i surrender SF is the most beautiful us city

[Nomayoplease]

I live in salt lake city now ( yes i need to update my location) and the city just feels like a typical us city in terms of architecture...it could be denver or boise , etc etc.

[The North One]

Originally Posted by Nomayoplease

Seattle despite its beautiful surroundings , it doen't have the charming factor SF has.

I think that's because most of Seattle's built environment/development is kinda ugly. Tons of 5-over-1s with cheap Home Depot special facades. They don't even bother to put a decent brick veneer on them, it's like this weird sheet metal material. Aesthetically it's definitely below average than other city's new development.

If you look at pictures of the city around 1950 it looks way prettier. And the scale of everything just works so much better with the hills. Almost as charming as San Francisco.

[Crawford]

Non-core Seattle doesn't have particularly interesting or impressive built form. The housing vernacular is pretty blah.

[jpdivola]

Originally Posted by edale

Fair enough, this is certainly an inherently subjective topic. I also love the residential vernacular of DC, Brooklyn, and Boston. DC in particular has some absolutely gorgeous residential-- from Logan Circle over to Georgetown, that whole swath of the city is just stunning. I still find the combination of natural scenery + cityscape in SF more spectacular, but I can certainly see how people could argue otherwise.

DC has a subtle beauty to it. It lacks the dramatic topography or a grand water setting. But it has done a nice job of tacking advantage of it's modest fall line setting with the two tidal rivers in a gentle valley. You have the stream valleys of the Piedmont and the rolling upland river terraces of the coastal plain.
Being a master planned city with almost no industry the city has lots a parkland and natural areas along it's waterways. The inner residential portions consist of brick rowhouses and walk up apartments in leafy neighborhoods while the outer neighborhoods are small lot streetcar suburbs along the leafy rolling topography. The downtown is a bit bland. But the District has been taking advantage of the wide streets to create rain gardens, bike lanes and sidewalk cafes. Really the only ugly parts are the 60s era government buildings along the mall.

[Docere]

Population, 1890-1960:

San Francisco

1890 298,997
1900 342,782
1910 416,912
1920 506,676
1930 634,394
1940 634,536
1950 775,357
1960 740,316

Seattle

1890 42,837
1900 80,671
1910 237,194
1920 315,312
1930 365,583
1940 368,302
1950 467,591
1960 557,087

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by DZH22

I offered up this one on the last page, the biggest/best shot on the whole thread. I'm literally making both sides of the argument since hardly anybody else is posting pictures.

Okay here's my contribution:


https://www.bay-photography.com/Cityscapes

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Okay here's my contribution:


https://www.bay-photography.com/Cityscapes

I've been to LA many times and love it, but it doesn't look like this in reality. It's deceiving and annoying to see photos with so much visual distortion, it becomes fake.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

I've been to LA many times and love it, but it doesn't look like this in reality. It's deceiving and annoying to see photos with so much visual distortion, it becomes fake.

Yeah it's from 20 miles away, on an exceptionally clear day, but LA does indeed "look" like that, when the light is just right. There is nothing fake about it. It's the region's natural "winter palette." Here are a couple of stills from videos.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmI-cJpeYeE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-47k8hoWDo

[badrunner]

btw, I'm not claiming that LA is the most beautiful city. I wholeheartedly agree with the consensus here that San Francisco is the most beautiful city in the US. I will say though that on a regional level, Southern California is one of the most beautiful and geographically diverse places in the world. From snowy peaks to purple mountains majesty to world class beaches, it has an epic scope and scale that few cities can match.

[Nomayoplease]

Originally Posted by badrunner

btw, I'm not claiming that LA is the most beautiful city. I wholeheartedly agree with the consensus here that San Francisco is the most beautiful city in the US. I will say though that on a regional level, Southern California is one of the most beautiful and geographically diverse places in the world. From snowy peaks to purple mountains majesty to world class beaches, it has an epic scope and scale that few cities can match.

That's what i loved the most about living there. Desert , mountains, ocean....

