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 would like to weigh in here. I'm not going to say I'm a know-it-all, but researching outdoor destination, scenic drives, natural diversity, etc. is basically my specialty - I do teach geography and earth science, so I'll put in my two cents.
As someone who grew up outside Chicago, has been over a great chunk of the country, I can truly say that although the northeast is a little better for nature and outdoors, it is NOT enough for my to justify a move there from the midwest.
Ultimately all this is a moot point, as I live in California now, and find the west coast and southwest far more fascinating than any other region of the country, but I will talk a little about the topic at hand.
#1. The scenic outdoor destinations of the northeast are obviously more abundant, as a much greater part of the country
2. There still is a bit of uniformity to the northeast: You have the same mixed conifer and deciduous forest over virtually all of New England/New York state, and although there is great geologic formations, its almost all granite bedrock and over most of Pennsylvania the folded mountains and hilltops are largely at the same height and geologic composition. Its not like the west where you have a totally different ecosystem every 1000 feet in elevation gain, and totally different.
Don't get me wrong it IS beautiful but can not compare to the variety, and the extent of non-trespassing public land of the west.
Secondly, the best scenery and outdoor destinations of the midwest (driftless area of WI/IL/IA/MN, the UP, southern IN (Brown County, etc.) are very similar to what you find in the northeast.
I mean sure, I would have more options from the Poconos to the Catskills from NYC than Chicago, and the elevation is a little more, but I personally feel it wouldn't justify leaving this:
2. First impressions driving along the interstate highways, yes absolutely the northeast wins there, however, while this is not near Chicago, I would say Ohio is still more similar to the forested and hilly character of Pennsylvania, than it is to Illinois, Iowa or northern Indiana. The NW corner of Ohio maybe flat cornfields, but draw a line connecting Cincy-Colombus-Cleveland and east of that is just as pretty as Pennsylvania.
3. Don't talk about wetlands to a midwesterners. Anything like the Pine Barrens of NJ with its bogs, etc., Michigan and Wisconsin has this many times over in the same distance from Chicago. Any of those marshes near NYC Chicagoland has that as well - There are lots and lots of acres of marshlands that one can get lost in, if they are stomping around in the summer when the veg. gets that high. Even in the city limits of Chicago near Calumet harbor.
4. Even in the long stretches of corn and soybeans of Illinois, Iowa, and northern Indiana, there may not be much, but there are many, many rivers lined with natural thickets and woods that are just the right size for canoeing. (Kankakee, Sugar, Kishwaukee, Tipacanoe, lower Fox all two hours from Chicago)As far as rivers go, there are many. many beautiful rivers in the northeast, but most of them are either a little to big for canoeing (the majors: Hudson, Connecticut, Susquehanna), or they are babbling brooks in the woods, beautiful but really can't put a canoe in.
5. The northeast does have a real ocean obviously, but I just love the variety of coastal environments on the west coast. I like beaches as well as rugged sea cliffs. You really have to go up to Maine to see that on the east coast, where winters are brutal.
Good points but, what does this have to do with the west coast exactly? Or really areas that are not in the Chicago suburbs but are farther out... We've already seen what that can do with people saying "you can fly to Colorado faster"...
These things aren't casually recreationally available to do just for the day really or in the evenings, mornings for people living in the metro, w/o some serious driving for the most part.
They are a weekend trip drive, go camping or stay in a lodge destination.
You can be hiking 500 foot cliffs 10 minutes from Manhattan. I could go jogging in hilly wilderness areas for example or do cycle training on steep hills/ravines or skiing for the day.
Your other argument is for another discussion, and no I wouldn't move to an East Coast city over Chicago *just* for the surroundings. But I think many people do weigh that decision when *other* factors are combined.
So I will segue into that a bit...
The 3 main factors that differentiate Chicago from NYC as well as DC/Philly area that are brought up time after time are...
Better access to outdoors (mountain/ocean), milder winters, and interconnected to other large cities and respective job opportunities. For the most part, this comes at a significant COL premium at least for NYC/DC.
Now we can come into discussions on cultural differences as well, but those are kind of just preferences.
Now still, is that worth somebody relocating from *Chicago* who has family ties to the midwest for? Hmm... not sure, maybe special cases like they need to be in DC/NYC for certain job types. I find it less plausible to move to Philadelphia.
