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.
Actually the Jersey Shore-especially Wildwood-is filled with French-Canadian tourists. People in New England just seem more dedicated to their specific region than other places. Philadelphians go to the Jersey Shore, Rehobeth/Dewey and the Poconos but just as many make the drive to the Outerbanks or VA Beach, Myrtle Beach, etc.
Also, Cape Cod is scenic, but 9 times out of 10 a better beach day is to be had at the Jersey Shore, and the water always warmer.
New England is the more isolated region. It's really not brain surgery.
New York has 20+ million people in a more centralized location that have much more options than it's Boston peers who are isolated within New England. Boston does have the advantage of having it's own region mostly to itself.
Philadelphia has the more centralized and convenient location over both however.
New Yorkers will cover much more ground in comparison to Bostonians though, by virtue of population size and location.
Like I said, for me personally (Upstate NYer NOT Western NY), I prefer the Jersey Shore and Mid-Atlantic for the beaches. The water is warmer. There is also New York, Philadelphia and Washington.
New England is something I have done in the past to try something new. I have lived in NJ and am most familiar with New York and Philadelphia. Boston I am not.
When it comes to hiking, I literally have the Adirondacks minutes away and don't need to go anywhere else. I've done weekends in New England, Been to all the states. It's nice, but it's not better IMO. The entire Northeast blends in. It's all trivial to be honest.
I feel like most people in New England stay in New England for there weekend getaways unless you are in southwest CT which is basically a suburb of NYC then you could go there if you wanted. I grew up in central CT and most people for beaches went to Rhode Island or the Cape. There are some on LI sound but they aren't as good but they were still popular. If you were into skiing there was some close by places (that mostly sucked) or you could go to VT or NH. I also lived in NYC for 12 years and really didn't do a whole lot in terms of outdoor activities when I was there. For beaches, the Jersey shore was top destination for most people in the area in summer but you also have local beaches people went to like Coney Island and such. Poconos was also a popular place but I never went. TBH, I never heard many people wanting to go upstate...most people seemed to gravitate towards NJ or PA on the weekends to getaway.
The scale is way different. the North woods are like 20,000 sq Miles that's 2x the size of NJ.
I know that, but regionally, it's the biggest bang for the buck.
If you can go out to the woods and not see or hear anyone for a few days, does it really matter where you are? People who live in Montana and Idaho will tell you that you're living in the wrong place.
How many times have you been out to the big woods? My nephew used to camp there every summer.
My brother and I used to get "lost" in PA and NY at least once a year. There are a lot of trees and a lot of quiet in those states.
I feel like most people in New England stay in New England for there weekend getaways unless you are in southwest CT which is basically a suburb of NYC then you could go there if you wanted. I grew up in central CT and most people for beaches went to Rhode Island or the Cape. There are some on LI sound but they aren't as good but they were still popular. If you were into skiing there was some close by places (that mostly sucked) or you could go to VT or NH. I also lived in NYC for 12 years and really didn't do a whole lot in terms of outdoor activities when I was there. For beaches, the Jersey shore was top destination for most people in the area in summer but you also have local beaches people went to like Coney Island and such. Poconos was also a popular place but I never went. TBH, I never heard many people wanting to go upstate...most people seemed to gravitate towards NJ or PA on the weekends to getaway.
People in New England tend to stay in New England for most vacation. I think there is much more of a "cottage culture" in general. I didn't live in a particularly wealthy area but generally people either owned a lake/mountain/beach house or rented the same one each year. So practically every year they would vacation to the same place. That was it that was their vacation spot.
Most people of similar economic status from other parts of the country I gather went on vacations all over the place, but did not have their own place.
I can't believe anyone is saying Philly beats Boston for access to nice tourism areas. Philadelphia is itself a great tourist destination but outside the city is dull suburbia and beyond that is farming and hunting country. Some nice things-- Amish country, Gettysburg, Jersey Shore, but nothing to compare to Cape Cod, White Mountains and lakes, Maine Coast.
Boston vs. New York more arguable in general although within, say, an hour's drive Boston beats NY handily. NYC is surrounded by a huge, traffic laden and dull suburban region with few points of interest to anyone but locals. Fire Island is nice, Sandy Hook-Shrewsbury River/Navesink River are nice areas but not nice enough to attract folks from farther away than NYC and its suburbs. Harriman-Bear Mountain State Parks are huge, gorgeous hiking and recreation destinations within an hour of NYC but again, only locals (meaning NYC and suburbanites) would go there. Whereas Boston has many beautiful places to visit-- Marblehead, Salem, Gloucester & Rockport, Newburyport, Portsmouth, Concord & Lexington, Plymouth. If you live in Boston-Cambridge-Somerville you have many bike riding routes through really beautiful country roads that pass through historic villages and by many lakes and ponds to swim in. There are rivers for canoes and kayaks and a million walking/hiking paths through country and forest landscapes all around the city. What awaits the bike rider in New York? A ride up 9W to Nyack and back. That's about it.
