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.
Yeah that must be really annoying for you. Even in this video which was recently posted on another thread, Chicago is mentioned second and LA only fourth as a big league city. Why? Why?
You're always angry about something. LA and Chicago switch back and forth, depending on what publicist you ask but all 4 of these cities are nearly always represented in global publications along with DC, Boston, and Miami. After those 7, you can fight nail and teeth it wont mark any difference.
#1 NYC
#5 Chicago
LA
San Francisco
Miami
Washington
Vancouver
Toronto
The nature and outdoor opportunities outside Chicago are the same in the region outside any other midwestern/Great Lakes or Texas cities. Some parts of the forest preserves are more country and rolling hills depending on where you go. Similar to what you find west-northwest of Detroit, as well as south of Cleveland in the Cuyahoga valley.
Maybe compared to Dallas and Houston but Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Harlingen, Corpus Christi outscore anything the great lakes region has to offer. I've driven through both areas and the only reason anyone could say great lakes region is on par with Texas is if your factoring in the flat Dallas and Houston areas.
Driving through I80 from the bay to NYC is hell in the midwest, its flat and boring and the rolling hills are tiny nothing like the hill country region near Austin or San Antonio which both have high cliff hills, certainly not on par with the cliffs and mountains near El Paso and Las Cruces. The water temperature in the gulf is better than the great lakes and the gulf beaches in Texas start getting good Corpus south with emerald water color. Another plus for Texas is its wine country near Fredericksburg, they import the California red wine from Napa but the Texas dry white wine or sweet wine is really good. I favor it to the wine everywhere else except California, Washington, or Oregon. Midwest has nothing like that.
I disagree, no ocean, no mountains, no good skiing, etc...great city though. Can just start there and go on. OK, so, as somebody who has lived 25 years of my life between Florida and CA, I am unimpressed with the "nature" around Chicago, how is that? I've been to places people said were great/good/ and or raved about and was just left like...that's it?
I am not saying that nature or outdoors don't "exist" around there, it's just not impressive to me, especially anything in Cook County, and well, many other people I know have said the same thing.
No need to go to the Adirondacks, which are awesome. You could go straight to the Catskills or Poconos very quickly or numerous spots within Connecticut which will all put ANYTHING within the same distance around Chicago to shame.
You are now expanding too far out... Sure you can go up to UP... but that's what, 5-6 freaking hours? There is much better nature within 1/3 of the distance, less than 2 hours from nyc, mountains twice as high and dramatic, etc. etc.
Chicago is EASILY the worst IMO in terms of what most people would consider good nature and good weather of the 4, I'm just saying as it seemed that it was actually being debated..Personally it isn't a big deal, just calling it like I see it.
Not to take anything away from Chicago, I still think it comes in with the #2 slot... but arguing those things, I just don't see it... sorry. And I know you aren't going to look at me with a straight face and say the nature *in* and around LA doesn't destroy Chicago, which it does. Much less CA as a state.
Maybe compared to Dallas and Houston but Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Harlingen, Corpus Christi outscore anything the great lakes region has to offer. I've driven through both areas and the only reason anyone could say great lakes region is on par with Texas is if your factoring in the flat Dallas and Houston areas.
Driving through I80 from the bay to NYC is hell in the midwest, its flat and boring and the rolling hills are tiny nothing like the hill country region near Austin or San Antonio which both have high cliff hills, certainly not on par with the cliffs and mountains near El Paso and Las Cruces. The water temperature in the gulf is better than the great lakes and the gulf beaches in Texas start getting good Corpus south with emerald water color. Another plus for Texas is its wine country near Fredericksburg, they import the California red wine from Napa but the Texas dry white wine or sweet wine is really good. I favor it to the wine everywhere else except California, Washington, or Oregon. Midwest has nothing like that.
I agree on all of that. That was kind of the point I was trying to make, if we are going to debate these things, Chicago is the *easy* loser. I would actually speculate on an argument of somebody saying Chicago is the #1 city of them all based on premises A/B/C than to debate nature/weather. You can certainly call it nature/rural or whatever, but it isn't going to impress many people who have traveled around or lived elsewhere.
Maybe compared to Dallas and Houston but Austin, San Antonio, El Paso, Harlingen, Corpus Christi outscore anything the great lakes region has to offer. I've driven through both areas and the only reason anyone could say great lakes region is on par with Texas is if your factoring in the flat Dallas and Houston areas.
