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.
Well also as you said, Poconos is 70 miles from Manhattan, and even those I'd venture to say are better than Northern Michigan or Minnesota. You can just randomly go there one Saturday morning on a whim if you want. Big Pocono is 2100 feet elevation with an 800 foot vertical ski drop. To find a similar one you need to go up past Duluth to Lutsen, and that is 560 miles away from Chicago. There are smaller ski areas in Wausau and Lacrosse in Wisconsin but you are still looking at over a 4 hour drive, possibly more considering snow/road conditions. I know some people that go ski like 200 foot vertical drops though but it isn't that fun... I suppose it is technically "skiing" ...I'm sure you can go cross country skiing anywhere also.
Mount Bohemia is closer than that, but still splitting hairs (435 miles) with a similar vertical drop.
Skiing in Galena is closer than any of those, and from what I've heard, decent. About 2.5-3 hours. Best skiing is still out West.
the lake beach in chicago is definitely not nicer. the water is 99% of the time completely flat, the sand quality is also poor. The feel there is completely different.
.
Tell that to the two kids who died last weekend
"Lucas Zingler said, "Waters on the lake are very dangerous, they can go from being a flat calm day to six foot waves in a matter of minutes. It's going to turn into a bath tub out there and it's a very violent wave unlike the ocean where you have a rolling constant wave. Here the waves comes from every angle.""
"Lucas Zingler said, "Waters on the lake are very dangerous, they can go from being a flat calm day to six foot waves in a matter of minutes. It's going to turn into a bath tub out there and it's a very violent wave unlike the ocean where you have a rolling constant wave. Here the waves comes from every angle.""
Oh god, here we go again. And when the waves do come, which is rare, and often in winter so even rarer on the Chicago beaches, they shut the beaches down for public access. On a normal day it is waveless except maybe a tiny 1/2 foot roll.
and in winter there can be giant floating icebergs just like on the Jersey Shore......or even totally freeze over for hundreds of miles in a cold winter, just like off Long Island.
and in winter there can be giant floating icebergs just like on the Jersey Shore......or even totally freeze over for hundreds of miles in a cold winter, just like off Long Island.
right?
I know there are giant icebergs and it freezes, as does the Chicago river. How does this make it better for public use though?
"Lucas Zingler said, "Waters on the lake are very dangerous, they can go from being a flat calm day to six foot waves in a matter of minutes. It's going to turn into a bath tub out there and it's a very violent wave unlike the ocean where you have a rolling constant wave. Here the waves comes from every angle.""
Yup, the only wave the ocean ever has is a rolling constant one.
Tell that to a hurricane, nor'easter, plain cloudy/rainy or windy day, or a day where the ocean's like a lake until out of nowhere comes a big six footer every ten minutes (quite common and also quite scary).
Well, be that as it may, I was responding more to your point that Chicago metro was full of just prairie and artificial forest preserves, which is inaccurate.
What is it full of then? Ancient forests? Hills? Lol
Visiting Chicago numerous times and even driving there I could never believe how isolated Chicago is. Unlike New York City where within an hour drive you have another big city - Philly, beautifull Long Island and jersey beaches. Within two hours: real mountains and casinos (Atlantic City) and in between countles attractions, historic towns, forests and parks there is not much around Chicago. Narest big city is Detroit. No mountains and no real forests. It's hard for a weekend getaway while NYC offers many, many choices.
This of course is reflected in quality of suburbs where some are super urban and some quaint shoreline towns. There is much more variet and history in the NYC area.
are you talking the water or the beach itself? Because Chicago can get above 70/75 degrees 7 months out of the year (I recall back in 88 it almost hit 70 in January even)
and the thing that makes the lake better than ocean beaches IMO (besides the lack of jellyfish, sea urchins, stinky seaweed, and nasty tasting water) is the massive changes from the ice floes of winter to the crystal blue 70 some degree temps of summer.
The ocean frankly is rather boring in comparison.
.
If you think that the ocean thats spread between several continents and with its plethora of flora and flora is boring in comparison to a lake then I have not much to say to you lol
Lake Michigan beaches around Chicago aren't really that cold in the summer. The last few years, they've been like bathwater.
The issue is the beaches aren't really that nice. The water is more clean-ish, the sand isn't that great, and the crowds are iffy (Oak Street Beach, probably the most famous Chicago beach because it's right downtown, has been shut down numerous times in recent years for gang activity and wilding).
The really nice Lake Michigan Beaches are to the north, in Northern Michigan. The Wisconsin side tends to have more rocky beaches, and aren't generally as nice.
And lake beaches, just generally speaking, aren't as interesting. There isn't much variety in terms of tides and the like, nothing washes up of note, no sea smell, limited waves, boring/limited fishing and seafood, and, again, it's just a lake.
That's pretty much it.
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.