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.
I've never been to Oklahoma City; no natural scenery at all? I find that impossible; is the city built in a box?
Some natural scenery is better than others. Also, Oklahoma City is flat with no beaches.
Quote:
The city does not adapt to you; you adapt to it. I wouldn't expect to ski in the desert, and I wouldn't expect to go deep-sea diving in Kansas City. But I would expect to discover what recreational opportunities exist where I do live, and take advantage of them accordingly.
I like the surrounding hills where I live, it makes for much more interesting and scenic bicycling. Further away, the mountains make for good weekend trips. I couldn't get that in other parts of the country. After a 1hr20min train ride from the center of NYC and some hiking, one can find these views at least if you don't suffer from acrophobia:
or a 2hr10min train ride and a bike ride:
Good luck finding something similar from Chicago. I'd rank Chicago somewhat lower than otherwise for this reason. San Francisco is better than either, an additional plus in its favor.
Some natural scenery is better than others. Also, Oklahoma City is flat with no beaches.
I like the surrounding hills where I live, it makes for much more interesting and scenic bicycling. Further away, the mountains make for good weekend trips. I couldn't get that in other parts of the country. After a 1hr20min train ride from the center of NYC and some hiking, one can find these views at least if you don't suffer from acrophobia:
or a 2hr10min train ride and a bike ride:
Good luck finding something similar from Chicago. I'd rank Chicago somewhat lower than otherwise for this reason. San Francisco is better than either, an additional plus in its favor.
Chicago has the lake... and... the lake. It's cool but still not a substitute for the ocean, but Chicago worked wonders with it's lakefront for recreational purposes within the city.
There is nothing really dramatically scenic around Chicago in that range, nothing breath taking, nothing really to stop and take a picture of, need to get much much farther away, and even then there is barely any elevation... 1500 feet isn't really impressive for instance. I don't consider them mountains, maybe foothills.
hillwalkers have tended to regard mountains as peaks 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level: the Oxford English Dictionary also suggests a limit of 2,000 feet (610 m) and Whittow[1] states "Some authorities regard eminences above 600 m (2,000 ft) as mountains, those below being referred to as hills." This has led to Cavanal Hill in Poteau, Oklahoma, receive billing as the "World's Tallest Hill" due to its height of 1,999 feet (609 m)
Even 2000 feet to me is a "big hill" or a pretty tiny mountain, foothills of mountains, etc.
Chicago has the lake... and... the lake. It's cool but still not a substitute for the ocean, but Chicago worked wonders with it's lakefront for recreational purposes within the city.
There is nothing really dramatically scenic around Chicago in that range, nothing breath taking, nothing really to stop and take a picture of, need to get much much farther away, and even then there is barely any elevation... 1500 feet isn't really impressive for instance. I don't consider them mountains, maybe foothills.
hillwalkers have tended to regard mountains as peaks 2,000 feet (610 m) above sea level: the Oxford English Dictionary also suggests a limit of 2,000 feet (610 m) and Whittow[1] states "Some authorities regard eminences above 600 m (2,000 ft) as mountains, those below being referred to as hills." This has led to Cavanal Hill in Poteau, Oklahoma, receive billing as the "World's Tallest Hill" due to its height of 1,999 feet (609 m)
Even 2000 feet to me is a "big hill" or a pretty tiny mountain, foothills of mountains, etc.
There are no mountains in Wisconsin or Michigan.
I agree Chicago did a good job with its lakefront, didn't mean to knock it down too much. It has to do what it can with its location.
The 2000 feet distinction is a bit arbitary. If a hill / mountain rises steeply in a short distance it looks more impressive than a larger height over a much larger distance. The first photo I posted in the previous post was taken at around 1000 feet, maybe slightly less. The steep granite peaks of Acadia (coastal Maine) reach about 1500 feet at the most, most around 1000-1200. But they appear far more mountain-like than taller rolling hills in many parts of upstate NY.
Flat lands like corn fields are nice too. It's still a body of land that paints a different picture in its own silent richness.
Absolutely. Beautifully said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by nei
Some natural scenery is better than others.
Since this is such a highly personal preference, however, it is impossible to say which natural scenery is better than others.
Quote:
Also, Oklahoma City is flat with no beaches.
To dismiss large parts of the country because they don't have beaches or mountains is small-minded indeed. And to some people, the mountains that are closest to New York City are mere molehills.
I agree those are great scenic places you posted. Pretty images. I can do all of those things in places that look JUST like that in Austin (except the snow pic!) but the point is there are exponentially more recreational options in areas with beaches and mountains.
I am living proof of learning this fascinating lesson -- I know the difference because I've lived in both types of places. We moved here thinking it would matter little, especailly since this area is touted as a recreation-heaven in relation to cost of living and other quality of life factors, good schools etc. But it is just not as interesting, nor scenic, no matter how you slice it, without the mountains or the ocean.
And while I agree a wheat field can be beautiful, I'm not sure what I can do in it.
Those are hills, regardless of name, I don't consider them mountains, nor do many others according to the definitions I proposed. At least around Austin they have the respectability to call theres "hill country"
Hills, not mountains. as that is exactly what they are. It is a matter of grandiosity and magestic qualities, just being rural and having slight changes in elevation or a body of water doesn't cut it. To me the pictures you showed are pretty underwhelming compared to what is available say, around Atlanta, Chattanooga, Charlotte close to the appalachians, blue ridge, smokies, or around New England in Vermont/New Hampshire for instance... In any of the rocky mountain cities around Flagstaff, Denver etc, or virtually any city on the West Coast from San Diego to Fairbanks Alaska.
The midwest has mountains of course, but they are up in the Dakotas. The Black Hills are awesome.
Ohio's Hocking Hills, in the southeastern portion of the state:
That's almost identical to a photo I took in upstate NY:
here's another one I took that week in the same area:
and another. does the Midwest look something like this:
The classic NY debate is whether the areas in the photos I posted earlier are upstate NY or downstate NY, especially the first two. My usual thought is when the topography gets hillier you are upstate. Though if you are too generous, parts of Manhattan would get counted as upstate by that definition.
To dismiss large parts of the country because they don't have beaches or mountains is small-minded indeed.
I didn't dismiss it, but if I like mountains or beaches why shouldn't they be a factor in how much I like a place? Flat places may have other merits, but they are missing what is to me an important aspect no matter how good the natural scenery is.
Quote:
And to some people, the mountains that are closest to New York City are mere molehills.
And I partially agree. I considered them on the border between hills and real mountains, though the cliffy view in the first photo I posted looked somewhat mountainous to me. Compared to the western US and some other parts of the world, all but a few eastern mountains pale in grandeur. 120 miles from Seattle:
I have a friend who lived in Boston. He had flexibility in choice of cities, and one of the reasons (out of many) he picked it over NYC was better access to mountains. Like these:
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.
