i surrender SF is the most beautiful us city - Page 3

jpdivola · #41 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 1:53 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think SF is the most beautiful U.S. city in terms of views and aerials.

But SF generally isn't beautiful at street level. Very interesting, but not conventionally pretty. It's a lot of garage doors/blank walls, few trees, overly wide streets, and utility poles/lines.

Yeah, San Francisco has a majestic natural setting with the hills and water. Rivaled only by Seattle IMO. But, the actually built environment is pretty average to me. In many ways I prefer the architecture of Chicago and the east coast cities.

ColDayMan · #42 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:49 AM**

To me, San Francisco is the clear winner. An American Istanbul. The setting, the Victorian architecture, the hills, the fog, the iconic bridges, blah blah.

The best natural settings in the US? Seattle and Honolulu
The best (structural) downtown core in the US? Philadelphia
The most underrated "beautiful" city in the US? Cincinnati
The best residential architecture, pound-for-pound in the US? Washington DC
The best commercial architecture, pound-for-pound in the US? New York City
The best weather in the US? San Diego (or Denver, depending on my mood)
The best beaches in the US? Miami (Beach)
The best bay in the US? Sandusky, —. None of these hoes have 400ft+ roller coasters

But, I mean, come on. Gumbo that — and you can't tell me San Francisco doesn't come out on-top overall.

https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/

Comrade · #43 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:43 AM**

San Francisco is one of only a handful of US cities (very few tbh) that feels wholly unique regardless where you're located. It just has a distinctive feel that cannot be created by another city.

jmecklenborg · #44 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 7:34 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by edale

Outside of the premier core areas like Back Bay, Beacon Hill, etc. Boston seems to have more wooden housing than brick.

Um, vinyl siding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

These houses are tall, colorful, and dense, often towering over the streets on hills,

I don't know where this whole "Boston is hilly" idea comes from. I've read it and heard people say it but...where are these hills? Beacon Hill is a tiny hill. You have to go at least 3 miles and more like 5 miles from DT Boston to encounter a real 200+ foot hill, and the hills are just rises, not legit ridges.

By contrast, the highest point in San Francisco is almost 1,000 feet above sea level.

I just checked and the highest point in NYC is 401 feet above sea level, which is significantly higher than 330 in Boston, and I have never heard anyone describe NYC as "hilly".

jmecklenborg · #45 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 7:36 AM**

Wait - there's more....

Baltimore - sea level to 480 feet
Philadelphia - sea level to 446 feet
Washington, DC - sea level to 409 feet

So every major east coast city has more elevation change than Boston.

DZH22 · #46 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 8:24 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

Wait - there's more....

Baltimore - sea level to 480 feet
Philadelphia - sea level to 446 feet
Washington, DC - sea level to 409 feet

So every major east coast city has more elevation change than Boston.

wwmiv · #47 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 8:37 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

The vast majority of those are not making your case very well about Boston’s beauty.

DZH22 · #48 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 3:43 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by wwmiv

The vast majority of those are not making your case very well about Boston’s beauty.

They were meant to show the hilliness of the area. How about, you show me the SF neighborhoods that compete with these?

DJI_0557-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0014-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0187-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

2 rivers leading out into a harbor full of islands sure is hideous. Good for you on nailing it.

boston_dusk by dvorahart, on Flickr

aerial 14 by Nuraj Shrestha, on Flickr

What a dreary landscape.

aerial 11 by Nuraj Shrestha, on Flickr

Yuck, what a gross view from the river, which contains miles of gross views. Then we have 40 miles of gross harborwalk to add to that. Terrible.

IMG_0222 by David Z, on Flickr

bobbyv · #49 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:16 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

They were meant to show the hilliness of the area. How about, you show me the SF neighborhoods that compete with these?

