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.
This isn't the hill country. Think WEstlake, Lakeway, the Iron Bridge.
Yeah I get it, I grew up in West Austin. It is quite nice, naturally, but there is nobody out there that thinks it's a natural wonder if the world or anything you know? The reason you don't hear about Harrisburg being scenic is because you don't hear about Harrisburg, period.
I would say the main advantage of Austin is that tree preservation is very good, and much of the city is prosperous and well kept. It's much less of a concrete jungle than cities in the northeast. It also is unpolluted and has a climate that allows it's water features to be heavily used for recreation.
Posting pics of Phluggerville is pretty funny because I don't think I've ever heard Phluggerville suburbia and "scenic" in the same sentence. (There is
some nice rolling prairie country scenery in the further east parts of Phluggerville, though).
Last edited by whereiend; 05-08-2023 at 04:34 PM..
Yeah I get it, I grew up in West Austin. It is quite nice, naturally, but there is nobody out there that thinks it's a natural wonder if the world or anything you know? The reason you don't hear about Harrisburg being scenic is because you don't hear about Harrisburg, period.
I would say the main advantage of Austin is that tree preservation is very good, and much of the city is prosperous and well kept. It's much less of a concrete jungle than cities in the northeast. It also is unpolluted and has a climate that allows it's water features to be heavily used for recreation.
Posting pics of Phluggerville is pretty funny because I don't think I've ever heard Phluggerville suburbia and "scenic" in the same sentence. (There is
some nice rolling prairie country scenery in the further east parts of Phluggerville, though).
I think there's some areas in west Austin that are striking, yes, but it's not like the Denver suburbs or anything. I'd say above average
I think there's some areas in west Austin that are striking, yes, but it's not like the Denver suburbs or anything. I'd say above average
Yeah for sure. I would very much push back against anyone saying that it was flat or ugly. But there are plenty of random places in the continental US that I would rank higher on pure natural scenery. I mean Cumberland, MD is a place I have been and it has nicer scenery than West Austin I think. Should we start a thread for that one too?
Some homer bias on this one, but I'm still voting.
Austin has some interesting and unique "Western-ish" features for sure, but after seeing so much of the country (and particularly traveling out West), I've come to realize just how underrated Pennsylvania is for easily having some of the best countryside in the US. The ubiquitous rolling landscape and lush deciduous forest just hits different.
Yeah I get it, I grew up in West Austin. It is quite nice, naturally, but there is nobody out there that thinks it's a natural wonder if the world or anything you know? The reason you don't hear about Harrisburg being scenic is because you don't hear about Harrisburg, period.
....
Quote:
Originally Posted by whereiend
...But there are plenty of random places in the continental US that I would rank higher on pure natural scenery. I mean Cumberland, MD is a place I have been and it has nicer scenery than West Austin I think. Should we start a thread for that one too?
Yeah, no doubt a big reason you hear a lot more about Austin's setting is that it's simply a much higher profile city. But, even among people that I know that have visited Harrisburg nobody has mentioned it's setting. Cumberland, Md at least regionally has reputation for having a unique setting.
Austin may not wow the way SF or Seattle do. But, it seems nationally prominent for scenery. Not exactly a scientific poll, but Austin came in 3rd in the south among large MSAs on this C-D thread. So it does seem like has a reputation for being at least above average on its setting.https://www.city-data.com/forum/city...ern-metro.html
I think the cities proper of both regions provide an interesting comparison in terms of nature, as well. Obviously Austin is much larger, but Harrisburg is known for packing a punch in terms of amenities for a city of only 50K.
I believe there was a reference in this thread to Northeastern cities being more paved over, but despite its higher population density, I think the access to nature in Harrisburg is still pretty evident (something that Austin looks to excel at, as well).
I also give props to Harrisburg for really maintaining its mature tree cover, even in some pretty dense rowhome neighborhoods, like this, although you're much more likely to have more spacious private greenery in Austin proper (love the feel of this neighborhood, by the way).
Yeah, no doubt a big reason you hear a lot more about Austin's setting is that it's simply a much higher profile city. But, even among people that I know that have visited Harrisburg nobody has mentioned it's setting. Cumberland, Md at least regionally has reputation for having a unique setting.
Austin may not wow the way SF or Seattle do. But, it seems nationally prominent for scenery. Not exactly a scientific poll, but Austin came in 3rd in the south among large MSAs on this C-D thread. So it does seem like has a reputation for being at least above average on its setting.https://www.city-data.com/forum/city...ern-metro.html
Austin isn’t “nationally prominent for scenery”. Austin is a favorite because it has the flagship state university, the state capital, a strong knowledge economy with an educated workforce, and has the reputation for being far less right wing than the rest of Texas. Travis County was 71.6% Biden.
Harrisburg is generic northeast. It gets rain so it has trees, rivers, and lakes. It’s a bit hilly. You can find 50 similar places without working at it much.
Some homer bias on this one, but I'm still voting.
Austin has some interesting and unique "Western-ish" features for sure, but after seeing so much of the country (and particularly traveling out West), I've come to realize just how underrated Pennsylvania is for easily having some of the best countryside in the US. The ubiquitous rolling landscape and lush deciduous forest just hits different.
I prefer Harrisburg. Austin looks dry desert barren looking in parts. I like Harrisburg because it is more green and lush.
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.
