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.
For overall variety and access, Southern California (from Ventura down to San Diego County), with LA serving as its core urban area.
For majestic destinations within an hour to a couple hours, SF Bay Area...I mean the Redwoods, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe are top global destinations for nature lovers. Nonetheless, for the serious hiker SoCal still wins due to the wide variety of mountain ranges *immediately* around greater LA.
I think Portland makes a good case for variety as well. You got some beautiful ranges, plenty of river action, not too far from the coast, as well as sand dunes/desert further south.
Seattle, PNW in general, I think has this perfect mix of scenary, access and majestic. Not as much variety as SoCal, but I mean Olympic National Park alone would probably be enough for most people to choose Seattle over any other metro. Unless, of course, sunny days and warmth are a must.
On the opposite end, if you really enjoy desert, but wouldn't mind escaping into some green forest whenever you wanted to cool down within a short drive, Phoenix is superb and just as gorgeous, if you know how to appreciate it. Also, it is a very unique desert ecosystem in that it feels much more alive (with both plants and animals) and lush than your typical desert.
Overall, the true nature trekking urbanite can't really go wrong with any major metro on the west. I think at that point it would come down to how much urban amenities you want, what type and general lifestyle preferences. If COL is important, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake should be considered. If they prefer a more international, cosmopolitan and diverse metro LA and SF are your top picks. Etc etc
I haven't seen either Sacramento, Ca or Richmond, Va in this thread and they both deserve a mention. Truth be told, it'd be easier to create a list of major US cities that do not have easy access to surrounding nature, it's a beautiful country.
I haven't seen either Sacramento, Ca or Richmond, Va in this thread and they both deserve a mention. Truth be told, it'd be easier to create a list of major US cities that do not have easy access to surrounding nature, it's a beautiful country.
Location: Watching half my country turn into Gilead
3,530 posts, read 4,172,482 times
Reputation: 2925
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheFlats
I haven't seen either Sacramento, Ca or Richmond, Va in this thread and they both deserve a mention. Truth be told, it'd be easier to create a list of major US cities that do not have easy access to surrounding nature, it's a beautiful country.
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK508
I wholeheartedly agree
Okay, so then let's flip it: what major US city does have the least/most difficult access to nature? I think we could possibly discount natural bodies of water (rivers, lakes, shorelines, creeks, etc.) since I can't think of any modern city in this country, outside of the desert SW, that isn't formed around those. Indianapolis? (no clue, but I've never really heard that city touted for outdoor activities)
Okay, so then let's flip it: what major US city does have the least/most difficult access to nature? I think we could possibly discount natural bodies of water (rivers, lakes, shorelines, creeks, etc.) since I can't think of any modern city in this country, outside of the desert SW, that isn't formed around those. Indianapolis? (no clue, but I've never really heard that city touted for outdoor activities)
My vote is for the concrete jungle that is NYC. While I live in an area where I am able to take walks in Central Park, half the time it isn't very satisfying. You're still surrounded on all sides by buildings and street sounds. And it's often crowded, so it isn't very relaxing. That's why I prefer to go on cold days...Prospect Park is my favorite slice of nature in NYC, but now it's a pain in the ass for me to get there, and unless you live near a park (not most people), the fact is if you're a New Yorker, nature just isn't a part of your daily life. Maybe there's some industrial city in the U.S. where it's more difficult, but just speaking from my own personal experience...
That's what I was really getting at here, in which city is nature most a part of your daily life? In what city are you most likely to look at your apartment window (hell, even your car window) and see something beautiful? Whether that be a view of trees, a mountain, ocean, what have you...
My vote is for the concrete jungle that is NYC. While I live in an area where I am able to take walks in Central Park, half the time it isn't very satisfying. You're still surrounded on all sides by buildings and street sounds. And it's often crowded, so it isn't very relaxing. That's why I prefer to go on cold days...Prospect Park is my favorite slice of nature in NYC, but now it's a pain in the ass for me to get there, and unless you live near a park (not most people), the fact is if you're a New Yorker, nature just isn't a part of your daily life. Maybe there's some industrial city in the U.S. where it's more difficult, but just speaking from my own personal experience...