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Okay here's my contribution:

Now imagine that view with a skyline that stretches all the way to the LA River, which would be about twice the length of what's depicted from that angle. Ugh, the potential.

[twinpeaks]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah it's from 20 miles away, on an exceptionally clear day, but LA does indeed "look" like that, when the light is just right. There is nothing fake about it. It's the region's natural "winter palette." Here are a couple of stills from videos.

This is not what a naked eye will see on very clear day. This is shot with a telephoto lens and distorts reality by making the San Gabriel mountain, downtown LA and the beach, appear close together. Your other photos are much better and agree there are parts of LA that are beautiful and its natural diversity is amazing.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

This is not what a naked eye will see on very clear day. This is shot with a telephoto lens and distorts reality by making the San Gabriel mountain, downtown LA and the beach, appear close together. Your other photos are much better and agree there are parts of LA that are beautiful and its natural diversity is amazing.

With the naked eye, you can definitely see the downtown skyline from the Palos Verdes Peninsula, where that pic was taken. But whatever. LA is not the most beautiful city in the country.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by twinpeaks

This is not what a naked eye will see on very clear day. This is shot with a telephoto lens and distorts reality by making the San Gabriel mountain, downtown LA and the beach, appear close together. Your other photos are much better and agree there are parts of LA that are beautiful and its natural diversity is amazing.

Shooting at 300-400mm or more flattens an image to where the foreground, subject and background all seem more or less on the same scale. There's nothing deceptive about it. The human eye is comparable to a wide angle lens and would barely be able to make out the DTLA skyline from that distance.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by JManc

Shooting at 300-400mm or more flattens an image to where the foreground, subject and background all seem more or less on the same scale. There's nothing deceptive about it. The human eye is comparable to a wide angle lens and would barely be able to make out the DTLA skyline from that distance.

20 miles isn't that far away, and the downtown skyline from that angle is about a mile wide, for an angular width of about 3 degrees or 6 times the width of the full moon. It's easily visible to the naked eye: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7855347,..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. Air quality is what will limit your visibility.

[JManc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

20 miles isn't that far away, and the downtown skyline from that angle is about a mile wide, for an angular width of about 3 degrees or 6 times the width of the full moon. It's easily visible to the naked eye: https://www.google.com/maps/@33.7855347,..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIwNS4xIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D. Air quality is what will limit your visibility.

Visible sure but at that distance, you're barely going to make out the individual buildings and they would be lost in the backdrop. Your pic (great shot, btw) even shows the Wilshire Grand's cheating spire in pretty sharp detail.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by JManc

Visible sure but at that distance, you're barely going to make out the individual buildings and they would be lost in the backdrop. Your pic (great shot, btw) even shows the Wilshire Grand's cheating spire in pretty sharp detail.

Yeah there are better, closer skyline views available for sure (Griffith Park, Baldwin Hills, Mulholland Drive). Just let me have my fake waterfront skyline!

[JManc]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Yeah there are better, closer skyline views available for sure (Griffith Park, Baldwin Hills, Mulholland Drive). Just let me have my fake waterfront skyline!

Every time I've been in LA, the weather has been overcast and always seem to miss the golden hour.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by JManc

Every time I've been in LA, the weather has been overcast and always seem to miss the golden hour.

LA has the worst visibility AND it has the clearest air I've ever seen in my life. Spring/winter is best, right after a storm moves through and cleans the air.

If it's overcast, sometimes you can get above it for some heavenly views.

[craigs]

Originally Posted by JManc

Visible sure but at that distance, you're barely going to make out the individual buildings and they would be lost in the backdrop. Your pic (great shot, btw) even shows the Wilshire Grand's cheating spire in pretty sharp detail.

I have seen that view with my own eyes. No, you can't see the spire but you can clearly make out most of the buildings if you know what you're looking at. It's comparable to your Fremont hill view toward the SF skyline. It's there. With good visibility and in the proper light, the skyline stands out on the horizon.