Texas vs. northeastern U.S. - which has better natural scenery? (life, cons)
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.
this is basically from the MSA; the NE has a lot of diversity over a short range
The NE I think is often overshawdowed by its cities while it has some of the best scenery in the country, often only very short distances from the cities.
Want to see more pics of TX as they always interest me and I get to learn about this huge state
Last edited by JMT; 06-20-2012 at 06:15 AM..
Reason: Max of 6 images per post
To me, Texas is like four times the size of the Northeast, so should, in theory, at least, have far more interesting scenery.
In reality, most of Texas has pretty boring scenery. 80% of Texas is arid, and most of that is fairly flat and often treeless. You don't have iconic places like Niagara, Adirondacks, Hamptons, Acadia, Nantucket, etc.
I guess there's Big Bend, and Hill Country is nice, but I wouldn't compare it to places like the Hudson Valley, Finger Lakes, High Peaks, Vermont, etc.
Where do you come by that statement? Actually, about 2/3 (at least) of Texas is either humid sub-tropical, or sub-humid sub-tropical. Here is a map showing the climate zones:
I've never been to either (at least not enough to really explore), and I've only seen a handful of pictures from Texas that looked appealing to me, and most of those are in this thread. But I've seen literally thousands of beautiful pictures from the Northeast. Several of the pictures scrantiX posted above show scenery I find visually impressive, but not necessarily pretty. But I'm also not a fan of landscapes that appear arid or hot and humid.
I never claimed that the entire state of Texas is simply desert, that forests are non-existent or the entire state is flat. It's pretty obvious, however, that Texas generally doesn't get as much precipitation, nor does it have as much forest cover as the Northeast.
Very little of Texas is true desert, and not all that much of it is even semi-arid. So far as true forest goes, it is true that -- relatively speaking -- not a considerable amount of the state can be classified as such (although it is considerably more extensive than the "true desert"). However, it is roughly the size of the state of Kentucky, and larger than any single New England state, or even several of them. And if one includes the semi-wooded areas (such as the eastern and western Cross Timbers), then it amount to about 1/4 of the state, which is larger than the entire New England area.
With all that said though, while I much prefer Texas and its climate and scenery -- and could never imagine living in the Northeast -- I have to say it has beautiful physical features.
Great photos nei, scrantix, kidphilly and everyone. the northeast is truly beautiful but c'mon, those pics of Texas are fantastic too!
Bear with my amateur iphone photog....all photos mine:
central austin
hamilton pool, 20 min from austin
krause springs
wimberley, tx in winter
sunset - port aransas, tx
central austin - winter
Got more from the coast and some parks throughout the hill country...still haven't seen any pics from the east tx piney woods though. Nairobi?
Last edited by JMT; 06-20-2012 at 06:22 AM..
Reason: Max of 6 images per post
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.