More so than any metropolitan area in America, did nature provide the Bay Area with so much in a physical setting (incredible beauty, wonderful climate, coastal access, enormous sheltered harbor) that its greatness was assured? Was it inevitable that (with its setting) San Francisco was going to achieve greaness?
IMHO, there is no metropolitan area in the world that is so situated to enhance the mixture of man and nature. The huge bay smack in the middle serves as an enormous amphitheatre to the hills that ring it on all sides. The steepest slopes (Mt. Tamalpais, Mt. Diablo) are shifted to the periphery, the city itself is a set apart peninsula where hills and water mix and views aren't blocked.
There are other spectacular locations...i.e. Hong Kong, Rio, Vancouver, but to a degree (particularly HK and Rio) their slopes dominant more than what you see in SF and the Bay Area where the hills and what is made by man serve more to enhance each other.
Is it just me...or is the Bay Area the most magnifcent setting in the world for a metro area, the best possible place to see the interplay between nature and man?> |
0 comments:
Post a Comment