<p>
[quote]
Sakky:</p>
<p>So you're saying that inhabitants, cultural scenery and the like is not considered "natural" to a developed area? Any developed city is planned, which means it is staged to take advantage of certain characteristic as per the definition one, two, and four of scenic. Thus a colloquial, or common usage that depends on how people define it rather that the static one that often appear in dictionaries, is most often used as language and meaning are not themselves static but living and morphing. Hence the question about how the word scenic is defined.</p>
[/quote]
</p>
<p>So if that's the case, then we might as well be talking about cities like New York, London, Paris, Los Angeles, Milan, Sydney, Tokyo, Frankfort, Singapore, and Hong Kong. Heck, under your definition of the word 'scenic', if you want to include inhabitants and culture, it's hard to see how ANY of these cities would not be right at the top. I think we can all agree that there is no way in heck that a place like Denver can beat any of these cities in terms of "cultural scenery" or in terms of inhabitants. After all, to compare the culture of New York or Paris to a city like Denver - that is not a close call by any stretch of the imagination. I think even the people of Denver would concede this point.</p>