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.
Here is a simple way to quantify East vs West beauty. Look at the National Parks of the United States. There are 58 National Parks total. There are only 13 National Parks east of Lebanon, Kansas, the geographical center of the lower 48 and only 16 east of Belle Fourche, North Dakota, the geographical center of all 50 states (this is a bit of a misleading definition of east vs west because of Alaska's location). Also, consider the size of the national parks of the east vs the west. The West simply dominates in terms special ecosystems and what people consider worth protecting. It really isn't even close.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the West isn't more unique, and people like to preserve uniqueness. However, uniqueness doesn't automatically make something more beautiful by nature.
I don't think anyone is arguing that the West isn't more unique, and people like to preserve uniqueness. However, uniqueness doesn't automatically make something more beautiful by nature.
Here is a simple way to quantify East vs West beauty. Look at the National Parks of the United States. There are 58 National Parks total. There are only 13 National Parks east of Lebanon, Kansas, the geographical center of the lower 48 and only 16 east of Belle Fourche, North Dakota, the geographical center of all 50 states (this is a bit of a misleading definition of east vs west because of Alaska's location). Also, consider the size of the national parks of the east vs the west. The West simply dominates in terms special ecosystems and what people consider worth protecting. It really isn't even close.
Sorry, but it's not that simple. The first National Park to be designated as such was Yellowstone in 1872. The next was in 1875, and the next two in 1890. By that time, the East was already well established and built up in most areas. Westward expansion was still happening, many states weren't even states yet. Actually, there were only 37 states in 1872 when the first National Park was created. The West was still largely uninhabited compared to the East - not only uninhabited, but many Western areas were not yet states and were still territories. The government didn't think to start establishing protected lands until that late, 100 years after the revolution and well over 100 years after the original 13 were settled.
The reason western National Parks are so big is because they had the room to spare - in much of the East, they did not. Only 27 states have national parks. That is only two more than half. Also, western states are much larger, so there is simply more room to have parkland. Spread out, later developed CA vs. NJ, for example… well, it's not a fair comparison.
Also, if you check here, you will find that (I believe) all states have nationally protected or recognized areas, some for beauty/nature purposes, some for history. They're all run by the National Park Service. http://www.nps.gov/findapark/index.htm Even small NJ has a ton, including Ellis Island and the Gateway National Recreation Area, a swathe of protected beach areas spread between NYC and NJ.
Sorry, but it's not that simple. The first National Park to be designated as such was Yellowstone in 1872. The next was in 1875, and the next two in 1890. By that time, the East was already well established and built up in most areas. Westward expansion was still happening, many states weren't even states yet. Actually, there were only 37 states in 1872 when the first National Park was created. The West was still largely uninhabited compared to the East - not only uninhabited, but many Western areas were not yet states and were still territories. The government didn't think to start establishing protected lands until that late, 100 years after the revolution and well over 100 years after the original 13 were settled.
The reason western National Parks are so big is because they had the room to spare - in much of the East, they did not. Only 27 states have national parks. That is only two more than half. Also, western states are much larger, so there is simply more room to have parkland. Spread out, later developed CA vs. NJ, for example… well, it's not a fair comparison.
Also, if you check here, you will find that (I believe) all states have nationally protected or recognized areas, some for beauty/nature purposes, some for history. They're all run by the National Park Service. U.S. National Park Service- Find A Park Even small NJ has a ton, including Ellis Island and the Gateway National Recreation Area, a swathe of protected beach areas spread between NYC and NJ.
There are State Parks all over the East as well as nationally protected areas as you mention. If people deemed them important enough, they could make them into national parks. The same argument of there not being enough open space in the East is a big argument for the West being more beautiful so you are contradicting yourself.
This thread is so full of flawed 'logic' that I can't decide whether to laugh or cry.
SIZE doesn't make something more beautiful.
I don't know if you are refering to me, but the only place where I was discussing size was in reference to drama. Size and dramaticness are completely related. Most of my posts were a response to someone saying that the East and West were equally dramatic, which I think is a bit silly. Size doesn't make something more beautiful and I wouldn't argue that.
There are State Parks all over the East as well as nationally protected areas as you mention. If people deemed them important enough, they could make them into national parks. The same argument of there not being enough open space in the East is a big argument for the West being more beautiful so you are contradicting yourself.
How does less open space in the east mean the west is more beautiful? All it means is that the east was established first, so it is a denser, older place. IMO the architecture in the east blows away most out west because I like the old styles. They're more intricate and so beautiful.
How does less open space in the east mean the west is more beautiful?
I find human inhabitation to be one of the ugliest things. People tend to destroy the environment and ruin scenery in my opinion.
Quote:
All it means is that the east was established first, so it is a denser, older place. IMO the architecture in the east blows away most out west because I like the old styles. They're more intricate and so beautiful.
I absolutely agree that the architecture in the east blows away the architecture in the west for the most part.
As far as big canyons on par with the west, there are a few good ones in the east. I posted about Linville Gorge earlier in this thread. I mentioned the arches too... it's a long thread and I suppose my post may have been buried, but considering how active you've been in it, it's pretty annoying that you're making claims that clearly were refuted earlier in the thread.
I'm not going to claim Linville Gorge is our 'Grand Canyon' or anything. It's its own thing. And the west has nothing on par with it. Show me a canyon out west with these autumn colors:
As I've said before... the west simply has more. There are at least three times as many great things out there. But what the east has is very underrated. The most beautiful parts are absolutely on par with the best of the west.
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.