Now, would it matter to somebody moving from the East Coast to lose all that? Yes... I've seen it hypothesized too many times on this board as reasons they like living there. They often like the entire package of accessibility of the region, not just the city they happen to reside in. People in California often make a similar, though different argument b/c of the city/nature/weather components as well. I.E. for you in LA, you have some of the best weather/nature in the country, plus you can go to SF, San Diego, Las Vegas pretty easy.
Would it matter weighing in a relocation to somebody from Atlanta for instance whether to pick Chicago or DC/Philly/NYC? Yes... probably, I'm sure it weighs in.
You made good points, but you brought up areas waaaay outside of Chicagoland. This isn't midwest vs northeast, it's Chicago suburbs vs NYC suburbs and NYC's suburbs are much more diverse in nature and topography than Chicago suburbs, as grapico just highlighted wonderfully above me.
ISecondly, the best scenery and outdoor destinations of the midwest (driftless area of WI/IL/IA/MN, the UP, southern IN (Brown County, etc.) are very similar to what you find in the northeast.
They're actually nothing similar, and you're revealing your pretty strong bias.
The Porcupine Mountains don't even reach 2,000 ft., and are 7 hours from Chicago, yet you're using them as comparisons.
In contrast, there are mountains more than twice as tall as the Porcupine Mountains in Westchester County, just north of the Bronx.
So why are you comparing "mountains" not even a fraction of the height and seven hours away to mountains within view of the NYC skyline?
And pretty much everything else you wrote was wrong. There are "rugged sea cliffs" actually in NYC city limits, as well as pretty significant portions of Long Island.
And there are no comparable environments to the Great Swamp or Pine Barrens in the Chicago area
Man you have a big shovel...stop digging...tell me, where are you from and why do you have such a hate on for Chicago? Because your energy is what derailed this thread.
Or just check out my new thread, which you inspired.
The porcupine mountains basically look like the Hudson River Valley...and that is as you say, right next to NYC. I won't get into which is better...
osiny
osiny
This is 41 miles from NYC (the city limits), the pictures I posted of Ft Tryon and cliffs are IN NYC city limits... just looking across the river at NJ.
You can see the city looking back from the summit.
SM Jakubowski
We all (hopefully all) know Chicago metro looks nothing like this.
I think this may be the silliest post in C-D. Chicago has better skiing than the Northeast because the Colorado slopes are only 1,000 miles away!
Next up- Chicago has better Thai food than the Northeast because Chicago is slightly closer to Bangkok!
But, of course, Omaha has the best skiing and Thai food among the three areas. Omaha is closest of all!
Its also a stretch to use skiing as a selling point for NYC as well, dont you think?
Im trying to be as objective as possible for both, but your entire stance wreaks of anti-Chicago bias. You provide the counter point to every statement Chicago.
The porcupine mountains basically look like the Hudson River Valley...and that is as you say, right next to NYC. I won't get into which is better...
osiny
osiny
This is 41 miles from NYC (the city limits), the pictures I posted of Ft Tryon and cliffs are IN NYC city limits... just looking across the river at NJ.
You can see the city looking back from the summit.
SM Jakubowski
We all (hopefully all) know Chicago metro looks nothing like this.
Awesome pics. Chicago really doesnt have a match for this. Upstate and Jersey geographically speaking are very underrated in terms of NYC draws. Jersey isnt entirely this swamphole of traffic and smokestacks.
Last edited by IEnjoyBeer; 07-30-2013 at 04:37 PM..
NJ borders NYC and Philly, and as such, is home to many suburbs of both. Suburbs contain a lot of wealth in a lot of places. NJ benefits from having both. Lots of money in Jersey.
Lake Michigan beaches around Chicago aren't really that cold in the summer. The last few years, they've been like bathwater.
Well to be fair last year was one of the warmest year on record. It was warmer than usual about everywhere.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEnjoyBeer
In other words, I dont give a damn. When I wanna go swimming or tanning at the beach, I really dont give a **** either way whether its an ocean or lake.
And when was it that this thread's topic became about what you want? What you don't care about is up to you. Leave the rest of us to decide what we do and don't give a damn about. If you are having trouble reading a lot people do care if it's an ocean or a lake.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IEnjoyBeer
Chicago does offer pretty much everything NYC does. It kinda proves that you dont need to be NYC to have what it offers, albeit on a lesser scale.
No it doesn't. And on the things it does it's on a lot smaller scale than NYC in most cases. I'm not saying that NYC wins in everything, but as far things they offer there is no comparison here. I do agree with people that's been saying Chicago is closer to DC/SF and that it's closer to Philly than it is to NYC.
Anyways, off topic. Not what this thread was suppose to be about.
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.
