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.
Dallas for scenery? like others said thats not a good idea. dallas is pretty flat in the middle of nowhere in texas. no river or hills, just flat with a bunch of cookie cutter suburbs.Atleast houston got the beach (texas beaches suck but whatever), austin and san antonio got the hill country and river. however, if we aren't talking scenery, then dallas is pretty. The skyline (especially at night) is beautiful. Lots of jobs in the area too.
But for scenery dallas lacks alot. Nashville is alot better in this category.
Dallas for scenery? like others said thats not a good idea. dallas is pretty flat in the middle of nowhere in texas. no river or hills, just flat with a bunch of cookie cutter suburbs.Atleast houston got the beach (texas beaches suck but whatever), austin and san antonio got the hill country and river. however, if we aren't talking scenery, then dallas is pretty. The skyline (especially at night) is beautiful. Lots of jobs in the area too.
But for scenery dallas lacks alot. Nashville is alot better in this category.
Scenery is one of the most overrated "requirements" on City-Data, IMO. Everybody on here apparently wants to live in a place that is lush and green, surrounded by mountains, AND close to a beach, so that they can do plenty of "outdoor activities," but 90% of people work all day 5 days a week, go home, bathe, eat, sleep, then wake up and repeat anyway.
If you have the weekend off, vacation days, etc. you might as well just drive 2 or 3 hours/take an occasional trip to get to scenery and outdoorsy stuff when you have free time. Since most Americans' lives revolve around work and then home and family (if they have one) when they are off work---unless the city you live in is just a barren, post apocalyptic wasteland or something---it's much more important to live in a city with a strong economy, plenty of good jobs, affordable cost of living, etc than one that's close to a beach, covered in green trees, or surrounded by mountains.
I know a lot of City-Data fanatics are going to strongly disagree, but that's just my opinion.
Scenery is one of the most overrated "requirements" on City-Data, IMO. Everybody on here apparently wants to live in a place that is lush and green, surrounded by mountains, AND close to a beach, so that they can do plenty of "outdoor activities," but 90% of people work all day 5 days a week, go home, bathe, eat, sleep, then wake up and repeat anyway.
If you have the weekend off, vacation days, etc. you might as well just drive 2 or 3 hours/take an occasional trip to get to scenery and outdoorsy stuff when you have free time. Since most Americans' lives revolve around work and then home and family (if they have one) when they are off work---unless the city you live in is just a barren, post apocalyptic wasteland or something---it's much more important to live in a city with a strong economy, plenty of good jobs, affordable cost of living, etc than one that's close to a beach, covered in green trees, or surrounded by mountains.
I know a lot of City-Data fanatics are going to strongly disagree, but that's just my opinion.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,590,333 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mentallect
Scenery is one of the most overrated "requirements" on City-Data, IMO. Everybody on here apparently wants to live in a place that is lush and green, surrounded by mountains, AND close to a beach, so that they can do plenty of "outdoor activities," but 90% of people work all day 5 days a week, go home, bathe, eat, sleep, then wake up and repeat anyway.
If you have the weekend off, vacation days, etc. you might as well just drive 2 or 3 hours/take an occasional trip to get to scenery and outdoorsy stuff when you have free time. Since most Americans' lives revolve around work and then home and family (if they have one) when they are off work---unless the city you live in is just a barren, post apocalyptic wasteland or something---it's much more important to live in a city with a strong economy, plenty of good jobs, affordable cost of living, etc than one that's close to a beach, covered in green trees, or surrounded by mountains.
I know a lot of City-Data fanatics are going to strongly disagree, but that's just my opinion.
I'd disagree, climate is very important to me, I can't live in a place that gets cold, or humid, or doesn't have alot of sunshine, or I get depressed. That leaves me the very small southwestern corner of this country.
I grew up in the Northeast, which has plenty of jobs, but I had to take prescription anti-depressants 6 months/year (I'm sure you can guess which ones), or I was a mess. No more since I moved to Phoenix, and eventually moving to California. You couldn't give me all the money in the world to live in a place like Chicago or Dallas!
Based on your wife's criteria Nashville may be a better fit. The scenery in Nashville is beautiful and more reminiscent of New England's natural setting minus the brutal winters.
To Dallas credit it is far more greener than Phoenix but a pretty bland landscape overall.
Scenery is one of the most overrated "requirements" on City-Data, IMO. Everybody on here apparently wants to live in a place that is lush and green, surrounded by mountains, AND close to a beach, so that they can do plenty of "outdoor activities," but 90% of people work all day 5 days a week, go home, bathe, eat, sleep, then wake up and repeat anyway.
If you have the weekend off, vacation days, etc. you might as well just drive 2 or 3 hours/take an occasional trip to get to scenery and outdoorsy stuff when you have free time. Since most Americans' lives revolve around work and then home and family (if they have one) when they are off work---unless the city you live in is just a barren, post apocalyptic wasteland or something---it's much more important to live in a city with a strong economy, plenty of good jobs, affordable cost of living, etc than one that's close to a beach, covered in green trees, or surrounded by mountains.
I know a lot of City-Data fanatics are going to strongly disagree, but that's just my opinion.
I see your point, but consider a place that is lush, green, and has reasonable weather conditions to be valued. A good paying job in a dump of a place (no reference to either city) is still a dump.
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.
