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.
I was being facetious. I hold New England in high regard (I'd have to to live here), but dismissive attitudes towards places like Pennsylvania, easily one of our nation's most storied and interesting states, and many other places, can be quite petty and eye-roll inducing.
The country, and world, is chock full of beautiful and interesting spots.
PA is built differently than the other Northeastern States, it is the beginning of the proper Ridge and Valley Appalachians. Despite being much larger, you can go through the Whites without crossing 2000ft. 93 through Franconia Notch is only at about 1750 feet. While in PA, they have 2800-3100 foot ridges bisecting the whole state, so unless you are travelling NE-SW you need to cross many of these ridges to get anywhere.
I believe the Adirondacks are similar to the Whites in their passes but I really don't know the exact elevations out there.
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,485,051 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by btownboss4
The thing is New York has rolling hills and real Mountains. PA has a couple real mountains but for the most part they are smaller than the Catskills, and dwarfed by the Adirondacks.
That's not entirely true. The Catskills aren't much bigger than the northern blue ridge in PA, and they suffer glaciation. Meaning higher valleys; meaning lower base to summit rise.
The blue ridge in PA have a larger rise to summit and in multiple places do appear to be higher than the Catskills. They also have more rugged, pointed peaks, whereas many peaks in the catskills are rounded off at the top. Further, PA geologically has more true mountains than NY does.
In many, many places of PA the deeper valleys make the hill country feel much higher and denser than in most of NY. For the record, the Poconos are actually part of the Allegheny plateau and are not true mountains.
However, PA does have its share of low roll country too. A good chunk of western PA isn't exactly impressive, especially near Erie, in terms of elevation. However, if this is all you've ever seen of PA, you're missing out.
The Adirondacks are much higher for certain, but are generally separated by broader valleys. The Adirondacks, like a lot of the Laurentian range, are clustered rather than contiguous. The scenery it affords is closer to lower mountains out west than it is the majority of the Appalachian range. Whereas their very neighbors in Vermont and New Hampshire are Appalachian, and exhibit an appearance closer to what you can find in PA.
That last part isn't trying to say the Adirondacks aren't awesome, just throwing information about them out there.
I have a fair well of knowledge on this stuff and I am willing to share.
Try to envision an arch 20 miles from Philly spanning from say Montchanin De to say Princeton NJ.
This setting could be found anywhere along that arch.
My guess is this particular shot is in Bucks County looking towards the Saucon Valley.
Point being this is the pleasant vibe you get from Pa whereas NY can be almost boondockish. I was just up in Suffern , Montebello, Mahwah. What a weird place, like another country, backwoods. Unbelievable.
Did this poll get hacked or what?
Not only is one of those places you listed in New Jersey, but the NY ones are in Rockland County which is in the NYC MSA and is just Northwest of The Bronx. I definitely agree that parts of Upstate can be like that, but Rockland county is still NYC area and not like that at all. And you're kidding yourself if you think PA doesn't get boondockish too, just as much or possibly even more so than Upstate NY. PA did vote for Trump after all.
Not only is one of those places you listed in New Jersey, but the NY ones are in Rockland County which is in the NYC MSA and is just Northwest of The Bronx. I definitely agree that parts of Upstate can be like that, but Rockland county is still NYC area and not like that at all. And you're kidding yourself if you think PA doesn't get boondockish too, just as much or possibly even more so than Upstate NY. PA did vote for Trump after all.
Also, as I noted earlier but seemed to have been ignored, Trump did not win a majority of PA votes--only a plurality. And any state in which over 1 in 3 voters supports a candidate (which was the case in deep blue NY) is still pretty significant.
I'm still curious about the difference between Pennsylvania and New York hills and mountains. I know the Adirondacks are quite different since they're an extension of the Laurentians and look quite different from other hills and mountains in the state, but what are the hills and mountains of Pennsylvania that look different from anything in New York, even the bordering southern tier of New York? What are some identifying attributes that make those different?
Location: Appalachian New York, Formerly Louisiana
4,409 posts, read 6,485,051 times
Reputation: 6253
Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler
I'm still curious about the difference between Pennsylvania and New York hills and mountains. I know the Adirondacks are quite different since they're an extension of the Laurentians and look quite different from other hills and mountains in the state, but what are the hills and mountains of Pennsylvania that look different from anything in New York, even the bordering southern tier of New York? What are some identifying attributes that make those different?
The twin tiers are pretty uniform.
The changes come hardest when leaving the glaciated section of the Allegheny plateau. In the un-glaciated plateau elevation can actually be lower in places (like in western WV, Southwest PA, eastern Ohio and eastern KY), but the valleys are cut deeper and more narrow and/or the hills are jagged and pointy rather than dome or ridge like.
Most of the Appalachian plateau in NY is glaciated, excepting the Enchanted Mountains region of western NY. This means the valleys are higher as they were filled with rocks and soil, or they are filled with fresh water lakes. What in PA would be a 600-1000 foot deep valley (from peak to floor), in NY is typically a finger lake.
As the valleys were filled and broadened in NY and northern PA, the hills look to be more distant and in some cases, smaller. A hill of 1500 feet at peak looks very different if the valley is at 400 feet, or 700. Further, a lot of hills in the heavily glaciated areas (including northwestern PA) have such gentle inclines that they seem large from a distance or high perspective but vanish from sight as you approach, especially combined with heavy forestry. The curvature of the earth is a trickster!
