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'm very well aware of Pennsylvania's lushness and topography. I've been many times - my mother went to grad school in Pennsylvania too. I prefer it more towards Pittsburgh.
I don't know how people are taking my comment is being taken as somehow day trip range of Chicago better than PA. I have to explain it out even though I never once stated this. Anyway, the upper midwest - specifically Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Michigan have great nature all around and a big variety of it too.
I've been to nature areas in PA, VT, etc and I'm telling you they're more similar to some areas of the upper midwest in the states I mention than a lot of people realize.
Relax. I went to college in Indiana and traveled to both the UP and Chicago. I understand the stark difference. You said “Philadelphia has some nature” in your original response to me. I am saying having a real mountain range within an hour of Philadelphia is more than just “some nature.” I am not taking your comment in any other way. We are indeed comparing the cities, so I am writing about their comparative offerings.
South-central PA has the highest concentration of flatter land in PA, but it's still, overall, much more "rolling" and arguably more lush than almost anything in the Midwest/Plains. It's classified topographically as Piedmont for a reason.
. . . it's very apparent throughout Pennsylvania that you're in one of the hilliest/least flat states in the entire Union.
Relax. I went to college in Indiana and traveled to both the UP and Chicago. I understand the stark difference. You said “Philadelphia has some nature” in your original response to me. I am saying having a real mountain range within an hour of Philadelphia is more than just “some nature.” I am not taking your comment in any other way. We are indeed comparing the cities, so I am writing about their comparative offerings.
I find that pretty funny too. People are friendly or not. it happens in all areas, very urban, slightly urban, suburban, and country in varying degress. Green Tree is a suburb, I understand maybe thinking the city core people are not going to say Hi, but Green Tree isn't in the city so I don't get the point
Grew up right next to Green Tree in Dormont. Very few "suburbs" of Pittsburgh meet the stereotypical image of what people think of when they say suburb. Dormont is about 11,000 ppsm with a light rail station. If someone said hello to me on street in Dormont, that would be more indicative of being in a residential area as opposed to suburban.
So "suburbs" in Pittsburgh are typically residential while being quite urban, with a friendly, family-centric atmosphere.
Agree. Unfortunately, a lot of people believe the entire midwest is a bunch of flatlands. There is some pretty interesting topography and excellent nature in many areas. I live in the NE now but grew up in Minnesota. 75% of the people I grew up with were huge outdoors people who were always outside no matter what season. Minnesota is not known as the "Land of 10,000 Lakes" for no reason. And while there's no rocky mountains, it's not a flat place either. This describes parts of Wisconsin and Michigan too.
People are unfortunately missing out on some great nature because of their stereotypes of the middle of the country. A lot of the US has some great landscapes really all over the place.
I remember having an argument with someone on this forum in another discussion about the Central Plains in which I couldn't persuade that person that Kansas City wasn't flat. All the pictures of undulating landscapes in the world wouldn't make them budge.
Then they explained what they meant: There was nothing that terminated the vistas from most locations in the area. The topographical variety is concentrated in the valleys of the Missouri and Kansas rivers, and once you climb out of those, there's really not much that gets in the way of your view.
By contrast, Denver, Los Angeles and Seattle all have mountains nearby that provide backdrops for their urbanscapes - Denver's and LA's both being as flat as or flatter than Greater Kansas City's more southerly reaches. Pittsburgh is all hills and valleys. And even the rolling countryside of south-central Pennsylvania, with a few exceptions (e.g., the views along PA 283), doesn't offer seemingly endless vistas all that much.
Rolling hills, "prairie potholes," all those lakes and the river valleys (which show up as gradients of green on that second map upthread) don't seem to make that much of an impression on the coastal folk, who are used to more variance and fewer endless vistas in their local terrain.
Quote:
I totally agree - which is why I never stated in any of my posts that it's within Chicagoland. I stated that it's within a day trip range of Chicago, which it is. Or you easily take a 3 or 4 hour drive, and stay a weekend at a cabin. I never once stated it's within an hour drive. However, if you're willing to commit to 2+ hour drive, you can find some great nature.
Which, I guess, is why we've had all this back-and-forth.
There is a qualitiative difference between driving one or two hours to get to the scenery and spending 3 or 4 hours behind the wheel. Again channeling my hometown, I had to explain to a friend of mine who had never left Philadelphia prior to accompanying me on a trip to Kansas City that Denver was most emphatically not a day trip from KC.
TBH, who cares whether Philly is or isn’t a drive away from hilly topography. The OP didn’t mention anything about caring about topography. In fact, the OP mentioned not being able to drive due to a mobility condition, so hiking the Poconos or sail boating in Wisconsin seem moot. The OP did mention need for strong public transportation as a major consideration; of these three cities, Chicago is undoubtedly the best in that category. Debating which area is more scenic than which seems to be missing the point...
In fact, the OP mentioned not being able to drive due to a mobility condition, so hiking the Poconos or sail boating in Wisconsin seem moot. The OP did mention need for strong public transportation as a major consideration; of these three cities, Chicago is undoubtedly the best in that category. Debating which area is more scenic than which seems to be missing the point...
Fair point re: scenery/things to do, but even on the topic of PT, it's worth noting that Philadelphia and Chicago have nearly identical "transit scores," with a very slight edge to Philadelphia: https://www.walkscore.com/cities-and-neighborhoods/
Many automatically might assume that Metra/CTA's larger scale than SEPTA = better, but the accessibility and usefulness of each city's PT is highly dependent on situational factors like available/affordable living options, work location, etc.
There is a qualitiative difference between driving one or two hours to get to the scenery and spending 3 or 4 hours behind the wheel. Again channeling my hometown, I had to explain to a friend of mine who had never left Philadelphia prior to accompanying me on a trip to Kansas City that Denver was most emphatically not a day trip from KC.
Philadelphia is not appreciated as much as it should be....
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.
