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.
Uhhh are people seriously trying to compare Lake Michigan to Chain of Lakes/White Bear/Minnetonka? They're pretty clearly completely different things. Chicago is basically coastal - Lake Michigan doesn't even kind of serve the same purpose as the Minneapolis lakes. That's not to say one is necessarily better than the other. Chicago doesn't have anything like the Minneapolis lake suburbs or the Chain of Lakes and Minneapolis doesn't have anything like a Great Lakes coast.
What Minneapolis does have that Chicago doesn't is easy access to the Northwoods, the Boundary Waters, and the Driftless.
I would put the list in this order:
1) Minneapolis
2) Boston
3) Chicago/DC
4) New York (the problem here is just that it's so big that most of the population of the metro doesn't have great access)
5) Detroit
Uhhh are people seriously trying to compare Lake Michigan to Chain of Lakes/White Bear/Minnetonka? They're pretty clearly completely different things. Chicago is basically coastal - Lake Michigan doesn't even kind of serve the same purpose as the Minneapolis lakes. That's not to say one is necessarily better than the other. Chicago doesn't have anything like the Minneapolis lake suburbs or the Chain of Lakes and Minneapolis doesn't have anything like a Great Lakes coast.
I think one could easily make the argument that the Chicago has something very similar in the northwest suburbs (e.g. Fox Lake, Chain o' Lakes state park, Crystal Lake, Antioch, etc.).
I honestly think people are being overly generous with Minneapolis. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice place, but most of the scenery in the metro area is pretty ho-hum, in my opinion. I think D.C. should really be at the top here.
Uhhh are people seriously trying to compare Lake Michigan to Chain of Lakes/White Bear/Minnetonka? They're pretty clearly completely different things. Chicago is basically coastal - Lake Michigan doesn't even kind of serve the same purpose as the Minneapolis lakes. That's not to say one is necessarily better than the other. Chicago doesn't have anything like the Minneapolis lake suburbs or the Chain of Lakes and Minneapolis doesn't have anything like a Great Lakes coast.
What Minneapolis does have that Chicago doesn't is easy access to the Northwoods, the Boundary Waters, and the Driftless.
I would put the list in this order:
1) Minneapolis
2) Boston
3) Chicago/DC
4) New York (the problem here is just that it's so big that most of the population of the metro doesn't have great access)
5) Detroit
I don't get what this means. How do they not have access? What's blocking them from going to those places?
I am hardly a big expert on this hence why I asked the question in the first place. From what some people are saying it seems like the NYC metro area pretty much the most to offer in terms of quantity and variety. Are you suggesting that's not the case if NYC metro were the size of the metros you listed above it?
Can people who are knowledgeable about this shed some light on this? How about if those metros were made the size of NYC? Does that change things either? Btw, I'm not saying to limit to just the metro area either. Anything beyond it is fine as well as long is it's a reasonable distance. The only criteria is you have to include the same amount of distance for every city.
I don't get what this means. How do they not have access? What's blocking them from going to those places?
I am hardly a big expert on this hence why I asked the question in the first place. From what some people are saying it seems like the NYC metro area pretty much the most to offer in terms of quantity and variety. Are you suggesting that's not the case if NYC metro were the size of the metros you listed above it?
Can people who are knowledgeable about this shed some light on this? How about if those metros were made the size of NYC? Does that change things either? Btw, I'm not saying to limit to just the metro area either. Anything beyond it is fine as well as long is it's a reasonable distance. The only criteria is you have to include the same amount of distance for every city.
What I can say is we have lots to do in the NYC area and people from all over the metro will 'travel' (like it's far) to do whatever they want. You choose what you want to do based on what you like, and if it's 3 hours away so be it. But the NYC metro has a lot - beaches in NJ and LI (CT too but I've never met someone from NJ or NY who chooses CT's coast over NJ or NY in the summer), mountains in NJ and NY, small charming coastal towns in all 3 that are fun all year round, mountains and reservations for hiking, lakes, woods, plenty of parkland, rivers, farms, and more. I'm not an 'outdoorsy' person per se (I'm all about the beach and that's pretty much it) so I'm probably missing some things here.
Since all 3 states have pretty much all of the above, you're not traveling far to get to them. Those from LI will stick to LI for beaches and farms for apple picking in the fall, for example. Those from NYC or upstate NY or even CT will head to NJ for beaches. Those from Manhattan or even outer boroughs who want a day in the park/woods will go to Central Park. Those from CT will likely stick to CT for beaches. Those closer to NY's mountains will ski there, those closer to NJ's mountains will ski there. What I'm saying is, it's not like there's 1 mountain, 1 beach, 1 anything for the whole metro region. There are multiple in all states so people will go to what's closer to them or what they prefer. That's what's nice about this area, there is so much diversity in what you can do since we are a coastal metro region with mountains within it, which allows for many activities. Then we still have farms preserved, hilly areas or smaller mountains preserved as reservations, stuff like that. As someone said somewhere in this thread, one thing we're missing is desert other than that I think we're covered.
