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.
Out of those cities, would pick Houston. It fits all the criteria except maybe Natural Beauty, though I think it's pretty green in parts. Dallas also pretty much on the same level on all of those except since you included black culture, I think Houston edges it out.
Greenville,SC. Any where in NC will have kinda long winters IMO. Its in the 30s, low 40s°F for the high for several days throughout the winter. And they get on average 8-10 inches of snow per year , way more above 4000ft. SC isn't as bad, but still too cold for me in the winter. I've lived near the Greenville area for 3 years and it has grown a good bit, especially downtown Greenville.
Paris Mountain is a small mountain about 20-25 minutes from downtown. Bigger mountains anywhere from 40 minutes away and up in NC, TN, and GA if you don't mind driving a 1-3 hours.
Dallas and Houston are two hour flights from mountains, so Thoreau is technically right.
Well, you know Dallas is the US's premier skiing city according to some of the C-D homers.
Honestly out of all the cities the OP listed, Atlanta's probably the best choice. It's fairly lush, closer to mountains (about an hour to the Southern Appalachians), and has a little more of a 4-season climate than DFW or Houston.
Raleigh's in kind of a no-man's land. Not close to either mountains or the ocean, but within driving distance to both. Hot, humid summers, and not much of a winter. Raleigh is plenty green and has a ton of tree cover though.
I lived in DFW for a number of years and scenic is not a word I would use to describe it. It's a hotter, more humid version of Kansas with a few more trees. Compared to Atlanta, Raleigh, and Houston it's not lush. The Metroplex dries up nicely in the summertime heat, and anything that isn't irrigated turns yellow or brown from July 'til late February/early March. It's an outdoor-lover's purgatory. The hiking is pathetic, and there are no mountains of any consequence within several hundred miles. There are a handful of reservoirs, but the ones I went to honestly didn't impress me. They aren't all that scenic, the water is generally crap for swimming, and the camping is weak sauce.
Houston is green and lush, but it's also hot and humid and has no real winter. It's flatter than a sheet of plywood and big chunks of the city are ridiculously flood-prone. The hiking trails look mildly interesting - if you're into hiking for miles without any noticeable elevation change. It's even further from mountains than DFW is. It IS close to the gulf, but the beaches in that part of Texas are pretty underwhelming compared to the eastern parts of the gulf coast.
Well, you know Dallas is the US's premier skiing city according to some of the C-D homers.
Honestly out of all the cities the OP listed, Atlanta's probably the best choice. It's fairly lush, closer to mountains (about an hour to the Southern Appalachians), and has a little more of a 4-season climate than DFW or Houston.
Raleigh's in kind of a no-man's land. Not close to either mountains or the ocean, but within driving distance to both. Hot, humid summers, and not much of a winter. Raleigh is plenty green and has a ton of tree cover though.
I lived in DFW for a number of years and scenic is not a word I would use to describe it. It's a hotter, more humid version of Kansas with a few more trees. Compared to Atlanta, Raleigh, and Houston it's not lush. The Metroplex dries up nicely in the summertime heat, and anything that isn't irrigated turns yellow or brown from July 'til late February/early March. It's an outdoor-lover's purgatory. The hiking is pathetic, and there are no mountains of any consequence within several hundred miles. There are a handful of reservoirs, but the ones I went to honestly didn't impress me. They aren't all that scenic, the water is generally crap for swimming, and the camping is weak sauce.
Houston is green and lush, but it's also hot and humid and has no real winter. It's flatter than a sheet of plywood and big chunks of the city are ridiculously flood-prone. The hiking trails look mildly interesting - if you're into hiking for miles without any noticeable elevation change. It's even further from mountains than DFW is. It IS close to the gulf, but the beaches in that part of Texas are pretty underwhelming compared to the eastern parts of the gulf coast.
The Las Vegas area has pretty much all of that. It's surrounded by mountains, has a fairly substantial black population, low crime outside of a few areas, cheap housing, culture/vibe and amenities. Museums may be a little lacking but as the city grows there will be more of that.
It has very little humidity and is only uncomfortably hot at different points from June-September. Higher elevations with temperatures 20 degrees cooler are a 20 minute drive and so is Lake Mead which has a large beach. There's also public water parks.
Los Angeles and the Pacific Ocean are within a 3.5 to 4.5 hour drive depending on traffic. Mt Whitney, the tallest mountain in the United States outside of Alaska is just a 4 hour drive. Basically the area is strategically located for frequent easy vacation destinations.
It does lack 4 traditional seasons, but everywhere about 30 miles north does. Median home price is about $205,000 , very affordable compared to nearly every major city, in line with Texas affordability. Vegas is growing faster than almost every other major city. It's the newest major city in the country ,incorporated in 1911.
Anyways good luck. I think Michigan's also beautiful. It has great national parks and the Lake Michigan coastline is perfect. Grand Rapids is growing very fast and is a good city.
All meet your criteria to varying degrees. Though I do like Raleigh/Durham, have relatives who live there, and am very familiar with the whole area, outside of parks and greenways, there are not many unique recreational assets for a metro of 2 million. Charlotte is a better choice, IMO. It's extremely green/lush, parks, greenways, 2 state parks (Lake Norman SP and Crowder's Mnt. SP), and the U.S. National Whitewater Center, among other great recreational assets. Charlotte also has better Buying Power (average annual income vs. cost of living) than Raleigh, Atlanta, and Nashville. Charlotte also has one of the strongest black middle classes in the nation.
No matter where you end up, good luck in your search.
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.
