U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-29-2008, 07:48 AM
 
Location: Englewood, Near Eastside Indy
8,341 posts, read 14,093,273 times
Reputation: 5958

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Flat states would include most of the Great Plains states and most of the Midwest states. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa (although I think Iowa is more gently rolling hills), Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Much of the South is also flat. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, most of Arkansas, most of Georgia, and Florida.
Southern Indiana is not flat at all.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-29-2008, 08:13 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 9,085,203 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpabes View Post
How much have you traveled off the interstate in either state?

Does Nebraska have flat spots? Yes, quite a few of them and one of them happens to be where the interstate runs. Thats where most people get their perception. If you have really traveled Nebraska you will see rolling hills like Iowa's, the Sandhills and the bluffs/pine ridge in western Nebraska. Are they mountains? No, be we aren't some pancake state with a couple ant mounds either. Also if you want to get real technical about it, Omaha has an elevaton of 1060 ft, Kimball on the western edge of the state has an elevation of 4717 feet. So it can't be completely flat. I'll get off my soapbox now.
Quite a bit. I lived in NB at one time. There is a gradual increase in elevation as you move from east to west in each state. When you reach Goodland, KS the elevation is 3,600 feet but still very flat. Nebraska is only slightly more goose pimply than KS but I'd hardly call those elevations true hills.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 08:25 AM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
1,821 posts, read 4,637,203 times
Reputation: 5065
Not to be nit picky, but the abbreviation is NE, not NB. We're not New Brunswick. I'm curious as to what you consider true hills? What would you compare the topography of Scottsbluff, Chadron and the Panhandle to? Also the Sandhills/Valentine area, McCook/southwest Nebraska, Norfolk/Northeast Nebraska area, what would they compare to? I know you're familar with Omaha, would you compare that with the rolling hills of Iowa (thats what I would compare it too)? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm curious as to see what they compare too in others eyes so maybe I can see if my perception is off since I live here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 09:08 AM
 
Location: Phoenix metro
20,005 posts, read 69,389,357 times
Reputation: 10115
Put it this way. The states that, IMO, have the most flat areas are IL, TX, FL, KS, IN, LA, AL and OK. But even those states (minus FL) have very hilly areas. TX has mountains in far western portions and Hill Country. IL has the NW corner, portions of the central area and the southern 1/3rd of the state that are very hilly. KS has the Flint Hills and even mostly flat Oklahoma has several beautiful mountain ranges (yes, MOUNTAINS). Southern Indiana is also gorgeous, especially Brown County. Heck, even Alabama has some gorgeous mountains. But overall, most of those states are majority flat. Outside of Florida, I havent been to a single state that is entirely flat, that just doesnt happen. Even vaunted mountainous places like California and Colorado have flat, boring wastelands, too. Especially Colorado! Even Nevada and New Mexico have places that make Kansas seem mountainous! lol
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 09:09 AM
 
Location: The Rock!
2,370 posts, read 6,994,818 times
Reputation: 804
Quote:
Originally Posted by ajf131 View Post
Flat states would include most of the Great Plains states and most of the Midwest states. Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Nebraska, South Dakota, North Dakota, Iowa (although I think Iowa is more gently rolling hills), Illinois, Indiana, and Michigan. Much of the South is also flat. Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, most of Arkansas, most of Georgia, and Florida.
Only the SE third of AR is flat. The rest of the state is quite "mountainous." Mountainous being relative here, similar to the Appalachians.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 09:41 AM
 
5,721 posts, read 9,085,203 times
Reputation: 2460
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpabes View Post
Not to be nit picky, but the abbreviation is NE, not NB. We're not New Brunswick. I'm curious as to what you consider true hills? What would you compare the topography of Scottsbluff, Chadron and the Panhandle to? Also the Sandhills/Valentine area, McCook/southwest Nebraska, Norfolk/Northeast Nebraska area, what would they compare to? I know you're familar with Omaha, would you compare that with the rolling hills of Iowa (thats what I would compare it too)? I'm not trying to pick a fight, I'm curious as to see what they compare too in others eyes so maybe I can see if my perception is off since I live here.
The Scottsbluff, Chadron and Panhandle regions have very similar topography to some areas of western KS. Castle Rock configurations comes to mind. Northeast NE is a lot like eastern KS. Gently rolling terrain and a few goose bumps. And the Valentine-Sandhills area is a cross between the areas west of Topeka and east of Salina, KS and the Scott City area of western KS.