Driving through I80 from the bay to NYC is hell in the midwest, its flat and boring and the rolling hills are tiny nothing like the hill country region near Austin or San Antonio which both have high cliff hills, certainly not on par with the cliffs and mountains near El Paso and Las Cruces. The water temperature in the gulf is better than the great lakes and the gulf beaches in Texas start getting good Corpus south with emerald water color. Another plus for Texas is its wine country near Fredericksburg, they import the California red wine from Napa but the Texas dry white wine or sweet wine is really good. I favor it to the wine everywhere else except California, Washington, or Oregon. Midwest has nothing like that.
I do agree that the Hill Country is really. I've been there. Same with the Gulf. And yes, I was referring more to Dallas and Houston.
I-80 shows the worst of the midwest.
I still don't think its any "better" than Wisconsins hill country in the SW quarter of the state, (and overlaps into IA, IL, and MN). Yes, there are high cliffs overlooking the rivers. (IE: MiThere aren't many wineries in the midwest, because its not ideal for growing grapes. So, the midwest grows better apples and cherries than Texas. So?
Overall, I really don't think that Texas, with the exception of the region around El Paso/West of the Pecos, is really any better for scenery, etc. than the midwest.
I disagree, no ocean, no mountains, no good skiing, etc...great city though. Can just start there and go on. OK, so, as somebody who has lived 25 years of my life between Florida and CA, I am unimpressed with the "nature" around Chicago, how is that? I've been to places people said were great/good/ and or raved about and was just left like...that's it?
I am not saying that nature or outdoors don't "exist" around there, it's just not impressive to me, especially anything in Cook County, and well, many other people I know have said the same thing.
No need to go to the Adirondacks, which are awesome. You could go straight to the Catskills or Poconos very quickly or numerous spots within Connecticut which will all put ANYTHING within the same distance around Chicago to shame.
You are now expanding too far out... Sure you can go up to UP... but that's what, 5-6 freaking hours? There is much better nature within 1/3 of the distance, less than 2 hours from nyc, mountains twice as high and dramatic, etc. etc.
Chicago is EASILY the worst IMO in terms of what most people would consider good nature and good weather of the 4, I'm just saying as it seemed that it was actually being debated..Personally it isn't a big deal, just calling it like I see it.
Not to take anything away from Chicago, I still think it comes in with the #2 slot... but arguing those things, I just don't see it... sorry. And I know you aren't going to look at me with a straight face and say the nature *in* and around LA doesn't destroy Chicago, which it does. Much less CA as a state.
I'm not trying to argue anything here.
I left the Chicago area for those reasons. But it has nothing to do with Chicago specifically. Its more of a midwest-wide characteristic. The midwest and most of the south. (including Texas).
Like I said, the northeast is a little better than the Great Lakes states. The issue there, is that even though the norteast has more mountains and hills overall, they really aren't better than the best of the midwest (Ozarks, UP/northwoods, even parts of southwest Wisconsin like Devils Lake/Baraboo Hills.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that after California (and as beautiful as the PacNW and the intermountain west there's not a lot there that California doesn't have an equivalent of.). Yes, the northeast is #2, but it is a DISTANT #2, behind the west coast. While, the midwest and much of the south, are a little bit behind that.
I do agree that the Hill Country is really. I've been there. Same with the Gulf. And yes, I was referring more to Dallas and Houston.
I-80 shows the worst of the midwest.
Overall, I really don't think that Texas, with the exception of the region around El Paso/West of the Pecos, is really any better for scenery, etc. than the midwest.
Washington, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, and California all have more dramatic scenery than Texas and every other state east of the rockies but as a state Texas has everything just not in one place like California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska.
See Tex thats my problem with the places back east. I like how things are here in California where the city, climate, scenery, and ocean all meet in the same place. You don't have that anywhere else in the US. All I ever see are boosters selling "go 2 hours north" do this, do that, go here, go there, our mountains are green yours are arid, bla bla. You don't have to do anything in California the mountains run through San Francisco and LA, just as the oceans do, and the climate stays good, the cities have their urban footprint and everything is all in one place.
Quote:
I still don't think its any "better" than Wisconsins hill country in the SW quarter of the state, (and overlaps into IA, IL, and MN). Yes, there are high cliffs overlooking the rivers. (IE: MiThere aren't many wineries in the midwest, because its not ideal for growing grapes. So, the midwest grows better apples and cherries than Texas. So?