If suburban Philadelphia is dull, I don't wanna know what 95% of the other city suburbs in America are. The PA countryside is extremely lush, with rolling hills and historic with loads of charm. Oldest suburbs in the nation along with New York and Boston.
If that's dull, I don't wanna know what you think of Denver, Dallas or Phoenix suburbs. Woof.
Sorry I'll also take Mid-Atlantic beach options over New England. The climate alone is enough to do so.
Philadelphia is closer to New York and Washington. The only thing in my opinion Boston may have an edge is mountains, but when Philadelphia is 2-4 hours to the Adirondacks, Catskills, Poconos, and the Appalachians (countless PA state forests and Washington/Jefferson National Forest), its more options. Philadelphia has something within 2-4 hours of any direction. Boston does not.
They both can use the Catskills and Adirondacks.
Boston does have a subregion mostly to itself, but with that comes isolation and limited options. The immediate Philadelphia metro area has more rolling hills than immediate metro Boston does. Negligible probably, but it's there.
So yes, Philadelphia indeed.
Last edited by TalentedDrinker; 05-16-2017 at 06:15 PM..
NYC is surrounded by a huge, traffic laden and dull suburban region with few points of interest to anyone but locals. Fire Island is nice, Sandy Hook-Shrewsbury River/Navesink River are nice areas but not nice enough to attract folks from farther away than NYC and its suburbs.
Fun fact, I grew up on the same chain of barrier islands as Fire Island, two islands to the west, and I had literally never been there until Thanksgiving weekend last year, when I was visiting my parents and decided to kill some time by driving out there. (There's no road access to the vast majority of the island -- you have to take a ferry or a long walk -- so I still haven't really been there, just to the extreme west end.) And I haven't even heard of those other two places. Meanwhile, we used to go up to New England all the time.
I can't believe anyone is saying Philly beats Boston for access to nice tourism areas. Philadelphia is itself a great tourist destination but outside the city is dull suburbia and beyond that is farming and hunting country. Some nice things-- Amish country, Gettysburg, Jersey Shore, but nothing to compare to Cape Cod, White Mountains and lakes, Maine Coast.
Boston vs. New York more arguable in general although within, say, an hour's drive Boston beats NY handily. NYC is surrounded by a huge, traffic laden and dull suburban region with few points of interest to anyone but locals. Fire Island is nice, Sandy Hook-Shrewsbury River/Navesink River are nice areas but not nice enough to attract folks from farther away than NYC and its suburbs. Harriman-Bear Mountain State Parks are huge, gorgeous hiking and recreation destinations within an hour of NYC but again, only locals (meaning NYC and suburbanites) would go there. Whereas Boston has many beautiful places to visit-- Marblehead, Salem, Gloucester & Rockport, Newburyport, Portsmouth, Concord & Lexington, Plymouth. If you live in Boston-Cambridge-Somerville you have many bike riding routes through really beautiful country roads that pass through historic villages and by many lakes and ponds to swim in. There are rivers for canoes and kayaks and a million walking/hiking paths through country and forest landscapes all around the city. What awaits the bike rider in New York? A ride up 9W to Nyack and back. That's about it.
I think you're underselling both NYC and Philly regions a lot. Both have pretty great beach destinations in the Summer, and while I strongly prefer ocean beaches to lake beaches, I do love going up to Connecticut to the lakes in the Summer as well.
Upstate NY is gorgeous too, though I'll admit I rarely ever go Upstate.
s. Philadelphia has something within 2-4 hours of any direction. Boston does not.
They both can use the Catskills and Adirondacks.
Boston does have a subregion mostly to itself, but with that comes isolation and limited options. The immediate Philadelphia metro area has more rolling hills than immediate metro Boston does. Negligible probably, but it's there.
So yes, Philadelphia indeed.
Reading through this thread has been mind numbing reading your posts. First comparing the Adirondacks to the White Mountains and now comparing Philly to Boston.
I agree with the other posters you are arguing with have been saying, I have run out of karma to give to them.
From Boston
In 1-2 hours you can be here:
-Cape Cod
-Martha's Vineyard
-Nantucket
-Newport RI
-Newburyport
-Portsmouth NH
-Lakes region of NH
-Portland ME
-Maine Seacoast
-White Mountains
In 2-4 hours you can be here:
-Green Mountains
-Rolling hills of Vermont
-Burlington VT
-NYC
-Lake George NY
In 4-5 Hours you can be here:
-Acadia National Park
-Adirondacks
-Montreal Canada
-Philly
-Jersey Shore
Most of the points you are making are personal preference. To me the mid Atlantic is kind of all the same, however I am not much of a city person or a beach person for that matter. For me, small colonial towns and places of natural beauty tends to be where I spend my weekends. Most of the places listed below have much more of that then cities and mid-Atlantic beaches. I am positive some parts of upstate NY off this, but its no different or better than what I can get closer to home.
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.