I'm sorry but trying to compare these states highest elevations to truly hilly and mountainous terrain in the states in New England, NY, PA and the South when they are mere bumps is absurd. You needn't be ashamed to live in a Flatland state. Hell, KS has some great rock hounding and fossil hounding that rivals any area of the globe. No doubt NE has its assets as well, but hills ain't one of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 10:22 AM
 
Location: Central Nebraska
1,821 posts, read 4,637,203 times
Reputation: 5065
Quote:
Originally Posted by WILWRadio View Post
The Scottsbluff, Chadron and Panhandle regions have very similar topography to some areas of western KS. Castle Rock configurations comes to mind. Northeast NE is a lot like eastern KS. Gently rolling terrain and a few goose bumps. And the Valentine-Sandhills area is a cross between the areas west of Topeka and east of Salina, KS and the Scott City area of western KS.

I'm sorry but trying to compare these states highest elevations to truly hilly and mountainous terrain in the states in New England, NY, PA and the South when they are mere bumps is absurd. You needn't be ashamed to live in a Flatland state. Hell, KS has some great rock hounding and fossil hounding that rivals any area of the globe. No doubt NE has its assets as well, but hills ain't one of them.
Sorry, I didn't mean to imply a comparison to the those places. I by no means think we compare to that terrain. I know my place, I live in the flattest part of Nebraska, I guess I'm so used to flat being a derrogatory term, that it gets me on my soapbox. Most people, unlike yourself, just drive though on the interstate and get their ideas that way.

I think Steve-o said it best. Although I have to say, the way people have come on and talked about how different states are not flat (including me), flat is the most disliked terrain. It isn't all bad folks, a straight open road can be a good thing. If you get my drift.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 05:29 PM
 
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,085 posts, read 11,450,469 times
Reputation: 1942
Quote:
Originally Posted by tpabes View Post
I think Steve-o said it best. Although I have to say, the way people have come on and talked about how different states are not flat (including me), flat is the most disliked terrain. It isn't all bad folks, a straight open road can be a good thing. If you get my drift.
I think what gets me most when people say flat in a disparaging way is that they're dismissing other elements of a place that make the terrain unique. Flat doesn't equal barren and boring. Louisiana, for example, has some neat swamps and bayous, and like most of the South, thick woods and other flora. Other "flatlands" have deep ravines that help break up the monotony, and yes, gently rolling hills. It's not like because the land is mostly flat in a place means the landscape has nothing to offer there. Give me lush green over the desert southwest and its mountains anyday!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 06:03 PM
 
769 posts, read 2,010,753 times
Reputation: 407
Quote:
Originally Posted by houstoner View Post
I think what gets me most when people say flat in a disparaging way is that they're dismissing other elements of a place that make the terrain unique. Flat doesn't equal barren and boring. Louisiana, for example, has some neat swamps and bayous, and like most of the South, thick woods and other flora. Other "flatlands" have deep ravines that help break up the monotony, and yes, gently rolling hills. It's not like because the land is mostly flat in a place means the landscape has nothing to offer there. Give me lush green over the desert southwest and its mountains anyday!
Quick question, houstoner: Texas isn't part of the desert southwest? I know it's southern but isn't the landscape similar for the most part. Certainly El Paso resembles the rest of the SW. Maybe the panhandle is different, with it's constant climate change, but Texas seems to have a lot of the elements of the southwest, wouldn't you agree? Or is it greener mostly. You see, I've been to Texas, and I spent most of it in El Paso. Yeah, I've been to Dallas, and once to Houston, but I didn't look at the terrain to much. How would you describe it overall?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-29-2008, 06:08 PM
 
Location: from houstoner to bostoner to new yorker to new jerseyite ;)
4,085 posts, read 11,450,469 times
Reputation: 1942
Quote:
Originally Posted by What! View Post
Quick question, houstoner: Texas isn't part of the desert southwest? I know it's southern but isn't the landscape similar for the most part. Certainly El Paso resembles the rest of the SW. Maybe the panhandle is different, with it's constant climate change, but Texas seems to have a lot of the elements of the southwest, wouldn't you agree? Or is it greener mostly. You see, I've been to Texas, and I spent most of it in El Paso. Yeah, I've been to Dallas, and once to Houston, but I didn't look at the terrain to much. How would you describe it overall?
Quick answer : That's a common myth we have Hollywood to thank for. Part of Texas is part of the desert southwest. You have to keep in mind the state is vast --El Paso is almost as close to Phoenix, Arizona as it is to Houston, I think-- and the terrain changes. Texas has seven eco-regions. TPWD Kids: Texas Regions I grew up in the Piney Woods region and now live in the Gulf Coast. Houston is large and has elements of both - roughly Piney Woods in the northern half and Gulf Coast in the southern half. Additionally, the western half of Texas isn't nearly as populated as the eastern half, so all those Hollywood movies depicting Texas as a vast desert wasteland are laughable at best, considering most Texans don't live in the western part of the state.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S.
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2019, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top