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.
The original post is odd because it seems to be focused on parks and outdoorsy trips, but it does not explicitly specify we are talking these sort of day trips. San Francisco has fantastic outdoorsy day trips. The Mid-Atlantic, especially Philadelphia and New York, has the best mix of urban and outdoorsy day trips.
The original post is odd because it seems to be focused on parks and outdoorsy trips, but it does not explicitly specify we are talking these sort of day trips. San Francisco has fantastic outdoorsy day trips. The Mid-Atlantic, especially Philadelphia and New York, has the best mix of urban and outdoorsy day trips.
New York Philly and Boston.
Bmore and DC a bit less so IMO-not as many great outdoorsy trips.
Bmore and DC a bit less so IMO-not as many great outdoorsy trips.
The original post just seemed like a humble brag.
Baltimore and DC seem a bit further away from some solid mountains than the other major cities of the Northeast Corridor, but I'm not sure if that's just my impression or actually true.
Baltimore and DC seem a bit further away from some solid mountains than the other major cities of the Northeast Corridor, but I'm not sure if that's just my impression or actually true.
Bmore and DC a bit less so IMO-not as many great outdoorsy trips.
The original post just seemed like a humble brag.
I emphasized New York and Philadelphia, because we have the most central access to the rest of the Northeast Corridor. Boston and D.C. are quite a distance from one another.
DC has fantastic access to Shenandoah National Park, a beautiful outdoor getaway.
I prefer the day trip potential of any one city in the Northeast Corridor over any one city in California, personally.
I emphasized New York and Philadelphia, because we have the most central access to the rest of the Northeast Corridor. Boston and D.C. are quite a distance from one another.
DC has fantastic access to Shenandoah National Park, a beautiful outdoor getaway.
I prefer the day trip potential of any one city in the Northeast Corridor over any one city in California, personally.
Agreed. I like nature to an extent, but SF is simply too isolated from any other major cities outside its CSA and Sacramento. Reno's not a major city IMO. LA is seven hours away. Sacramento is a nice quiet place to live but let's not pretend it has anywhere near the history that Alexandria, Richmond, and Williamsburg have. Also, unless you're a diehard skiier, the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge are great. A mountain doesn't have to be over ten thousand feet tall to be scenic or worth hiking.
I'd also add that on a similar vein, Atlanta can easily compete with SF in terms of day trips.
I emphasized New York and Philadelphia, because we have the most central access to the rest of the Northeast Corridor. Boston and D.C. are quite a distance from one another.
DC has fantastic access to Shenandoah National Park, a beautiful outdoor getaway.
I prefer the day trip potential of any one city in the Northeast Corridor over any one city in California, personally.
Boston has more access to Islands/beaches/skiing etc than Philly or NYC. And it has access to NYC.
Objectively speaking (so much as I can), if your focus was mountains/national parks, I think you’d pick Salt Lake City over SF-or any other big metro. If your focus was varied biomes/mix of natural surroundings, I think you’d pick LA, given the proximity of coastal islands, alpine mountains/lakes, deserts, and even Sequoia Forest (which is closer to LA than SF. If your focus was having big mountains, and trees, and coast, I think you’d pick Seattle first. That isn’t to diss SF, just that it’s a big world out there.
Looking more broadly than that, I’d take Cleveland’s location of any in the Midwest, Richmond of any in the south, and Philadelphia of any in the Northeast.
On a global standpoint I’d probably pick Milan or Paris.. or potentially Hong Kong.
Yes. In SLC you can hit the ski slopes in an hour instead of three hours like in SF. And we're talking about fine, Wasatch Range powder vs. that wet hardpack snow of the Sierras.
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.
