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.
Honestly from my experience, the transplants who are miserable and complain are normally a loud minority down south. Most learn to like it. As well as vice versa. Life is what you make it. Not the city you live in.
Right. New York City is a city. Most relevant city-limits have non-existent "natural beauty" in general (Minneapolis isn't a relevant city, so I don't know (nor do I care) what it does and doesn't have)).
Manhattan's rugged terrain was leveled to make way for its transformation into a real city (you know, like London, Paris, Tokyo..all nature-less city limits). People in NYC have better things to do than hug trees...they can do that in Connecticut, or Westchester/Rockland County or The Hamptons or The Poconos.
The New York City area has gorgeous natural beauty.
Question of the thread is what does NYC not have?
And it's natural beauty. No Mountains, limited Tree Cover. Generic Ocean views.
Every heard of Cities like Hong Kong? Manilla? Shanghai? Sau Paulo? Buenos Aires? All of those are legit cities, all of which have natural beauty. and Tokyo is gorgeous.
We know NYC's natural beauty sucks compared to most cities. There are a few hilly forested paths in the northern parts of the city and some nice views of the ocean on Staten Island other than that I really do not see why anybody would go to a CITY for their fix of nature in the first place. NYC is not there to be a freaking wildlife refuge. It would be a lot less funny if someone not from a city in the middle of a prairie disrespected NYC's natural beauty though.
However I think we can all agree that NYC metro kicks the "feces" out of anything in metro Minneapolis.
To the first bolded part- Yeah, I know that's why I posted it.
What did I disrespect? NYC's lack of natural beauty? It's not an opinion. It's a fact. No Mountains. lame Tree cover. Brown Rivers. And a nice view of Jersey. No Hills. No Lakes. No bluffs.
This thread isn't about where I'm from, it's about what NYC does not have. Don't get all salty and personal, weirdo.
And, you need to study up on geology man, and figure out what a Prairie is, because you are wrong.
These are some of that 'Outdoor' things you can do in my little city. Of course, Minnecrapolis is like a podunk town compared to NYC, but I just don't see things like this from what I've seen of NYC. If there are please, prove it.
again, i disagree with nyc not having natural beauty. sounds like something that an outsider would say that has only spent time in a limited area of manhattan for a few days out of the year...or something someone that has never been to ny would say because they made up their mind about what ny is like based on heresy from ppl that haven't really explored ny.
Question of the thread is what does NYC not have?
And it's natural beauty. No Mountains, limited Tree Cover. Generic Ocean views.
Every heard of Cities like Hong Kong? Manilla? Shanghai? Sau Paulo? Buenos Aires? All of those are legit cities, all of which have natural beauty. and Tokyo is gorgeous.
how far does a person have to travel in tokyo to get to mt fuji? or a shinto temple in the mountains? without using a bullet train?? 2 to 2 1/2 hours. hmmmm. sound familiar?? also, nyc having a "generic" ocean view is subjective. thats your opinion but that doesn't make it fact.
what kind of ocean view is a state like wyoming getting?? right.
there are some states with no ocean view at all. so some areas don't have cannons and plateaus and ****. and..?? doesn't mean that these areas don't have other things that make them beautiful, "naturally."
last thing; contrary to popular belief, we have PLENTY of trees in ny. just because ppl aren't taking pictures of trees, hawks, racoons and rocks doesn't mean that we don't have these things. why would a tourist come to the largest city in the country to take pictures of wildlife and post them on flickr for your entertainment?
flip that, do you search Minneapolis on google for skyscrapers, graffiti and pictures of pizza? probably not but i bet you still have them.
Question of the thread is what does NYC not have?
And it's natural beauty. No Mountains, limited Tree Cover. Generic Ocean views.
Every heard of Cities like Hong Kong? Manilla? Shanghai? Sau Paulo? Buenos Aires? All of those are legit cities, all of which have natural beauty. and Tokyo is gorgeous.
You clearly DO NOT travel.
Tokyo's "natural beauty" is just as far (even further, from my experiences) than it is to reach New York City's nature.
Mind you, all of these shots are taken from destinations within 1.5 hours from Manhattan.
we live in a city with 8-12 million ppl. if a few leave we aren't hurting, period.
ppl act like there's this mass exodus and there are like 5 ppl walking around the block...as if its a ghost town here. na.
and those same ppl moving south are the same ppl that ppl on CD are complaining about that compare everything to ny and they are the same ppl that ppl say should move back if it was so much better. you either want these ppl or you don't.
lol @ wanting the influx of northerners when its convenient for an argument on CD.
I have to post those statistics. There are people on here who think that once people move from NYC, they all go SOUTH. Of course, they NEVER go to Long Island, Westchester, Rockland (where is THAT??), etc.
Question of the thread is what does NYC not have?
And it's natural beauty. No Mountains, limited Tree Cover. Generic Ocean views.
Every heard of Cities like Hong Kong? Manilla? Shanghai? Sau Paulo? Buenos Aires? All of those are legit cities, all of which have natural beauty. and Tokyo is gorgeous.
Large parts of Western and Southern Minnesota has:
No mountains
limited tree cover
NO ocean views whatsoever, generic or otherwise
Conclusion: There is no natural beauty in Southern Minnesota????
That would be a extremely foolish thing to claim.
So what does it sound like when someone claims a city with over 50,000+ acres of city and Federal parkland (does not include state lands) has NO NATURAL BEAUTY?
And just exactly what does living in a place have to do with facts and figures? I don't overhear conversations on the subway, and then label them as "facts" like you do. I prefer REAL DATA.
It seems as though you have become even MORE combative than when you were a legitimate member.
when I posted IRS statistics saying more people moved to NJ than NC or Ga., you decided you would add up every single state in the South they moved to to prove your bias.
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.