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.
On the plus side, Lake Michigan is easier (and safer) to swim than an ocean beach and still has some waves. Though for NYC, one can get the same effect in a Long Island Sound beach. Farm country of upstate NY is more attractive than Illinois farm country, which is flat and doesn't have much woods to break up the farm country. New England has much more forests than farms, and is sometimes a bit monotonous.
Do people agree with my statement that the White Mountains make Boston the best of the ones listed?
Sandy produced at 32.5 foot wave 15 miles offshore. And 13.9 feet of storm surge in Lower Manhattan, though that's not really a wave. Not too many other downtowns have been flooded with storm surge…Some skyscrapers got 4-5+ feet of saltwater in them.
Do people agree with my statement that the White Mountains make Boston the best of the ones listed?
Yes, I do. I honestly think Minneapolis is being trumped up here. I think:
NYC~Boston > DC > Minneapolis > Chicago ~ Detroit
None of the Midwestern cities are even close to being within spitting distance of anything remotely resembling a mountain. NYC and Boston are at least in proximity of the Adirondacks, the Berkshires and the White Mts and are on the ocean. DC has tons of forest area and national parks in the city and in proximity of the area. Minneapolis has a bunch of smaller lakes, rivers, and is within proximity to forests to the north, but there's a lot of blah and bland farmland right in the area to the south and southwest. Chicago has Lake Michigan and some forest preserves, but the pretty parts of IL are mostly in the NW and far down south. Similar can be said about Detroit that is said about Chicago, except the directionality and lakes are different.
Yes, I do. I honestly think Minneapolis is being trumped up here. I think:
NYC~Boston > DC > Minneapolis > Chicago ~ Detroit
None of the Midwestern cities are even close to being within spitting distance of anything remotely resembling a mountain. NYC and Boston are at least in proximity of the Adirondacks, the Berkshires and the White Mts. DC has tons of forest area and national parks in the city and in proximity of the area. Minneapolis has a bunch of smaller lakes, rivers, and is within proximity to forests to the north, but there's a lot of blah and bland farmland right in the area to the south and southwest. Chicago has Lake Michigan and some forest preserves, but the pretty parts of IL are mostly in the NW and far down south. Similar can be said about Detroit that is said about Chicago, except the directionality and lakes are different.
Yeah, I would go with that, my initial post was more considering just the city propers. DC is close to Shenandoah and WV mountains at their peaks approaching 5000 and 3000 foot elevation and prominence respectively. NYC and Boston hit better and prettier elevation faster. What the greater New England area lacks is mind blowing vistas like Yosemite, Tahoe, Big Sur, Mt Shasta, etc. A lot of the other nature would fit in pretty nicely.
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.