That's what I was really getting at here, in which city is nature most a part of your daily life? In what city are you most likely to look at your apartment window (hell, even your car window) and see something beautiful? Whether that be a view of trees, a mountain, ocean, what have you...
Nah, NYC is fairly easy to do if you just get a rental car, I have relatives who live in Brooklyn that does so regularly. It's just that majority of it's resident couldn't care any less about nature, so they don't really wanna waste time and money over it.
As for parks, if you find NYC difficult to access in terms of parks, you will feel similar about every city in the US. It's like like the highest or one of the highest in terms of parkland percentage. Urban parks are it's own type of attractions though.
Okay, so then let's flip it: what major US city does have the least/most difficult access to nature? I think we could possibly discount natural bodies of water (rivers, lakes, shorelines, creeks, etc.) since I can't think of any modern city in this country, outside of the desert SW, that isn't formed around those. Indianapolis? (no clue, but I've never really heard that city touted for outdoor activities)
Most of the Midwest/Eastcoast maybe? Detroit, Cleveland, Baltimore, Philly, DC etc. ?
I think there's a difference between having access to nature, and actually having nature within the city limits, or metro area. Because in actuality, every city has some kind of access to nature, that's what makes the US so unique, it's a very large country. But there are cities that actually promote nature as one of the cities distinct aspects. Hiking is very possible in cities like Las Vegas, LA, Phoenix, Birmingham, Pittsburgh, and etc. and you don't necessarily have to leave the metro area. Same with Hunting, and Fishing and etc.
Nah, NYC is fairly easy to do if you just get a rental car, I have relatives who live in Brooklyn that does so regularly. It's just that majority of it's resident couldn't care any less about nature, so they don't really wanna waste time and money over it.
As for parks, if you find NYC difficult to access in terms of parks, you will feel similar about every city in the US. It's like like the highest or one of the highest in terms of parkland percentage. Urban parks are it's own type of attractions though.
As I've said, it's not a part of your daily life. NYC will (and should) never come up in cities for nature lovers. This isn't a thread about parkland. Parkland is just the most easily accessible nature in NYC (or views of the East/Hudson Rivers, depending where you are).
I refer subsequent posters to the question I posted in my previous one:
Quote:
Originally Posted by JK508
That's what I was really getting at here, in which city is nature most a part of your daily life? In what city are you most likely to look at your apartment window (hell, even your car window) and see something beautiful? Whether that be a view of trees, a mountain, ocean, what have you...
I wanna know which city is best to get yo' nature walk on! Stop being so pedantic with your answers people, and have some fun
For overall variety and access, Southern California (from Ventura down to San Diego County), with LA serving as its core urban area.
For majestic destinations within an hour to a couple hours, SF Bay Area...I mean the Redwoods, Yosemite and Lake Tahoe are top global destinations for nature lovers. Nonetheless, for the serious hiker SoCal still wins due to the wide variety of mountain ranges *immediately* around greater LA.
I think Portland makes a good case for variety as well. You got some beautiful ranges, plenty of river action, not too far from the coast, as well as sand dunes/desert further south.
Seattle, PNW in general, I think has this perfect mix of scenary, access and majestic. Not as much variety as SoCal, but I mean Olympic National Park alone would probably be enough for most people to choose Seattle over any other metro. Unless, of course, sunny days and warmth are a must.
On the opposite end, if you really enjoy desert, but wouldn't mind escaping into some green forest whenever you wanted to cool down within a short drive, Phoenix is superb and just as gorgeous, if you know how to appreciate it. Also, it is a very unique desert ecosystem in that it feels much more alive (with both plants and animals) and lush than your typical desert.
Overall, the true nature trekking urbanite can't really go wrong with any major metro on the west. I think at that point it would come down to how much urban amenities you want, what type and general lifestyle preferences. If COL is important, Phoenix, Denver and Salt Lake should be considered. If they prefer a more international, cosmopolitan and diverse metro LA and SF are your top picks. Etc etc
I like this thread a lot. A lot of very good posts, and everyone is being respectful.
I do like your post the best. Totally could not say it better myself.
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.
