<p>
[quote]
It does depend on whether you limit scenic to the landscape...but, for me at least, it also means cultural diversions (from the non-majority), open space, etc....</p>
<p>We're not talking about the mystique of farawy places, but rather how SCENIC it is.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Definition of scenic:</p>
<ol>
<li>of or pertaining to natural scenery.<br></li>
<li>having pleasing or beautiful scenery </li>
</ol>
<p>So, no, by definition, 'scenic' does not include 'cultural diversions', as cultural diversions have nothing to do with the natural scenery. </p>
<p>Put another way. New York City has plenty of cultural diversions, in fact, arguably the most cultural diversions as any place in the world. But I would hesitate to say that NYC offers a whole lot of 'natural scenery, or 'beautiful/pleasing scenery'. </p>
<p>
[quote]
I'd say Honolulu is lush in the way Portland is lush....but there are highrises in Honolulu that block that sunset or rainbow. If your focusing on the North Shore, then I'd agree....but Honolulu?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And have you actually hung around downtown Austin or Denver? Tell me that those places aren't full of highrises too. </p>
<p>My point is simple. I completely fail to see how you can exclude a place like Manoa under the rubric of 'scenic', but somehow manage to include Denver and Austin. Any reasonable definition of scenic that includes those 2 cities (which are not that scenic, especially Austin) would, by definition, have to include Manoa.</p>