i surrender SF is the most beautiful us city

[JManc]

Originally Posted by craigs

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.

Yes, if the lighting is just right and there's low humidity, you can see the SF/ OAK skylines from Fremont fairly clearly with the naked eye or the Transamerica, 555 California, 181 Fremont and Salesforce at very least.

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Saturday and Sunday will be epic days for photos of LA with the snow capped mountains as a massive storm is coming wed - friday that will bring feet of snow, 3 to 5 inches of rain for most of the basin (up to 8 inches of rain below the snow line).

LA, at times is incredibly beautiful depending on where you are. The ocean cliffs, the massive snow capped mountains, the hills in the city.. it can all be wonderful but i agree that SF and Seattle are a notch above for beauty

[jd3189]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Okay here's my contribution:


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

LA itself may not be up there as one of the most beautiful cities, but it does have a beautiful/ epic setting. No where else in this country do you have a mega city spread out on a large basin with both flat and hilly terrain between mountains, deserts, and the ocean. While SF has the Bay as a nice backdrop, LA has the above. To me, I find Southern California to be a tad more epic in setting.

And you can see the San Gabriel Mountains from downtown on a clear day. The Hollywood Hills also tower over the city in a way that’s more dominating than Twin Peaks for SF, which is still impressive as well.

[Docere]

Hard to really beat San Francisco for its combination of beauty and urbanism.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by Docere

Hard to really beat San Francisco for its combination of beauty and urbanism.

Yeah, for me urban form is a major criteria of a city's beauty. Some cities have cheat coded to the top of the list by combining interesting natural features with a great built form. San Francisco is one of those cities to me.

There are a couple of places that have been able to create a stunningly beautiful place on a flat piece of land without good water features. Paris and Buenos Aires come to mind there. But I can't think of a city that I would rate highly for just topography alone.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, for me urban form is a major criteria of a city's beauty. Some cities have cheat coded to the top of the list by combining interesting natural features with a great built form. San Francisco is one of those cities to me.

There are a couple of places that have been able to create a stunningly beautiful place on a flat piece of land without good water features. Paris and Buenos Aires come to mind there. But I can't think of a city that I would rate highly for just topography alone.

Rio de Janeiro is pretty much topography alone as the buildings themselves aren't overly stunning. My picture:

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by UrbanImpact

Rio de Janeiro is pretty much topography alone as the buildings themselves aren't overly stunning.

The architecture itself might be bland, especially in Copa, Ipa, Leblon, etc., but I would argue that Rio's urban form is amazing. And the architecture in Centro is interesting, although it gets overlooked by the coastal areas.

Hardly any U.S. or Canadian city other than NYC can compete with this scale of urbanity.

[UrbanImpact]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

The architecture itself might be bland, especially in Copa, Ipa, Leblon, etc., but I would argue that Rio's urban form is amazing. And the architecture in Centro is interesting, although it gets overlooked by the coastal areas.

Hardly any U.S. or Canadian city other than NYC can compete with this scale of urbanity.

Yup, there is a lot of interesting architecture in Rio, but it tends to get muffled in the intense density.

[edale]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Yeah, for me urban form is a major criteria of a city's beauty. Some cities have cheat coded to the top of the list by combining interesting natural features with a great built form. San Francisco is one of those cities to me.

There are a couple of places that have been able to create a stunningly beautiful place on a flat piece of land without good water features. Paris and Buenos Aires come to mind there. But I can't think of a city that I would rate highly for just topography alone.

I agree with this, and urban form is where LA falls short. Southern California is a stunning natural landscape, but IMO the majority of LA's urban form is uninspired at best, ugly at worst, especially on its commercial corridors.

[MolsonExport]

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.

A bit like this (Vancouver).



Mount Baker (Washington State) is certainly visible from Vancouver, and quite prominent, but it does not loom like this except with a telephoto lens.

[LA21st]

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.

People really love to downplay LA's natural setting. Like La Jolla is nice, but Malibu alone is like 30 miles of better scenery. San Diego doesn't have the Santa Monica or San Gabriels (like 70 miles long).

And when you count Orange County (LA's MSA) its not even close honestly. Hell, even Ventura county is scenic as hell that nobody talks about.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by craigs

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.