DJI_0557-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0014-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

DJI_0187-HDR by Phil, on Flickr

2 rivers leading out into a harbor full of islands sure is hideous. Good for you on nailing it.

boston_dusk by dvorahart, on Flickr

aerial 14 by Nuraj Shrestha, on Flickr

What a dreary landscape.

aerial 11 by Nuraj Shrestha, on Flickr

Yuck, what a gross view from the river, which contains miles of gross views. Then we have 40 miles of gross harborwalk to add to that. Terrible.

IMG_0222 by David Z, on Flickr

You just showed the same neighborhood from different angles.

Notonfoodstamps · #50 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:20 PM**

Seattle takes the cake from a strictly geographical setting. It has everything SF and then some. Where it looses points is architecture. It’s modern but it can come off as “cold” so while it’s not ugly in the colloquial sense it also doesn’t have swaths of historic layering and thus lacks character imho. It feels like an American twist on Vancouver.

San Diego parallels SF in geography the best. LA has elements of both but its downtown doesn’t make good use of it hence it never being mentioned. Honorable mention: Pittsburgh it’s even more geographically extreme, but it’s lacks the open bay layout of SF so full on vistas are hard to come by.

SF has neighborhood architecture that arguably rivals the Bos-Wash cooridor cities but it has the way more scenic geography than all of them which is the deciding factor. I wouldn’t call Boston Chicago flat, but it’s definitely not as hilly as NYC, Philly Baltimore & DC as they all sit on the Piedmont fall line whereas Boston doesn’t.

Either way SF is at the top of most list and it’s rightfully earned. No shame in saying that.

DZH22 · #51 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by bobbyv

You just showed the same neighborhood from different angles.

2 Back Bay in separate directions and 1 South End. Frankly our #'s 3 and 4 of the historical inner neighborhoods but still better than any other US city has to offer outside of NYC and Philadelphia.

Here's North End (2nd best).

North End Boston Real Estate Aerial by David Oppenheimer, on Flickr

Here's Beacon Hill (prettiest neighborhood in the country).

IMG_2669 by Phil, on Flickr

Beacon Hill and beyond by Terry Donovan, on Flickr

Boston's Beacon Hill by Terry Donovan, on Flickr

That's 4 inner neighborhoods that can compete with anywhere in the country for beauty, yet are all in the same city. Round it out with Charlestown, Fenway, and then yes, miles and miles of colorful "triple deckers" and other large dense housing extending through Cambridge, Somerville, Brookline, etc. But let's just stick with these 4, which in my estimation are all architecturally superior to anything SF has to offer.

Six Corners · #52 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:32 PM**

San Francisco has been perhaps the most enchanting and majestic cities for me. I first visited with my family when I was 10. I had neutral feelings about going beforehand, but once we got there and explored a bit, everything about it was intoxicating and fascinating. The beautiful Victorians built on steep hills, the cable cars, the beautiful and gigantic bridges whisking commuters across the water that surrounds the city. Generally cozy weather that just makes me want to find a coffee shop on a high hill and watch the city and the boats in the bay go about their day while a fog horn sounds in the distance. Set among redwoods and a albeit romanticized history surrounding the gold rush.

Both Boston and New Orleans hold similar levels of enchantment in my head, but San Francisco just does all of it a little bit better and the intersection of nature and city really helps.

That said, I've never been to a place where I've encountered quite the same levels of social deviance. During our vacation when I was 10, a drunk homeless person walked in front of our car downtown and we hit him with our rental Chevy Corsica (in slow-moving downtown traffic). He fell onto the hood and then plopped onto the street when my dad stopped. But he got up and just walked away annoyed while my dad asked if he was okay. So that was a little traumatizing as a 10 year old. My next trip, in my 20s, while on the train from the airport, I was standing near a guy who kept yelling about the impending invasion of the Irish between calling the engineer on the emergency intercom, yelling at him to spend less time waiting at each of the stations. On my third trip I witnessed a guy lose it on someone looking at his phone and walking a little too far on the "wrong" side of the sidewalk. Certainly I've encountered such things in other cities, that's obviously just city life, but not quite to the degree as San Francisco.

iheartthed · #53 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 4:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

Agreed, but urban footprint is basically a function of population up to about 1920. DC has a pretty small urban footprint, but a huge core. Even Baltimore has a bigger urban footprint than DC.

