View Full Version : Ranking of the most beautiful cities in the USA
...according to ISHiots.
Post your Top 10 or even more if you wish.
And remember it should be a "most beautiful", not "best city to live in" ranking.
Long Duck Dong
07-01-2016, 08:13 AM
A liberal would probably find this question to be a micro aggression.
kurple
07-01-2016, 08:30 AM
Denver should be up there
Dresta
07-01-2016, 08:45 AM
Beauty and US City generally aren't two words i'd put together tbh.
Maybe DC? It has nice buildings and structure and provides a nice contrast to a nation of high-rises and skyscrapers. Charleston was nice. Smaller places in the South and West of the country are much nicer than the vast urban metropolis of places like Chicago, New York, LA, Miami etc.
But really, America isn't the place to go for beautiful cities. There's about a half dozen nicer looking cities in the tiny Netherlands than anything in the States. Generally not a fan.
Yeah I agree about the comparison vs other areas in the world but I'm still curious.
Charleston, San Francisco, Boston, Newport, New Orleans, Seattle appear in many lists... let's hear what the Americans say.
Charleston, SC
Lexington, KY
Charlotte, NC
Beaufort, SC (not sure if this counts as a city)
Asheville, NC
Some of my favorites anyway.
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 09:12 AM
metro cities arent naturally "beautiful" by default because they are cluttered with population. beauty is suppose to be simplistic, less is more. small historic towns in america are considered beautiful. towns with natural landscapes are beautiful.
metro cities arent naturally "beautiful" by default because they are cluttered with population. beauty is suppose to be simplistic, less is more. small historic towns in america are considered beautiful. towns with natural landscapes are beautiful.
So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 09:30 AM
So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?
paris and rome does not have skyscrapers which stacks population on top of one another. also, rome has a level of historic value. romes population density is about 3500 people per square mile where as a metro city like chicago has 12,000 people per square mile.
Facepalm
07-01-2016, 09:30 AM
San Francisco
Austin
paris and rome does not have skyscrapers which stacks population on top of one another. also, rome has a level of historic value.
Ok so you meant "cities full of skyscrapers are not beautiful", that's a totally different point.
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 09:38 AM
Ok so you meant "cities full of skyscrapers are not beautiful", that's a totally different point.
no, thats just 1 example of "less is beautiful". even cities with no skyscrapers but alot of 2-3floor buildings would be less beautiful than towns with 1-2 story homes.
no, thats just 1 example of "less is beautiful". even cities with no skyscrapers but alot of 2-3floor buildings are less beautiful than towns with 1-2 story homes.
Not sure what you actually want to say.
Measuring beauty by the numbers of floors seems pointless to me.
The most beautiful capitals in Europe have plenty of 3+ storey buildings in their city centres :confusedshrug:
It all depends on whether those buildings are beautiful or not.
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 09:53 AM
Not sure what you actually want to say.
Measuring beauty by the numbers of floors seems pointless to me.
The most beautiful capitals in Europe have plenty of 3+ storey buildings in their city centres :confusedshrug:
It all depends on whether those buildings are beautiful or not.
what do you mean you dont understand what im trying to say? ive said it in every post, less is more beautiful. simplicity is more beautiful. quality over quantity.
not really hard to understand, only an idiot would struggle with that concept.
what do you mean you dont understand what im trying to say? ive said it in every post, less is more beautiful. simplicity is more beautiful. quality over quantity.
not really hard to understand, only an idiot would struggle with that concept.
I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it's such an idiotic concept that I couldn't believe you were actually insisting on it.
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 10:00 AM
I just wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, because it's such an idiotic concept that I couldn't believe you were actually insisting on it.
no, its not an idiotic concept, its a principle that any designer/artist understands, youre just ignorant.
So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?
well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.
but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.
there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.
no, its not an idiotic concept, its a principle that any designer/artist understands, youre just ignorant.
We are talking about cities, not chairs.
The most beautiful cities in the world are definitely far from having simple architecture and 1-2 storey buildings.
Dresta
07-01-2016, 10:04 AM
So Rome is not beautiful? Paris? London?
