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.
Besides the Hudson, they do not carry barge traffic either (there's nothing scenic about a river barge). Besides, you keep mentioning the Hudson River, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't take long to find some very UNSCENIC portions of the Hudson River in New York, just like some posters found very scenic (sorry, they're gorgeous, and I've been almost everywhere) shots of the Mississippi. The Driftless region in the Upper Midwest is littered with hills with vertical peaks between 500 and 750+ feet, or about 1/3 the size of your average Rockies ski resort, and half the size of resorts in the Appalachians. They're no mountains -- nobody will argue that -- but they aren't too significantly different than some "scenic" Appalachian areas you seem to be so fond of.
Between the Driftless/Mississippi River, Ozarks, Great Lakes, Hocking Valley, North Woods/North Shore (with their own small "mountains"), UP and tens of thousands of small lakes scattered throughout primarily three states (MN, WI, MI), I think the Midwest is fairly scenic.
The truth is very few places on Earth aren't beautiful in their own way. Every time I've tried to come up with one I've seen pictures or seen the area in person and I've taken back my words. A lot of people will claim that mountains are universally gorgeous, which is simply not true. The Cascades in Oregon, Washington and California are quite gorgeous, but you pay (dearly) for that beauty, both in terms of COL as well as relative isolation from the rest of the country. What's one person's trash is another's treasure, so to speak.
To each their own, huh?
That isn't a big deal to people on the east or west coast though. There are 500 foot cliffs right across from the Bronx. There are over 1000 foot directly up sub 1 mile hikes within 40 miles of NYC... If you are venturing all the way to the driftless from a major city like Minneapolis/Milwaukee/Chicago you'd already be in the Adirondacks or something.
Umm the areas in Appalachians are like 6000+ foot mountains dude. You are comparing this to 1000-1700 foot driftless region? A joke, surely, right? You need to get your eyes checked I think, they are way different in terms of feel and in person that your stats you chose to match up don't tell you.
Appalachian heights look like this...
summitpost
Ben Magro
While these areas are scenic and nice, I wouldn't say they are really impressive in a country where you have the rockies, cascades, sierras, etc. And in the Western U.S. and certain parts of the Eastern Seaboard somewhere like New England or in NC/TN/WV/Upstate NY they are a dime a dozen.
That isn't a big deal to people on the east or west coast though. There are 500 foot cliffs right across from the Bronx.
Umm the areas in Appalachians are like 6000+ foot mountains dude.
You're confusing 6000 feet above sea level with 6000 feet of vertical drop. The tallest points above sea level mean nothing if the ground is also a mile or two or three above sea level. VERTICAL DROP!
I've been to Snowshoe, WV ski resort, which reminded me very very much of Lutsen Mountain ski resort in Minnesota. Showshoe may technically be larger (IDK, I'm assuming it is) but the feel is fairly similar. I know there are some bigger mountains in the Appalachians but my point is that the large hills in the Midwest won't seem THAT different in some places.
You're confusing 6000 feet above sea level with 6000 feet of vertical drop. The tallest points above sea level mean nothing if the ground is also a mile or two or three above sea level. VERTICAL DROP!
I've been to Snowshoe, WV ski resort, which reminded me very very much of Lutsen Mountain ski resort in Minnesota. Showshoe may technically be larger (IDK, I'm assuming it is) but the feel is fairly similar. I know there are some bigger mountains in the Appalachians but my point is that the large hills in the Midwest won't seem THAT different in some places.
I'm not confusing them at all. The 1000 foot in NYC is a straight climb in .8 miles, it's right outside the city in the suburbs...
and the adirondacks look like this
weekly art
As somebody who has driven and climbed in elevation through both regions they are definitely different. Maybe you could compare that are to like Central Pennsylvania or something around Altoona, but they will be noticeably different than Eastern TN, Western NC smokies/blue ridge or mountains in New England.
You just aren't going to find stuff like this in Midwest
This is about a 3 1/2 hour base hike from NYC or about 4 from Boston in the Adirondacks and over 5000 feet.
