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 live in Chicago currently. It obviously has one of the US's most beautiful downtowns and great architecture by the lake in general. I'm well aware though of where the region falls short beauty wise, having lived in California and South Africa. Personally though, I do find the 'dry look' of much of California off putting though.
I've never made it up to the Portland/Seattle stretch of it, but to me the Garden Route easily is more scenic than the Pacific Highway -
And the desert portions of California are easily beaten by New Mexico, Utah, and parts of Arizona.
Midwest wise, I feel Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota are the ones that compete best and perhaps in sections can compete well with states in New England, although having a far more transient fall and lacking true mountains is a knock against them (not all states in New England have true mountains though, although most have them closer.)
I'd say the Badlands in South Dakota and the combined area of Marquette, the Driftless, and Duluth is the Midwest's crown jewel.
I'd say the best the Midwest achieves is competing fairly well with New England and its mix of water and some solid topography can make it a more compelling place than states like Kentucky. Also the great lakes are generally better for water sports and swimming during the warm months than the Pacific Ocean
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the relative scenic attributes of different regions, I don't think it is constructive to throw shade at the state of Kentucky in a thread meant to highlight the natural beauty that exists in the Midwest. This is especially true in the context of a sentence that highlights "water" and "solid topography" - when the state features a variety of rivers and lakes/reservoirs, and has plenty of rugged, rolling countryside with caves, waterfalls and more. Kentucky is certainly compelling enough to draw a significant number of Midwest visitors to its outdoors, judging from license plates I've seen when visiting myself.
That aside, I would agree that the specific locations identified in the Midwest are very scenic and enjoyable to visit, especially in the warmer seasons.
Water, hills, and greenery can be awesome. I'm less of a fan of deserts aesthetically, though some can be gorgeous.
The West Coast states have everything imaginable...forests, mountains, salt water, fresh water, deserts, farms on rolling hills, and so on -- each state has all of these along with a lot of great city views.
I said hell nah, not because the Midwest doesn't have beautiful places but because it can't match the variety and drama of each of those states.
Disagree on those states easily beating CA deserts
Plenty of desert beauty near san diego, palm springs, and death valley.
Utah deserts are more overrated in beauty than CA deserts are to me. Im not sure which id pick(ca or utah), but its definitely not an easy choice for utah.
I live in Chicago currently. It obviously has one of the US's most beautiful downtowns and great architecture by the lake in general. I'm well aware though of where the region falls short beauty wise, having lived in California and South Africa. Personally though, I do find the 'dry look' of much of California off putting though.
I've never made it up to the Portland/Seattle stretch of it, but to me the Garden Route easily is more scenic than the Pacific Highway -
And the desert portions of California are easily beaten by New Mexico, Utah, and parts of Arizona.
Midwest wise, I feel Michigan, Wisconsin, Minnesota, and South Dakota are the ones that compete best and perhaps in sections can compete well with states in New England, although having a far more transient fall and lacking true mountains is a knock against them (not all states in New England have true mountains though, although most have them closer.)
I'd say the Badlands in South Dakota and the combined area of Marquette, the Driftless, and Duluth is the Midwest's crown jewel.
I'd say the best the Midwest achieves is competing fairly well with New England and its mix of water and some solid topography can make it a more compelling place than states like Kentucky. Also the great lakes are generally better for water sports and swimming during the warm months than the Pacific Ocean
Isnt the garden route mostly inland? Youre comparing apples to oranges if thats the case. Edit: im going through itineraries and a lot of people are skipping big chunks of the coast line on the garden route. That isnt typical on CA coastal trips.
While everyone is entitled to their own opinion on the relative scenic attributes of different regions, I don't think it is constructive to throw shade at the state of Kentucky in a thread meant to highlight the natural beauty that exists in the Midwest. This is especially true in the context of a sentence that highlights "water" and "solid topography" - when the state features a variety of rivers and lakes/reservoirs, and has plenty of rugged, rolling countryside with caves, waterfalls and more. Kentucky is certainly compelling enough to draw a significant number of Midwest visitors to its outdoors, judging from license plates I've seen when visiting myself.
That aside, I would agree that the specific locations identified in the Midwest are very scenic and enjoyable to visit, especially in the warmer seasons.
I find Kentucky very scenic. But, it, like Pennsylvania, lacks a major water feature or a giant mountain, which allows some upper great lake states to compete with its generally superior topography!
Isnt the garden route mostly inland? Youre comparing apples to oranges if thats the case. Edit: im going through itineraries and a lot of people are skipping big chunks of the coast line on the garden route. That isnt typical on CA coastal trips.
It's about 40%/60% coastal versus inland. I've never driven all the way up to Oregon and Washington though, so I'm probably missing out. I've only really driven around San Diego (which I liked a lot) and the Bay Area (which I wasn't as keen on)
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.