Honestly, London is well on its way to being ruined. It takes a real sort of unfeeling bumpkin to want to clutter such a city with ugly modern monstrosities, buildings with no tie to the people who live among them, but which are more often that not expressions of the architect's vanity.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2012/dec/02/london-high-rise-craze-ruins-skyline
London will just be a shitter Abu Dhabi in 50 years. Sucks, but not enough people care about such things to prevent them any more (at least in London they don't).
Dresta
07-01-2016, 10:10 AM
well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.
but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.
there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.
There seems zero appreciation from the people who build these things that what they are building needs to last, and that people could be forced to live its shadow for hundreds of years. Instead, you get idiotic modernist experiments that will have lost their allure in a decade, and which already look glaringly out of place in really old cities that are completely unsuited to modern architecture and massive skyscrapers.
Orlando Magic
07-01-2016, 10:13 AM
Dc...
thefatmiral
07-01-2016, 10:15 AM
Listing by what I've been to by there scenic views
1. San Diego
2. Corpus Christi
3. Albuquerque
4. San Antonio
I'm a southwestern person
well, europe is different because it's full of classical architecture that will probably never be unappreciated. they looked good before, still look good now, and will continue to look interesting long after we're gone.
but our cities are mostly made up of buildings that are from a more modern period. but these buildings don't usually age well, especially shit built in the 60s, 70s, or 80s. even the new modern shit looks kinda stupid... just blocks of similar looking lofts that look like simple boring boxes. these buildings will look even less appealing 30 years from now. then they'd have to tear them down again to build more weird looking architecture that probably won't pass the test of time neither.
there are still some places to appreciate distinctive and cultural architecture in the us though. but it's nothing like europe.
Well that's the point of this thread, point out the cities with distinctive architecture.
I surely wouldn't care about ticky tacky little boxes.
nathanjizzle
07-01-2016, 10:29 AM
We are talking about cities, not chairs.
The most beautiful cities in the world are definitely far from having simple architecture and 1-2 storey buildings.
whos building your cities? architects?
like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.
~primetime~
07-01-2016, 10:49 AM
Do you mean the downtown areas? Or just the entire city as a whole in general?
whos building your cities? architects?
like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.
You keep mixing up things that aren't even remotely comparable. Women, food, art, objects... cities.
And LOL at your explanation of Rome's beauty. So Romans and Italians in general don't have any reasons to consider it beautiful I guess, since they're used to it.
"Less is better" is ONE of the many possible principles for designing stuff.
You act like Minimalism is the only valid style in all the art domains, lol.
The fact that it can work with a cutlery or TV-sets or even one specific house, doesn't mean that a town with 1-2 storey buildings is more beautiful than one with taller buildings. What a simplistic way to look at things.
You are deleting entire chapters (gothic, baroque, rococ
Lebowsky
07-01-2016, 10:54 AM
whos building your cities? architects?
like what, rome? rome has great historic value, thats what makes it beautiful, and not many people are use to seeing that type of architecture so its considered beautiful. but it would get redundant just like seeing modern skyscrapers. if everyone lived in a city with architecture like rome and traveled to a place like new york, they would deem new yorks architecture as "beautiful" too. thats just a contrast in perspective. but im talking about general perspective in judging beauty that can be applied to looking at anything, that less is more beautiful. bitches that wear less makeup, simple makeup, is more beautiful than bitches that do. a piece of grilled steak with a drizzle of sauce and a side of asparagus is more beautiful than that same plate with 2 more sides on it. its already an established principle.
You're the biggest imbecile on this entire board. The multiple ways in which you manage to constantly make an idiot of yourself every time you post is truly something of wonder.
Do you mean the downtown areas? Or just the entire city as a whole in general?
It depends. Look at it from a tourist's point of view. You can choose what cities to visit, where do you go?
~primetime~
07-01-2016, 11:00 AM
It depends. Look at it from a tourist's point of view. You can choose what cities to visit, where do you go?
okay...Hawaii does not count I take it?...only the main land?
Dresta
07-01-2016, 11:00 AM
[QUOTE=Jasi]You keep mixing up things that aren't even remotely comparable. Women, food, art, objects... cities.