You're telling me of Wisconsin hill country, what city is there? If you don't mind can you show me pictures of a city located inside the hill country of Wisconsin? I already talked enough about California and my pictures went to the graves no one cares about scenery on this forum it looks like.
I can show you snaps of Texas cities and you can show me their midwestern match. I wont talk about Dallas or Houston their scenery is about equal to Chicago which speaks for itself. I know the rural areas of the midwest have good scenery but what big cities do they have with good scenery? I heard Cincinnati is the best but I haven't been.
I love the west, back east does nothing for me where it takes 2 hours to get out of NYC to enjoy what they consider good scenery. I'm so sorry for nature dwellers back east, I love the nature its a big part of my life. Texas is the most east I can ever live in, maybe coastal Florida but that's it.
All depends on your preference.
Although I'm a East Coast fanatic and Chicago is my dream city because prices in NYC Metro are too high for my taste, I will go with LA/SF. Its much more balanced, you would have great weather, exquisite homes that not even places like Greenwich, CT could match, urbanity (not to the degree of NYC), and much more.
But like I said, it's all preference. Individually I would take Chicago or NYC over LA or SF but together LA/SF is the winner here for me.
From Closest to Furthest from a Perfect Metro in my opinion:
1.) SF (SF is only at the top because of my profession, if it weren't for that it would be number 2 which is still great.)
2.) NYC
3.) Chicago
4.) LA
Washington, Oregon, Utah, Montana, Colorado, Arizona, Nevada, Hawaii, Alaska, Wyoming, and California all have more dramatic scenery than Texas and every other state east of the rockies but as a state Texas has everything just not in one place like California, Washington, Oregon, Hawaii, Alaska.
See Tex thats my problem with the places back east. I like how things are here in California where the city, climate, scenery, and ocean all meet in the same place. You don't have that anywhere else in the US. All I ever see are boosters selling "go 2 hours north" do this, do that, go here, go there, our mountains are green yours are arid, bla bla. You don't have to do anything in California the mountains run through San Francisco and LA, just as the oceans do, and the climate stays good, the cities have their urban footprint and everything is all in one place.
You're telling me of Wisconsin hill country, what city is there? If you don't mind can you show me pictures of a city located inside the hill country of Wisconsin? I already talked enough about California and my pictures went to the graves no one cares about scenery on this forum it looks like.
I can show you snaps of Texas cities and you can show me their midwestern match. I wont talk about Dallas or Houston their scenery is about equal to Chicago which speaks for itself. I know the rural areas of the midwest have good scenery but what big cities do they have with good scenery? I heard Cincinnati is the best but I haven't been.
Thats what I just said about California!
I also aready said that El Paso is part of the west.
Madison, WI is by the Wisconsin hill country. Look it up yourself. I am too lazy and busy to post photos.
I'm not trying to argue anything here.
I left the Chicago area for those reasons. But it has nothing to do with Chicago specifically. Its more of a midwest-wide characteristic. The midwest and most of the south. (including Texas).
Like I said, the northeast is a little better than the Great Lakes states. The issue there, is that even though the norteast has more mountains and hills overall, they really aren't better than the best of the midwest (Ozarks, UP/northwoods, even parts of southwest Wisconsin like Devils Lake/Baraboo Hills.
I guess what I am trying to say, is that after California (and as beautiful as the PacNW and the intermountain west there's not a lot there that California doesn't have an equivalent of.). Yes, the northeast is #2, but it is a DISTANT #2, behind the west coast. While, the midwest and much of the south, are a little bit behind that.
I'd disagree strongly. I'd put the northeast midway between the west and the midwest. Much of the Northeast is very pretty rolling hills, and the mountains are much taller and steeper. There's nothing anywhere close to the White Mountains (2-3 hour drive from Boston), which is above treeline and one peak (Mt. Adams) has a taller base to height than Mt. Elbert in Colorado, in the Midwest. The Catskills aren't near the top of the list of NE mountains, but they scrape 4000 feet. Nor in the Midwest is there anything as rocky and steep as the Hudson Highlands, not far from NYC. The Palisades rise a few hundred feet above the Hudson opposite Upper Manhattan. I haven't seen much of the Midwest, but I would think someone who likes the outdoors would be much more satisfied view-wise in the Northeast than Midwest.
Last edited by nei; 06-18-2012 at 06:36 PM..
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.
