Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Culture - slight edge to Texas, both have distinct cultures and some diversity as well
Music - Minnesota, MN Symphony Orchestra is more highly regarded than any in Texas and Minneapolis has the most theater seats per capita after New York City (some may prefer Texas for other genres of music)
Scenery - slight edge to Minnesota, lush green forests and over 11,000 lakes, only the SW part of the state has more boring scenery (Texas has more mountains and some other nice scenery as well, but it is fewer and farther between and the drier landscape does not appeal to me as much)
How in the funk does MN rank only slightly behind TX in those regards? Its not even a comparison!
And there are big chunks of TX that are just as green as anywhere in MN. Why does everyone think TX is some barren desert? Its far from it! Do some research, people!
I think the problem is that, while what youre saying is true, there a is alot of Texas that is just downright ugly. Minnesota isnt really ugly anywhere.
How in the funk does MN rank only slightly behind TX in those regards? Its not even a comparison!
And there are big chunks of TX that are just as green as anywhere in MN. Why does everyone think TX is some barren desert? Its far from it! Do some research, people!
Maybe I don't give Texas as much credit for this as I should. Thanks for pointing it out. Looking at maps, it appears that my statement is still true in general (with the majority of Texas listed as plains or prairie), but there are forested areas as well.
I guess my point is just that almost every county in Minnesota has good access to lakes, rivers, and forest, which is my preferred scenery. Many areas in Texas can't lay claim to as much.
Maybe I don't give Texas as much credit for this as I should. Thanks for pointing it out. Looking at maps, it appears that my statement is still true in general (with the majority of Texas listed as plains or prairie), but there are forested areas as well.
I guess my point is just that almost every county in Minnesota has good access to lakes, rivers, and forest, which is my preferred scenery. Many areas in Texas can't lay claim to as much.
East Texas has lakes, rivers and the Piney Woods. Actually Southeast Texas is apart of the Big Thicket National Preserve which is said to be "the most biodiverse area in the world outside the tropics".
But I do agree, in West Texas this is pretty much non existent.
I mean that doesn't mean much... one is a a giant rock the other is covered in trees and sorrounds a lake. One isn't prettier just cuz its taller.
There's plenty of beauty in Texas, IMO. Palo Duro Canyon is nicer looking than Guadalupe Peak. But it still doesn't compare to the beauty in Minnesota. The most beautiful natural spots in Texas still pale in comparison to other similar places out west, but the beautiful places in Minnesota are top of the line among the north.
I've defended Texas before when people have said "Its nothing but flat nothing" but.. I'm sorry, Texas doesn't hold a candle to Minnesota in natural beauty.
I think the problem is that, while what youre saying is true, there a is alot of Texas that is just downright ugly. Minnesota isnt really ugly anywhere.
True. If you go by numbers only, its misleading. Yes, Texas does have more forest cover than people would imagine. But... as pretty as the piney woods are, they're nothing special. The same kind of forest is found in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia.
I appreciate the longleaf pines of the South, but they can't compare to the tall pines you find up north. People make Christmas trees out of those pines! Lets not forget the maples and birches which are strikingly beautiful in the fall!
I think the ugliest parts of Texas are anywhere where its just ugly sprawl such as on I-35E towards Dallas, where there's no scenery just construction, warehouses, billboards. Its bland. Also the oil refineries and such around Houston. Such eyesores.
Most of Texas' scenery isn't really ugly, its just kind of ordinary. A lot of it is flat grassland and there's beauty to be found as well, but I don't see how its more beautiful than Minnesota, which even in its least attractive parts, its still nice looking. People don't flock to Texas for its outdoor scenery like they do to Minnesota. Minnesota's the kind of state you go camping, fishing and kayaking in. Hell, lots of Texans go to Arkansas to do all that because the state is lacking in that category. We only have one natural lake to top it all off.
True. If you go by numbers only, its misleading. Yes, Texas does have more forest cover than people would imagine. But... as pretty as the piney woods are, they're nothing special. The same kind of forest is found in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia.
I appreciate the longleaf pines of the South, but they can't compare to the tall pines you find up north. People make Christmas trees out of those pines! Lets not forget the maples and birches which are strikingly beautiful in the fall!
I think the ugliest parts of Texas are anywhere where its just ugly sprawl such as on I-35E towards Dallas, where there's no scenery just construction, warehouses, billboards. Its bland. Also the oil refineries and such around Houston. Such eyesores.
Most of Texas' scenery isn't really ugly, its just kind of ordinary. A lot of it is flat grassland and there's beauty to be found as well, but I don't see how its more beautiful than Minnesota, which even in its least attractive parts, its still nice looking. People don't flock to Texas for its outdoor scenery like they do to Minnesota. Minnesota's the kind of state you go camping, fishing and kayaking in. Hell, lots of Texans go to Arkansas to do all that because the state is lacking in that category. We only have one natural lake to top it all off.
Very true and it's an unfortunate entrance into the city. Dallas's beauty is found off its freeways.
Very true and it's an unfortunate entrance into the city. Dallas's beauty is found off its freeways.
I will say though, one of Dallas' saving graces is that the highways that run through downtown give great views of the buildings, especially at night. But the highway north towards Denton.. yuck! Only thing worth seeing is Lewisville Lake.
I prefer I-35W's scenery towards Fort Worth. Its more rural and looks nice until you approach all the construction in northern Fort Worth.
I mean that doesn't mean much... one is a a giant rock the other is covered in trees and sorrounds a lake. One isn't prettier just cuz its taller.
There's plenty of beauty in Texas, IMO. Palo Duro Canyon is nicer looking than Guadalupe Peak. But it still doesn't compare to the beauty in Minnesota. The most beautiful natural spots in Texas still pale in comparison to other similar places out west, but the beautiful places in Minnesota are top of the line among the north.
I've defended Texas before when people have said "Its nothing but flat nothing" but.. I'm sorry, Texas doesn't hold a candle to Minnesota in natural beauty.
Overall, you missed the point: that Texas has much more topographic variance than Minnesota. The high point simply underscores that.
And the argument in the rest of your post basically self-destructs itself: nothing more than saying you prefer Minnesota just because you do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerFilms
True. If you go by numbers only, its misleading. Yes, Texas does have more forest cover than people would imagine. But... as pretty as the piney woods are, they're nothing special. The same kind of forest is found in Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia.
I appreciate the longleaf pines of the South, but they can't compare to the tall pines you find up north. People make Christmas trees out of those pines! Lets not forget the maples and birches which are strikingly beautiful in the fall!
I think the ugliest parts of Texas are anywhere where its just ugly sprawl such as on I-35E towards Dallas, where there's no scenery just construction, warehouses, billboards. Its bland. Also the oil refineries and such around Houston. Such eyesores.
And the forests in Minnesota can be found all over the North. Add to that, the Northern forests do not have the type of biodiversity/endemism/exoticness that you see in those of the South, and are seen more often in various media. Thus, if anything, the Northern forest is far more "ordinary" than the Southern forest.
I'd deal with the rest of your post, but it's pretty clear that you ride the short bus:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BadgerFilms
Most of Texas' scenery isn't really ugly, its just kind of ordinary. A lot of it is flat grassland and there's beauty to be found as well, but I don't see how its more beautiful than Minnesota, which even in its least attractive parts, its still nice looking. People don't flock to Texas for its outdoor scenery like they do to Minnesota. Minnesota's the kind of state you go camping, fishing and kayaking in. Hell, lots of Texans go to Arkansas to do all that because the state is lacking in that category. We only have one natural lake to top it all off.
why is everyone in this thread refusing to address Minnesota's State Fair dominance over Texas?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