And LOL at your explanation of Rome's beauty. So Romans and Italians in general don't have any reasons to consider it beautiful I guess, since they're used to it.
"Less is better" is ONE of the many possible principles for designing stuff.
You act like Minimalism is the only valid style in all the art domains, lol.
The fact that it can work with a cutlery or TV-sets or even one specific house, doesn't mean that a town with 1-2 storey buildings is more beautiful than one with taller buildings. What a simplistic way to look at things.
You are deleting entire chapters (gothic, baroque, rococ
You're the biggest imbecile on this entire board. The multiple ways in which you manage to constantly make an idiot of yourself every time you post is truly something of wonder.
:no:
shut up, you come from this city? Look, the buildings are too tall, and there are diagonal streets, oh my God. Ugly.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/670498/152648843/stock-photo-madrid-city-wide-angle-aerial-view-at-the-calle-de-alcala-and-gran-via-madrid-spain-metropolis-152648843.jpg
okay...Hawaii does not count I take it?...only the main land?
It counts, it's USA.
~primetime~
07-01-2016, 11:07 AM
I just got back from Rome, most definitely a beautiful city...the city is covered in graffiti though, which when first arriving was unexpected. Europe in general feels a bit 'dirtier' than the US in general...but the cities are certainly more beautiful.
The inside of the Vatican...St. Peters Basilica, is probably the most beautiful man made scenery I have ever witnessed in my life.
Lebowsky
07-01-2016, 11:08 AM
:no:
shut up, you come from this city? Look, the buildings are too tall, and there are diagonal streets, oh my God. Ugly.
http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/670498/152648843/stock-photo-madrid-city-wide-angle-aerial-view-at-the-calle-de-alcala-and-gran-via-madrid-spain-metropolis-152648843.jpg
:oldlol:
Yeah, what was Charles III thinking when reforming Madrid... To be fair, Bratislava wasn't also exactly the crown jewel. Step five minutes away from the old town in any direction and you're surrounded by rather run-down socialist-era apartment blocks. Nevertheless, the worst thing about it was how close it is to other notorious tall-building monstrosities in Prague and Vienna.
I've never been to the US, but big 20th century cities are beautiful in their own way. I don't know why everybody hates skyscrapers now.
~primetime~
07-01-2016, 11:11 AM
Trying to make a list, I've been to many of the major cities in the US...but this is a very difficult and very subjective list to create. I find Las Vegas unique and 'beautiful' where others would view it as 'trashy'.
Hawaii (not sure what city) would top the beauty charts though
I just got back from Rome, most definitely a beautiful city...the city is covered in graffiti though, which when first arriving was unexpected. Europe in general feels a bit 'dirtier' than the US in general...but the cities are certainly more beautiful.
The inside of the Vatican...St. Peters Basilica, is probably the most beautiful man made scenery I have ever witnessed in my life.
Nah, it's just your average attempt at Non-Minimalism that only foreigners like because of the shock factor.
http://www.italia.it/fileadmin/src/img/cluster_gallery/religiosa/La_Basilica_di_San_Pietro/Roma---Basilica-di-San-Pietro_Interno.jpg
Trying to make a list, I've been to many of the major cities in the US...but this is a very difficult and very subjective list to create. I find Las Vegas unique and 'beautiful' where others would view it as 'trashy'.
Hawaii (not sure what city) would top the beauty charts though
:cheers:
Akrazotile
07-01-2016, 11:23 AM
Downtown Santa Fe is very unique and really, really cool. It's like a huge outdoor museum of Navajo culture, as well as the early American settler cultures of the region; Spanish Catholic friars, and cowboys. It's extremely walkable and there are all sorts of monuments, displays, historical sites, and little parks mixed in with the shops and administrative buildings. It's very interesting, and very artsy without feeling grungey. Building architecture is quintessentially southwestern as well, and the surrounding countryside is gorgeous.
Def a place Id recommend making an effort to check out at least once. Go early in the morning on a brisk fall or spring day as I did and get a hot chocolate and just take a walk around while it's still very quiet. Great experience.