Besides the Hudson, they do not carry barge traffic either (there's nothing scenic about a river barge). Besides, you keep mentioning the Hudson River, but I'm fairly certain it wouldn't take long to find some very UNSCENIC portions of the Hudson River in New York, just like some posters found very scenic (sorry, they're gorgeous, and I've been almost everywhere) shots of the Mississippi. The Driftless region in the Upper Midwest is littered with hills with vertical peaks between 500 and 750+ feet, or about 1/3 the size of your average Rockies ski resort, and half the size of resorts in the Appalachians. They're no mountains -- nobody will argue that -- but they aren't too significantly different than some "scenic" Appalachian areas you seem to be so fond of.
Between the Driftless/Mississippi River, Ozarks, Great Lakes, Hocking Valley, North Woods/North Shore (with their own small "mountains"), UP and tens of thousands of small lakes scattered throughout primarily three states (MN, WI, MI), I think the Midwest is fairly scenic.
The truth is very few places on Earth aren't beautiful in their own way. Every time I've tried to come up with one I've seen pictures or seen the area in person and I've taken back my words. A lot of people will claim that mountains are universally gorgeous, which is simply not true. The Cascades in Oregon, Washington and California are quite gorgeous, but you pay (dearly) for that beauty, both in terms of COL as well as relative isolation from the rest of the country. What's one person's trash is another's treasure, so to speak.
To each their own, huh?
I agree with your overall point, but I have to disagree with you on barges. One of my favorite things to do in the early morning is to walk down to the Ohio in downtown Cincinnati and watch the barges quietly float down the river. It's quite peaceful and beautiful.
I agree with your overall point, but I have to disagree with you on barges. One of my favorite things to do in the early morning is to walk down to the Ohio in downtown Cincinnati and watch the barges quietly float down the river. It's quite peaceful and beautiful.
I've grown up in the midwest my whole life, but I often get the impression that people don't like it that much. It's not like I have a chip on my shoulder, but it seems like the midwest, overall is maligned more than other regions. We're the "rust belt", boring, with bumpkin-ish people, the land is boring etc...
So why does the Midwest get a bum rap from so many people--or is it just in my head?
Right, by a reader poll. The same one that called Traverse City, MI the most beautiful place in the U.S.
Torch Lake is a generic lake. If that's beauty, you must pass out visiting anywhere in the Western U.S.
Torch Lake is sooooo not just a generic lake. If you can't see the difference between Torch and other inland lakes.... maybe you're not paying attention to detail on quite the same level as many other people. And that's not necessarily your fault. Not everyone has an eye for detail. The shade of blue of the water in Torch Lake is amazing.
You seem to get really hung up on whether the scenery is "grand" and pay little attention to the finer details. And there's nothing inherently wrong with that, because it's really all just a matter of opinion. I actually used to look at things in a similar way and I didn't think the scenery in Michigan was all that great, either. But as I've gotten older and a little more in touch with nature, I see things differently now.
There are plenty of people who can find more beauty at Torch Lake than at Lake Tahoe (I've visited both). You just have to have an appreciation for beauty that is a little more subtle than the awe-inspiring stuff out west. The funny thing about some of the best scenery out west... when you stop peering off toward the horizon and change your focus a little... you are often staring at barren, boring rocks.
Last edited by michigan83; 08-21-2013 at 07:48 PM..
Bad comparison. NYC and Paris are competitive in terms of beauty and attractions. Indiana and California are not competive in terms of beauty and attractions.
Most of Michigan is ugly. The UP and a few parts of the NW Lower Peninsula are nice. But overall, Michigan is an ugly state, with run-down cities, too much sprawl, and not very scenic. Detroit, Flint, Saginaw, Jackson, Muskegan, etc.
OK. Bait taken.
You said that Michigan is ugly everywhere but the U.P. and NW lower peninsula.
The following photos are from the REST of Michigan (the ugly parts):
Port Austin (on Lake Huron, an hour east of Saginaw)
Ann Arbor:
Saugatuck Dunes (not in the UP or NW lower):
Hoffmaster State Park in Muskegon (one of the ugly places you mentioned):
View of the Au Sable River in the fall (northeast lower peninsula):
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.
