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.
How far? Lake Superior and the North Woods are a few hours away. The city has great parks and nature and the macro region has good parks and nature, while other cities may be better or worse, city or regionally.
But I get the sense you are looking for a specific result. If so, what was the "correct" answer?
I am not looking for a specific result, I said the poll results don't match up to what people actually said about their surroundings in this thread. But I am sensing you still want the answer to be Minneapolis if the surroundings and distance are taken into consideration. If you are meaning to say that just go ahead and say it instead of stalling.
The question still asks to consider surroundings and distance outside the city limits. I am guessing you are one of the ones that choose to ignore that part.
A multitude of lakes in the immediate area, Mississippi River Bluffs less than an hour away (and the Mississippi offering many other activities -- The Mississisppi National River and Recreation area travels directly through the Twin Cities), a variety of waterfalls in the immediate area, the St. Croix river, a great lake is about 2.5 hours, an urban wildlife refuge between Minneapolis and St. Paul, numerous state parks, mountain ranges with 2,000 + peaks 3-4 hours, cross country skiing everywhere, smaller ski hills within 30 minutes-1.5 hours and respectable hills 3 hours, a gigantic national park about 4 hours, you can bike on trails everywhere...
The reason that the poll is showing Minneapolis as the winner is because of the (correct) perception of Minneapolis as the most "outdoorsy" of these cities. I don't think it means having the most superior natural amenities, but taking advantage of these, which Minneapolis does. Why else would that crazy unforgiving climate be a place where a higher percentage of people commute by bike than pretty much any other U.S. city?
At the end of the day the poll results turned out to quite inaccurate to what people actually said here. Most people agreed that the East Coast > Minneapolis if their surroundings and distance is taken into consideration which is what my question was really asking, yet Minneapolis is winning this by a landslide. People were also saying that Chicago is one of the worst in this regard yet it is somehow in the running with some of the east coast cities. I don't know if people just genuinely didn't understand the real question or just choose to ignore it but most people from what it seems like voted for city limits.
East Coast vs Minneapolis seemed like a mix depending on how posters weight. The OP wasn't clear whether you're referring to areas close to the city or a daytrip away:
Quote:
Comparing them based on what they offer around their city and surroundings by distance. Left out Pittsburgh for obvious reasons.
A multitude of lakes in the immediate area, Mississippi River Bluffs less than an hour away (and the Mississippi offering many other activities -- The Mississisppi National River and Recreation area travels directly through the Twin Cities), a variety of waterfalls in the immediate area, the St. Croix river, a great lake is about 2.5 hours, an urban wildlife refuge between Minneapolis and St. Paul, numerous state parks, mountain ranges with 2,000 + peaks 3-4 hours, cross country skiing everywhere, smaller ski hills within 30 minutes-1.5 hours and respectable hills 3 hours, a gigantic national park about 4 hours, you can bike on trails everywhere...
The reason that the poll is showing Minneapolis as the winner is because of the (correct) perception of Minneapolis as the most "outdoorsy" of these cities. I don't think it means having the most superior natural amenities, but taking advantage of these, which Minneapolis does. Why else would that crazy unforgiving climate be a place where a higher percentage of people commute by bike than pretty much any other U.S. city?
Well it's good that you are providing examples. That's good information.
But never was the question about which city's residents are the most outdoorsy. That much should have at least been perfectly clear. That is a completely different topic and has no relevance in the question at hand.
East Coast vs Minneapolis seemed like a mix depending on how posters weight. The OP wasn't clear whether you're referring to areas close to the city or a daytrip away:
I suppose the OP could have been more clear. It should have been perfectly clear if one had been actually reading the thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by yyuusr
Yeah, if it wasn't clear with my initial post I'm talking of including metro area and beyond, not just city limits.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliff Clavin
OP:
IMO, a 2-3hr drive is a daytrip. 90-95% of my trips north to go snowboarding are daytips.
But I am guessing most people don't even read past even the first page. Which would go to support the theory people didn't perfectly understand the question. I'm willing to accept my fault in the part.
I suppose the OP could have been more clear. It should have been perfectly clear if one had been reading the thread at all:
But I am guessing most people don't even read past even the first page. Which would go to support the theory people didn't perfectly understand the question. I'm willing to accept my fault in the part.
I read the whole thread but it was months ago. In any case, I can see people favoring Minneapolis if they're ok with relatively gentle topography and no ocean. It's in a less developed region and sounds like it has ample forests and lakes and larger trail system. I'd weight dramatic scenery more, which is why I chose Boston. Though it's stretch to call all but a few places in the Northeast dramatic, but parts of northern New England are probably about as good as it gets.
I read the whole thread but it was months ago. In any case, I can see people favoring Minneapolis if they're ok with relatively gentle topography and no ocean. It's in a less developed region and sounds like it has ample forests and lakes and larger trail system. I'd weight dramatic scenery more, which is why I chose Boston. Though it's stretch to call all but a few places in the Northeast dramatic, but parts of northern New England are probably about as good as it gets.
Exactly. The forests, lakes, and trails factored into my opinion and I'd assume many others'.
Well it's good that you are providing examples. That's good information.
But never was the question about which city's residents are the most outdoorsy. That much should have at least been perfectly clear. That is a completely different topic and has no relevance in the question at hand.
You clearly didn't read what followed. Well, guess the majority of those polled had a different perspective than I guess you do.
Well it's good that you are providing examples. That's good information.
But never was the question about which city's residents are the most outdoorsy. That much should have at least been perfectly clear. That is a completely different topic and has no relevance in the question at hand.
You do seem a bit upset that Minneapolis is leading in the voting. If you didn't want and/or expect that result, you probably shouldn't have included it in the poll. Particularly given that it was a "stretch" to even define Minneapolis as a big city.
Here's your original question:
Quote:
Which large city from the Northeast or the Midwest is best for nature scenery/activties? Comparing them based on what they offer around their city and surroundings by distance.
You ask which city is best for nature scenery/activities. You then make reference to "around the city" and "surroundings by distance". These are very imprecise criteria, and will be interpreted differently by those who assess them.
You mentioned in one of your posts that you didn't feel that the voting results matched what posters were saying. I wouldn't expect them to! Only about half of the people voting have contributed a post to the thread, and it is common for such threads to be dominated by the posts of those who disagree with the majority position.
I voted a long time ago. This is my first post to the thread. I suspect that for many, such as myself, we considered our vote to be an obvious one, which didn't require a post to expound upon or justify itself.
You have a city which has received a strong plurality of the votes cast. So, at least in the collective opinion of those who have voted, you have an answer to your original post.
You clearly didn't read what followed. Well, guess the majority of those polled had a different perspective than I guess you do.
I read you whole post, I am failing to understand what part of your post acts as evidence that people didn't misunderstand the question. You clearly haven't been reading the thread.
It seems like you are very proud that Minneapolis won the poll. Good for you. But like I was saying to the other guy if you want to make the claim that it is still superior than every one of these cities even with surroundings and distance taken into consideration go right ahead instead of stalling.
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.