SF has a much bigger urban footprint than DC, but somewhat smaller core.

FWIW, if you combine San Francisco, Oakland, Berkeley, and Daly City, you get a population (1,543,833) fairly close to Philadelphia's population (1,603,797) in about a similar sized land area (121 sq miles vs 134 sq miles). I would say that most likely puts SF a bit ahead of Boston and probably in a solid fourth place behind NYC, Chicago, and Philly.

I strongly suspect that DC would be behind Boston, tbh. Urban level density doesn't sustain itself too far outside of the district itself, especially in the direction of the Maryland border counties. I don't think you'll be able to find 1.5 million people in a contiguous area around DC living in an average density above 10k people/square mile. I don't think you can do that in Boston either.

MolsonExport · #54 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:01 PM**

some photobombing going on here.

DZH22 · #55 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I don't think you'll be able to find 1.5 million people in a contiguous area around DC living in an average density above 10k people/square mile. I don't think you can do that in Boston either.

For Boston:
Combine Boston, Cambridge, Somerville, Chelsea, Everett, and Brookline and it just exceeds 1 million people in under 72 square miles.

Add in Winthrop, Malden, Medford, Quincy, Revere, Lynn, Watertown, Arlington, Waltham, and Melrose and there's approximately 1.58 million people living in 146 square miles.

DZH22 · #56 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:18 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by MolsonExport

some photobombing going on here.

While the topic is specifically for US cities, at street level I'd put Montreal's architecture over San Francisco too. I'm assuming Quebec City also easily qualifies, although I have never been.

Does SF have a defined Fall foliage season? From what I can tell it's significantly more barren than the heavily forested East Coast cities. Add in the beige palette and I just find the overall color scheme to be duller than the red brick and varied forests, with 4 distinct seasons, that I'm used to on the East Coast.

montréaliste · #57 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:20 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by jackb

d

Yep, true.

JManc · #58 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:23 PM**

I think you made your point about Boston, no need for further photo evidence...

craigs · #59 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:31 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Notonfoodstamps

Seattle takes the cake from a strictly geographical setting. It has everything SF and then some.

Technically, no. Alki Beach is fun in the summer, and Puget Sound is a cool body of water, but Seattle does not have the oceanfront, wide beaches, and real surf that San Francisco has.

Quote:

San Diego parallels SF in geography the best. LA has elements of both but its downtown doesn’t make good use of it hence it never being mentioned. Honorable mention: Pittsburgh it’s even more geographically extreme, but it’s lacks the open bay layout of SF so full on vistas are hard to come by.

San Diego is a pretty town notable for having even wider oceanfront beaches and better surf than San Francisco, but it's not as beautiful a setting as SF in my opinion. And Los Angeles doesn't belong in this conversation.

.

MolsonExport · #60 Posted **Feb 7, 2025, 5:33 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by DZH22

While the topic is specifically for US cities, at street level I'd put Montreal's architecture over San Francisco too. I'm assuming Quebec City also easily qualifies, although I have never been.

Does SF have a defined Fall foliage season? From what I can tell it's significantly more barren than the heavily forested East Coast cities. Add in the beige palette and I just find the overall color scheme to be duller than the red brick and varied forests, with 4 distinct seasons, that I'm used to on the East Coast.

Fair enough. There are a few cities that take one's breath away when approaching for the first time. For me, San Francisco is one of them. So is Rio de Janeiro, Hong Kong, and Vancouver. They all have that combination of stunning geography/topography and iconic structures (not just buildings, but bridges, for example). New York has it too, less from the topography, but given Manhattan's narrow island and the sheer quantity and verticality of the skyline...

Street level, I could agree that both Montreal and Boston offer a superior experience, as a pedestrian.