Which city is more beautiful San Francisco or Vancouver and why?

Answer 1

San Francisco, by far.

Although they're both surrounded by water, San Francisco's Pacific Ocean is far more dramatic than the Strait of Georgia.

While Vancouver is built underneath a large mountain (Grouse Mountain), the city area itself is fairly flat. San Francisco has both the mountain (Mount Tam) and is built on 43 hills ranging from 90 to 300 meters.

San Francisco has a more recognizable skyline (Transamerica Pyramid, Bank of America Tower, Coit Tower, Golden Gate Bridge, and so on). Though Vancouver has many highrises and bridges, most of them are fairly generic. This "it could be anywhere" quality might be good for filming movies, but it doesn't really add to the beauty of a place.

At street level, San Francisco also holds an advantage. The residential arthitecture is more elegant than Vancouver. The street lights are more polished and the trams more charming.

The one area where Vancouver gives San Francisco a run for its money is public parks. I personally think Stanley Park is a better looking space than Golden Gate Park. Vancouver has more parks than San Francisco in general, and the parks appear greener and the trees seem healthier.

Answer 2

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Either city can be more beautiful depending upon the perspective of the person looking.
Personally, I like Vancouver a little more due to the wilderness around it.

Answer 3

Vancouver is very beautiful. This is why a lot of recent movies have and still are being filmed here. Also its a nice drive to Whistler if you're into the outdoors and skiing and all that.

Answer 4

I'd say San Fran because it is hillier; there is a real mountain even (Twin Peaks) right in the middle of the city. Also San Fran's neighborhood architectures are generally more pleasing.

Answer 5

I've been to both. Vancouver is dull. SF is so much prettier, the weather's better.