The glaciated Alleghenies can sometimes afford far more impressive views than the un-glaciated however. It all depends on exactly where you are.
The PA deep valley region is a unique area in its own right however. Nowhere else in the Alleghenies is the plateau nature of its origin more obvious. In this region the top of the hills is generally flat or rolling, whereas the valleys are so deep and sheer it makes them look like mountains from inside.
This area is not only less eroded than elsewhere in the un-glaciated plateau, but it's also not glaciated! Leaving it as this wonderful relic of an ancient landscape cut into almost exclusively by rivers.
I hope some of that helped to describe it.
Last edited by CookieSkoon; 08-14-2017 at 02:38 PM..
Cities upstate can be big. Particularly the three that make up the northern corridor. Buffalo, Rochester, Syracuse.
Upstate's population and distribution thereof is actually quite similar to Ohio.
Upstate New York is like an Ohio-lite, at least at the surface.
I'm not saying these pairs of cities are exactly the same as big brother little brother versions of each other but there's overlapping commonalities across the board.
Cleveland -> Buffalo
Cincinnati -> Rochester
Columbus -> Albany
The Upstate New York places are all notable due to their populations exceeding 1 million and all three ranking around the same size at #44, #45, and #46. Of course Buffalo will feel more urban and concentrated compared to Albany, so likely the same kind of gap that exists between Cleveland and Columbus. The three Ohio metropolitan areas are all around the same size and the same can be said of the three New York areas.
The state capitals of both states are the most stable of the three pairs and also present the most upside currently and in both cases are far less urban cities than the cities in the other two pairs, which are of course legacy cities. Cleveland and Buffalo likely take top billing as the most well known among each pair and likely has the most "big city" amenities. Cincinnati and Rochester are essentially equal to Cleveland and Buffalo but just a smidgen behind that pair for whatever reason, both also retain their urban form which predates the 1920s.
The city of New York and its encompassing suburbs in the state of New York make all the difference for New York state. You essentially have one of the world's Top 5 cities, which automatically catapults the state into a tier with the current Big 3 American states by population (CA/TX/FL) and several separate nations that have a smaller economy. The state of New York would rank around 11th largest economy in the world if it were a country.
I probably responded earlier back in this thread, likely a one-worder or one-liner, but I would choose the state of New York in this comparison. I've said for years that the state has an ample amount of big cities, 4 of its cities anchor metropolises exceeding a million people which is always my cut off for places worldwide. I think the state of New York offers more and has a broader range of offerings on the spectrum.
Upstate New York is like an Ohio-lite, at least at the surface.
I'm not saying these pairs of cities are exactly the same as big brother little brother versions of each other but there's overlapping commonalities across the board.
Cleveland -> Buffalo
Cincinnati -> Rochester
Columbus -> Albany
The Upstate New York places are all notable due to their populations exceeding 1 million and all three ranking around the same size at #44, #45, and #46. Of course Buffalo will feel more urban and concentrated compared to Albany, so likely the same kind of gap that exists between Cleveland and Columbus. The three Ohio metropolitan areas are all around the same size and the same can be said of the three New York areas.
The state capitals of both states are the most stable of the three pairs and also present the most upside currently and in both cases are far less urban cities than the cities in the other two pairs, which are of course legacy cities. Cleveland and Buffalo likely take top billing as the most well known among each pair and likely has the most "big city" amenities. Cincinnati and Rochester are essentially equal to Cleveland and Buffalo but just a smidgen behind that pair for whatever reason, both also retain their urban form which predates the 1920s.
The city of New York and its encompassing suburbs in the state of New York make all the difference for New York state. You essentially have one of the world's Top 5 cities, which automatically catapults the state into a tier with the current Big 3 American states by population (CA/TX/FL) and several separate nations that have a smaller economy. The state of New York would rank around 11th largest economy in the world if it were a country.
I probably responded earlier back in this thread, likely a one-worder or one-liner, but I would choose the state of New York in this comparison. I've said for years that the state has an ample amount of big cities, 4 of its cities anchor metropolises exceeding a million people which is always my cut off for places worldwide. I think the state of New York offers more and has a broader range of offerings on the spectrum.
This isn't even including this region of NY State that is in between the Rochester and Albany CSA's that also has over 1 million people: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_New_York This region includes a couple of high level universities, among other higher ed institutions; a top 100 national metro/CSA/urban area, a Great Lake, multiple Finger Lakes, a portion of the Adirondacks and a metro that has one of the highest educational attainments in the country.
Last edited by ckhthankgod; 08-14-2017 at 02:03 PM..
Yes, Syracuse and other notable cities within that environ.
I actually think when taking out the city of New York and its suburbs and satellite cities (so essentially the areas of Downstate in the New York MSA/CSA) that New York state then becomes like either an Ohio-lite or a North Carolina of the North.
Cornell, an Ivy League university, is located in the state of New York independent of the city of New York and its metropolitan environs. That's pretty dope. Not to mention all the natural and geographic offerings of the state beyond just that. Excellent all around state, it is the titan of the Northeast for sure.
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.
