I think he's mistakenly thinking of the space drydock where the E was refit, rather than the giant mushroom of the topic.
Riker mentions seeing lights of lunar cities in the night sky, so there's that. It's possible by this point a lot of satellite have been cleared from low earth orbit. With transporters, sky traffic might not be so great, so apart from the big stations way up in very high orbit, or parked in la grange points, where they wouldn't be seen beyond small specks of light, earth might have better night skies than now, in terms of light pollution. The only reason we really need low earth satellites and ISS right now is that it is easier to put things there, as well as for the use in observation, and I doubt United Earth needs to spy on itself. If we had Star Trek's kind of technology and shielding, it's doubtful that there'd be need for having anything there where stuff has to be rebooted periodically and can pose a reentry hazard. Why bother with keeping track of all that junk and traffic when you can just require everything be in high orbit or beyond.
To me, being in a "space hotel" in low orbit would be more appealing than a similar hotel in geo orbit, better view of the Earth passing below. If i had a house in orbit, same deal. i could imagine many thousands of individual homes in orbit (different orbits) in the future. Plus small villages, larger communities. Hundred and fifty some miles up. The "refit" drydocks would be possible to see from the ground too, bright work lights shining on light colored starships.
Actually, Riker in ST:FC tells Cochrane that "It looks a lot different" and that "You can see Tycho City, New Berlin, even Lake Armstrong on a day like this" when pointing at a daylight full moon. Since we see the nighttime Moon of the 22nd, 23rd and 24th centuries many times in Star Trek and it looks no different from the nighttime Moon of today, we might surmise that the big difference is reflective surfaces. There might be domes or solar arrays or whatnot that reflect light directly towards Earth but not much to the sides, so a lit Moon as seen from space, not from Earth (as is the case in the relevant Star Trek shots) looks no different from today, but a full Moon as seen from Earth (as is the case in ST:FC) has bright spots be it day or night. Then again, there could be lots of spacecraft buzzing around - not orbiting satellites, but vehicles moving on rather erratic paths. Not Coruscant / Rubanis level of celestial congestion, but still more than the sum total of satellites today. We do see congestion in "Let Me Take Your Hand", either due to artistic liberties being taken, or because Earth has organized a last line of defense consisting of hundreds of thousands of spacecraft. It isn't a feature of regular Trek shots of Earth's vicinity! And because it allows for reduced signal strength, which is why space today is getting polluted by stupid nanosats for erecting a spatial internet. Why not? Self-monitoring seems a Trek feature all right. And it's one of the most "civilian" uses of spacecraft currently imaginable, as opposed to "military" or "capitalist" or whatever negative word one might choose. Keeping watch over weather or vegetation or wandering animals will probably still be best conducted by satellites in the 24th century. Although a couple of those at relatively high orbit might suffice, unlike today. Timo Saloniemi
Perhaps Riker could pick out cities and lakes on the surface of the moon, even in full day light, owing to he knowing what to look for, and where to look.
Well, he is bullshitting Cochrane with ideas about a bright future in space. His "amazement" at a "different" Moon could be pure playacting, and either Lake Armstrong could not be seen at all, or then spotting it would be a significant feat. Timo Saloniemi