Yeah it's very prominent against the mountain backdrop. It almost looks like a mirage in the distance. Here is a more realistic view of the skyline from Palos Verdes if people don't like the zoomed-in view. It's closer to what the naked eye sees. It's not the best image quality, being a still from a video. But somehow, seeing it in this context, seeing it in the flesh, is even more mindblowing than anything you can capture with a telephoto lens. Pictures really can't do justice to the expansive view of the LA basin at night.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ojD2OBlsNSU

[LA21st]

If Griffitth Park was in ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITY it would be talked about nonstop on these kinds of forums.

And this area is never talked about because it's overshadowed by everything else. But it's inside LA limits, on the NW SFV Valley.

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.2584425,..._ep=EgoyMDI1MDIxMC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

[craigs]

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

People really love to downplay LA's natural setting. Like La Jolla is nice, but Malibu alone is like 30 miles of better scenery. San Diego doesn't have the Santa Monica or San Gabriels (like 70 miles long).

And when you count Orange County (LA's MSA) its not even close honestly. Hell, even Ventura county is scenic as hell that nobody talks about.

San Diego might have the best beaches in America, and it shares some of the natural qualities of the other California cities. It's a beautiful city but I can't put it in the same top tier as SF/LA. Modest topography and the flattop skyline doesn't do much for me. It doesn't have the historic architecture or urban charm of LA either, much less SF.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by LA21st

If Griffitth Park was in ANY OTHER AMERICAN CITY it would be talked about nonstop on these kinds of forums.

Griffith Park alone gives you some of the most beautiful and surreal city views you'll see anywhere. No need for mountains or beaches. Just a little hill .

It's a great place to take a date. Watch the sun go down. Watch the lights come on in the city, and the fog roll in from the ocean. And it's free.

[iheartthed]

Originally Posted by badrunner

Griffith Park alone gives you some of the most beautiful and surreal city views you'll see anywhere. No need for mountains or beaches. Just a little hill .

I'll raise you Barcelona's Park Montjuic and Park Guell, although Guell is now only free for Barcelona residents.

And I haven't yet seen an urban park that can match Rio's Sugarloaf Mountain or Corcovado for views, but I'll concede that both of those places require fees to enter.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by jd3189

LA itself may not be up there as one of the most beautiful cities, but it does have a beautiful/ epic setting. No where else in this country do you have a mega city spread out on a large basin with both flat and hilly terrain between mountains, deserts, and the ocean. While SF has the Bay as a nice backdrop, LA has the above. To me, I find Southern California to be a tad more epic in setting.

And you can see the San Gabriel Mountains from downtown on a clear day. The Hollywood Hills also tower over the city in a way that’s more dominating than Twin Peaks for SF, which is still impressive as well.

I went to Running Springs over the holiday weekend last month. Even with the wildfires, I could still see the coast (and perhaps Catalina Island) while eating at Hortencia's — a panoramic view from Mt. San Jacinto all the way to Huntington Beach (I think).

LA has perhaps the most diverse natural geographic landscape of any heavily populated place on Earth. No, it doesn't have anywhere near the best or most extreme of each. Our beaches aren't like South Florida, the mountains aren't the Alps, Catalina isn't Capri, and the best of the Mojave (Death Valley) is a few hours away. That would be unfair.

And DTLA being situated where it is really makes all of these geographic features within reach.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

I'll raise you Barcelona's Park Montjuic and Park Guell, although Guell is now only free for Barcelona residents.

And I haven't yet seen an urban park that can match Rio's Sugarloaf Mountain or Corcovado for views, but I'll concede that both of those places require fees to enter.

I think Griffith competes with Barcelona there.

And the Getty Center views might top it. So could Runyon or the Culver City steps. Or Temescal, when it's recovered.

Rio might win it all, but the fact LA is top 2 or 3 is pretty awesome. As other have said, LA might win it all overall all things considered. Malibu is considered one of the most scenic places, and that isnt even being discussed here.
Laguna Beach has something that looks like Hawaii or somewhere else in the south Pacific (Treasure Island Beach)

Then you have Catalina, and the other islands. And Palm Springs has a 10,000 ft mountain (in the desert) rising almost straight up from sea level. LA has ski resorts in the CSA! Like come on. Its kinda on its own level.

Moutains/ski resorts, deserts, islands, large hills, beaches, ocean cliffs, palm trees, national and state parks all paired with probably the best weather on earth.

[Quixote]

Hong Kong from Victoria Peak is about as dramatic as anywhere. You're just above what is probably the most structurally dense locale on Earth, with one of the best skylines to boot. Whether atop Victoria Peak or from the Kowloon Public Pier, Hong Kong easily offers the best skyline views from a vantage point not from an observation deck.