in a tall building). Plus hills themselves can be picturesque.
Do you think San Francisco is bad when it comes to greenery? Well, it's pretty close to Marin County. Marin County has a lot of trees and Mt Tampalis, it was the home of mountain biking originally.
There's also Mt Davidson and Forest Knolls in SF that has a lot of trees. Maybe not as many trees as Seattle. But I know that San Francisco doesn't lack lots of hills and views. There's also a lot of trees along Crystal Springs Reservoir by the San Andreas Fault.
Do you think San Francisco is bad when it comes to greenery? Well, it's pretty close to Marin County. Marin County has a lot of trees and Mt Tampalis, it was the home of mountain biking originally.
There's also Mt Davidson and Forest Knolls in SF that has a lot of trees. Maybe not as many trees as Seattle. But I know that San Francisco doesn't lack lots of hills and views. There's also a lot of trees along Crystal Springs Reservoir by the San Andreas Fault.
As you can see Seattle has a lot more trees than SF
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.