I think one could easily make the argument that the Chicago has something very similar in the northwest suburbs (e.g. Fox Lake, Chain o' Lakes state park, Crystal Lake, Antioch, etc.).
I honestly think people are being overly generous with Minneapolis. Don't get me wrong, it's a nice place, but most of the scenery in the metro area is pretty ho-hum, in my opinion. I think D.C. should really be at the top here.
All those suburbs are way WAY far outside central Chicago, close to the edge of the gigantic metro area. Most Chicagoans don't have easy access to those areas on a daily basis, whereas the entire Minneapolis metro is built around lakes.
Chain of Lakes starts essentially at the edge of downtown Minneapolis and trails all the way down to the airport and over to the Mississippi River and Minnehaha Park.
The western lake suburbs (centered on Lake Minnetonka) are only 15-20 miles from downtown Minneapolis.
The northern lake suburbs (centered on White Bear Lake) are 10-15 miles from downtown St. Paul.
Lake Como and Lake Phalen are 3-4 miles from downtown St. Paul.
Quote:
Originally Posted by yyuusr
I don't get what this means. How do they not have access? What's blocking them from going to those places?
Right, sorry that wasn't clear. Nothing's blocking them from going, I meant more just that most of the population of the metro area lives far enough away from "nature scenery/activities" that it wouldn't really be considered part of their everyday environment. I think I underestimated New York, though. Now that I think about it more, it should be ahead of DC and Chicago.
Right, sorry that wasn't clear. Nothing's blocking them from going, I meant more just that most of the population of the metro area lives far enough away from "nature scenery/activities" that it wouldn't really be considered part of their everyday environment. I think I underestimated New York, though. Now that I think about it more, it should be ahead of DC and Chicago.
When I saw this thread a few days ago I was not sure who to vote for. Personally I think the leaders are Minneapolis and New York with Boston not far behind.
Minneapolis I imagine has good access to a lot of lakes. New York has good access to various mountain resorts (more about that below) and ocean beaches. Boston has the White Mountains and the ocean. The three are roughly equal IMO.
But anyway I decided to settle it and be a homer because once again people are underestimating NYC when it comes to the outdoors and nature. Besides having a 9,000 acre National Wildlife Refugee in its own city borders, the Appalachian Trail actually runs through the hills and small mountains of New York's suburbs.
In addition, New Yorkers have close access to numerous mountain resorts areas - the Poconos, the Catskills, the Berkshires and further up the Adirondacks. The Adirondacks alone contain over 3,000 lakes. And then there is some pretty nice beaches on Long Island and the Jersey Shore.
Rather than simply state that my city is better than yours. Please list where one can go to and what one can do there.
Please, let's state what outdoor activities are. Is it limited to hiking, mountaineering, fishing, backpacking, canoeing, caving, skiing (water or snow), climbing, etc. Most of us BBQ outside. We walk our pet(s) outside. We go for a walk/ jog/ run outside.
Is a natural setting no longer "natural" if it is surrounded by man made objects? Is going to the local zoo an outdoor activity? Is a game of volleyball, softball, tee ball, etc., at the local park, an outdoor activity? Is bike riding an outdoor activity? When my mom told us to turn off the t.v. and go outside; should we have gone camping, instead of tossing a Nerf football?
I couldn't care less if Chicago comes out on the bottom. There certainly are outdoorsy things to do in Chicago and Chicagoland.
I presume that most, despite their location, will continue to participate in the activities that are immediately accessible to them. People that grew up without mountains, caves, hills, or even water, don't miss those things. They adapt to what their particular surroundings offer.
All those suburbs are way WAY far outside central Chicago, close to the edge of the gigantic metro area. Most Chicagoans don't have easy access to those areas on a daily basis, whereas the entire Minneapolis metro is built around lakes.
Right, sorry that wasn't clear. Nothing's blocking them from going, I meant more just that most of the population of the metro area lives far enough away from "nature scenery/activities" that it wouldn't really be considered part of their everyday environment. I think I underestimated New York, though. Now that I think about it more, it should be ahead of DC and Chicago.
Perhaps it is Minneapolis culture to visit a lake "on a daily basis." That's great! I presume that most of us are too caught up in the rat race called life to go to a lake, mountain, hill or cave everyday. I'm certainly content to go to the neighborhood park for an outdoorsy thing, whatever that is. I'm not in Chicagoland. So my children won't know the joys of living in a lake/ river city. However, they are just as content to run, jump, bug hunt, leaf gather, etc. The simple things.
It would be wonderful to have access to that many lakes. Please list the activities that you all participate in when you go to the lakes. You've listed the scenery part well.
1.Minneapolis (the only one that basically almost qualifies)
2.Boston
3.DC
Forget the rest. Man-made urban parks and bodies of water do not qualify as 'nature' and 'scenery'.
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.
I'm certainly content to go to the neighborhood park for an outdoorsy thing, whatever that is. I'm not in Chicagoland. So my children won't know the joys of living in a lake/ river city. However, they are just as content to run, jump, bug hunt, leaf gather, etc. The simple things. 
