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.
Even though I live effectively in the heart of the city and just a few minutes walk to downtown I also adjoin the wilder side of one of the largest city parks in the nation. Rugged arroyos teeming with coyotes, Great Horned Owls, Hawks and Falcons are a few steps out the door so it’s easy to grab a slice of nature when I need to.
Within 15-45 minute drive, depending on the direction, I can be snorkeling with Leopard Sharks, Rays and seals or walking on a surprisingly deserted beach, hiking in the mountains or desert or exploring some rugged foothills or marsh lands. Depending on the season such as a rare snowfall in the mountains, these areas can become quite besieged with people reflecting the large population here but as in just about everywhere -walking just a mile away from the crowded Yosemite Valley Loop- will put you in a far less visited place if you know where to go.
It’s not Montana or Idaho but you can get the flavor.
Location and sprawl make a difference. Dallas-Fort Worth is huge and has little access to nature, but is also not in a natural hot spot of beauty or anything. Miami is very urban but has quick access to nature areas on the coast or in the Everglades. Minneapolis-Saint Paul is an urban area with beautiful nature areas within city limits (Shadow Falls is like a hidden gem that even most lcoals don't know about) Los Angeles is massive but has easy access to many mountains and the coast. Sprawl is an issue, though. I read somewhere that suburbs name streets after the trees they bulldozed to pave them.
In the Bay Area, being alone might have been difficult, but a 30 min drive for you to a bunch of places.
Texas’ geography in this part of the state doesn’t offer much unique. We have a fairly unimpressive state park nearby, but there’s nowhere I’d necessarily want to go in a 30 min drive even if it had been preserved.
It is in a much prettier part of Texas, though. I haven't been but I feel the ugliest part of Texas will be down by Laredo.
There are cities that are protected by the Green Belt, like Toronto or this particular city for example, where further outward development is restricted. This allows natural areas to thrive despite being in close proximity to a large metropolitan area. Instead of having vast swathes of single family homes surrounding a city, these cities with a green belt prevent sprawl so people who live in them can access nature easily.
Last edited by ilovelondon; 08-06-2019 at 07:02 PM..
It is in a much prettier part of Texas, though. I haven't been but I feel the ugliest part of Texas will be down by Laredo.
Laredo is fine. It's semi-arid, but has some interesting landscape. The ugliest parts of Texas IMO are:
1. Industrial parts of cities- Heres looking at you Beaumont/Port Arthur, Freeport, Texas City. and Houston ship channel.
2. Southern great plains- Starting around Dallas- then west and North, including a lot of the panhandle with the exception of Pali Duro Canyon and a few other places.
As for the OP's question, in LA there are some trails in Griffith Park that I've hiked for 30 mins without seeing another person, and that's in a relatively central part of the city.
As a metro gets bigger, it has more money to invest in parks and natural areas and the economies of scale make sense for bigger investments. Also it seems like for the most part (especially in the western US) if there's a big city, it was built there because it's a good geographical area. On the flip side a smaller metro is more likely to have open space, wildlife, and quicker access, but may not have as picturesque or accessible places.
We've had someone say Phoenix was rather lame for outdoor amenities while another said its great. It's hard to distinguish what's just climatic preference compared to a decided advantage in available natural areas in 2 very different parts of the US. So, it'd be interesting to compare a smaller metro to a bigger one within the same ecoregion type, say Monroe LA vs Memphis or Columbia MO vs St. Louis or Augusta vs Atlanta or Yuma vs Phoenix or Elko vs Las Vegas.
From my experience in Colorado Springs and Denver, in terms of geographic setting they are similar, though I give the edge to Denver because I think the front range spots (from Boulder on south) are prettier and while it doesn't have the Pikes Peak view, it has a quicker shot to the spine of the Rockies.
Both have good scenic spots and spots to get away from it all, but you need to drive like 40-80 minutes in Denver vs 30-45 minutes in COS. Colorado is an interesting state in that the mountains funnel people together onto the same valleys and the same trails so the popular area are stupidly crowded, but if you go off the trail in less popular spots you basically have it all to yourself.