~primetime~
07-01-2016, 11:30 AM
Nah, it's just your average attempt at Non-Minimalism that only foreigners like because of the shock factor.
http://www.italia.it/fileadmin/src/img/cluster_gallery/religiosa/La_Basilica_di_San_Pietro/Roma---Basilica-di-San-Pietro_Interno.jpg
What's crazy is that pic doesn't even do it the slightest bit of justice...
Looking at the pic and actually being inside that massive piece or art are two very very very different things.
Akrazotile
07-01-2016, 11:34 AM
Trying to make a list, I've been to many of the major cities in the US...but this is a very difficult and very subjective list to create. I find Las Vegas unique and 'beautiful' where others would view it as 'trashy'.
Hawaii (not sure what city) would top the beauty charts though
Agreed. It's an electric oasis in the desert. There's no city like it.
mlh1981
07-01-2016, 12:32 PM
I've never had the good fortune of traveingl internationally, but I've been to several places in the US, and my absolute favorite city in terms of beauty is San Diego. I also like my city where I'm at currently, St. Petersburg, FL
Overdrive
07-02-2016, 09:39 AM
Nevertheless, the worst thing about it was how close it is to other notorious tall-building monstrosities in Prague and Vienna.
Can you explain this?
Never been to Madrid, but what's the big difference between these cities?
sd3035
07-02-2016, 12:31 PM
RIP Nathan Jizzbucket :lol
fsvr54
07-02-2016, 01:29 PM
Downtown Santa Fe is very unique and really, really cool. It's like a huge outdoor museum of Navajo culture, as well as the early American settler cultures of the region; Spanish Catholic friars, and cowboys. It's extremely walkable and there are all sorts of monuments, displays, historical sites, and little parks mixed in with the shops and administrative buildings. It's very interesting, and very artsy without feeling grungey. Building architecture is quintessentially southwestern as well, and the surrounding countryside is gorgeous.
Def a place Id recommend making an effort to check out at least once. Go early in the morning on a brisk fall or spring day as I did and get a hot chocolate and just take a walk around while it's still very quiet. Great experience.
Sounds great.
Just2McFly
07-04-2016, 04:11 AM
The South is where it's at; Charlotte, Chatanooga,Charleston and Savannah are goregous imo.
Lebowsky
07-04-2016, 05:20 AM
Can you explain this?
Never been to Madrid, but what's the big difference between these cities?
It was a joke. Go back and read nathanjizzle's post in the beginning of the thread. It was actually the other way around, one of Bratislava's only redeeming qualities was the fact it was half an hour away from Vienna and some 2 hours away from Prague and Budapest.
masonanddixon
07-04-2016, 06:32 AM
Santa Barbara, California
County Line, California
Ass Dan
07-04-2016, 09:21 AM
Charleston, SC
Lexington, KY
Charlotte, NC
Beaufort, SC (not sure if this counts as a city)
Asheville, NC
Some of my favorites anyway.
He said 'cities' fakkit, not podonck hell holes where people fakk their cousins.
Dresta
07-04-2016, 09:25 AM
He said 'cities' fakkit, not podonck hell holes where people fakk their cousins.
The places i've been to on that list are some of the nicest in the country. You don't know what you're talking about, and have probably never been to them. Pretty much the only nice cities in the US are in the South or in the West. And DC would be nice too, if it hadn't been run into the ground by the irresponsible morons who run the District of Columbia.
Oh, and could your bigotry be more obvious?
blablabla
07-04-2016, 05:20 PM
I've never been but from what i have seen Boston always seemed quite nice to me. New Orleans as well.
Doomsday Dallas
07-04-2016, 05:56 PM
http://41.media.tumblr.com/bc7197bd3796041ccbfb57997ee35453/tumblr_n29euaUFXa1qkfe85o1_500.jpg
Best place to live.... but not the best tourist attraction
Nanners
07-04-2016, 06:07 PM
Portland is ok
https://tuscanfire.files.wordpress.com/2014/04/portland-or.jpg
Brujesino
07-04-2016, 06:19 PM
I imagine Oregon weather being never too cold and never too hot.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.