Both are outdoorsy cities, but COS is decidedly more so IMO, especially if you throw runners out of the equation since they don't look like they are enjoying the outdoors, they're just burning calories. Where COS is really different though is in wildlife encounters category, which are much more prevalent than in Denver. Because Denver is so paved over, the center of the metro is kind of a dead zone without many animals.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ilovelondon
There are cities that are protected by the Green Belt, like Toronto or this particular city for example, where further outward development is restricted. This allows natural areas to thrive despite being in close proximity to a large metropolitan area. Instead of having vast swathes of single family homes surrounding a city, these cities with a green belt prevent sprawl so people who live in them can access nature easily.
I think cities in the Midwest in particular need to look at an approach like this. The US has a good deal more wild untouched land than Europe does, so a lot of areas already kind of have this, but the corn belt could be a lot prettier than it is if they'd set aside money and land for greenspace. We already run surpluses in agriculture, so there shouldn't be a big conflict outside of funding.
Laredo is fine. It's semi-arid, but has some interesting landscape. The ugliest parts of Texas IMO are:
1. Industrial parts of cities- Heres looking at you Beaumont/Port Arthur, Freeport, Texas City. and Houston ship channel.
2. Southern great plains- Starting around Dallas- then west and North, including a lot of the panhandle with the exception of Pali Duro Canyon and a few other places.
As for the OP's question, in LA there are some trails in Griffith Park that I've hiked for 30 mins without seeing another person, and that's in a relatively central part of the city.
I've been down to Beaumont. The natural scenery is all right, it's not gorgeous but it's not necessarily that ugly, but Beaumont is a disgusting town which looks like it's just decaying into the swamps and it smells of bayou and paper mills. Not a good combo. The people there seem skeezy, too.
However, I like the plains of northern Texas. Granted they're not landscape pageant material or anything, but if you're in a nice rural area, it's a relaxing homey place to drive around. What I don't like are the parts of DFW where there's nothing to look at but warehouses, billboards and other crap. Basically a lot of I-35 between Dallas and Lewisville. The ugliest DFW town I've been in, is Grand Prairie. Nothing was grand about it, unless your definition of grand is "used car lots."
My personal favourite area of Texas in terms of scenery is the area between San Angelo and Eastland, partly nostalgia's sake but also, I like the semi-desert like plains scenery down there.
From my experience in Colorado Springs and Denver, in terms of geographic setting they are similar, though I give the edge to Denver because I think the front range spots (from Boulder on south) are prettier and while it doesn't have the Pikes Peak view, it has a quicker shot to the spine of the Rockies.
Both have good scenic spots and spots to get away from it all, but you need to drive like 40-80 minutes in Denver vs 30-45 minutes in COS. Colorado is an interesting state in that the mountains funnel people together onto the same valleys and the same trails so the popular area are stupidly crowded, but if you go off the trail in less popular spots you basically have it all to yourself.
Both are outdoorsy cities, but COS is decidedly more so IMO, especially if you throw runners out of the equation since they don't look like they are enjoying the outdoors, they're just burning calories. Where COS is really different though is in wildlife encounters category, which are much more prevalent than in Denver. Because Denver is so paved over, the center of the metro is kind of a dead zone without many animals.
I split my time between COS and Denver (I live and work in COS and go to Grad school in Denver 3 days a week). The biggest difference is access. There are far more natural parks, and much more park land in city limits(COS). From city center you can be hiking in 20 minutes or less in a variety of different terrains/environments. Denver just doesnt have that, hiking/mountain biking are activities reserved for the weekend, which as you pointed out leads to over crowded trails. COS >>>>>>>>>>>Denver for outdoor activities.
I split my time between COS and Denver (I live and work in COS and go to Grad school in Denver 3 days a week). The biggest difference is access. There are far more natural parks, and much more park land in city limits(COS). From city center you can be hiking in 20 minutes or less in a variety of different terrains/environments. Denver just doesnt have that, hiking/mountain biking are activities reserved for the weekend, which as you pointed out leads to over crowded trails. COS >>>>>>>>>>>Denver for outdoor activities.
I've come to the same conclusion. I know this is the way these two cities are, and I wonder if it's the same type of scenario outside of CO as well, if it's a general trend or just something specific to these cities.
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.
