Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 07-09-2018, 09:39 PM
 
23,688 posts, read 9,373,010 times
Reputation: 8652

Advertisements

I would choose Austin cuz its in Texas
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 07-10-2018, 01:22 AM
 
6,885 posts, read 8,263,485 times
Reputation: 3867
I would choose Sacramento because it is in California.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 08:26 AM
 
Location: San Jose, CA
87 posts, read 166,513 times
Reputation: 174
I've spent my time in the Midwestern and Eastern wilderness and while I do find them charming, they simply cannot compete with the wilderness you can find in the West.

I would say Sacramento is your best bet. Denver is a close second.
Both have great whitewater opportunities close by. COL should be close and weather should be on par.
In terms of mountains and skiing, Denver probably has a small advantage here although Sacramento with proximity to Lake Tahoe and Yosemite isn't far behind at all.

However, Sacramento is within striking distance of San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean (and the associated activities) while Denver is the biggest thing around for hundreds of miles. This is why I think Sacramento is the better option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 08:39 AM
 
Location: 0.83 Atmospheres
11,477 posts, read 11,552,056 times
Reputation: 11976
Quote:
Originally Posted by shoenberg3 View Post
I've spent my time in the Midwestern and Eastern wilderness and while I do find them charming, they simply cannot compete with the wilderness you can find in the West.

I would say Sacramento is your best bet. Denver is a close second.
Both have great whitewater opportunities close by. COL should be close and weather should be on par.
In terms of mountains and skiing, Denver probably has a small advantage here although Sacramento with proximity to Lake Tahoe and Yosemite isn't far behind at all.

However, Sacramento is within striking distance of San Francisco and the Pacific Ocean (and the associated activities) while Denver is the biggest thing around for hundreds of miles. This is why I think Sacramento is the better option.
I think this is a totally fair assessment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 10:58 AM
 
93,235 posts, read 123,842,121 times
Reputation: 18258
^ Again, what about the other criteria in the OP?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:14 AM
 
Location: On the Great South Bay
9,169 posts, read 13,239,989 times
Reputation: 10141
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckhthankgod View Post
^ Again, what about the other criteria in the OP?
Ok then.

This site shows many of the ski resorts in the Northeast. You can see how Albany is surrounded by mountains and forests.

Northeast Ski Resort Map - Resort Profiles, Snow Conditions
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 11:51 AM
 
93,235 posts, read 123,842,121 times
Reputation: 18258
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Ok then.

This site shows many of the ski resorts in the Northeast. You can see how Albany is surrounded by mountains and forests.

Northeast Ski Resort Map - Resort Profiles, Snow Conditions
THanks for the information. I knew Albany had multiple ski areas within a reasonable drive. This isn’t too far away either: https://www.lakegeorge.com/business/...ar-beach-8740/

I was curious about the other criteria in the original post though, as that would play a part in the OP’s decision.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 12:04 PM
 
Location: 0.83 Atmospheres
11,477 posts, read 11,552,056 times
Reputation: 11976
Quote:
Originally Posted by LINative View Post
Ok then.

This site shows many of the ski resorts in the Northeast. You can see how Albany is surrounded by mountains and forests.

Northeast Ski Resort Map - Resort Profiles, Snow Conditions
Yes those are “ski areas” however if skiing is very important, there is no comparison between skiing on those hills on the ice versus the big ski areas in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. This is not equivalent.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 01:59 PM
 
93,235 posts, read 123,842,121 times
Reputation: 18258
Quote:
Originally Posted by SkyDog77 View Post
Yes those are “ski areas” however if skiing is very important, there is no comparison between skiing on those hills on the ice versus the big ski areas in Utah, Wyoming, and Colorado. This is not equivalent.
Some may be "hills", but some are legitimate mountains as well.


Again, what about the other criteria such as cost of living, proximity to quaint towns, urban areas, etc.?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-10-2018, 03:41 PM
 
Location: Foot of the Rockies
90,297 posts, read 120,711,654 times
Reputation: 35920
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil P View Post
The state of CO does not have good biodiversity per square mile though. The southwest corner is pretty spectacular, but outside of that, especially on the front range, plants and wildlife (including things like bugs and butterflies) are limited to a select variety of species. Denver and the mountains around do have great terrain and climate diversity though. Which matters the most? Totally depends on the person.

The mountain towns are great, but most people live in the front range, and from my experience, people in CO don't spend much time outside around their house and in the immediate area being in nature, compared to the Midwest. It's more compartmentalised into a bundle of activities. Agian, it depends on whether a person wants a more consistent schedule of being outside some every day or whether they spend their outdoors in a grouped package on the weekend.
Seriously? Having lived both in the midwest and CO (and some other places but we're not talking about them right now) my experience is entirely the opposite. Currently living in CO. Like many people here, my friend and I walk every morning (well, almost every) and there are always many people out and about in the 'hood, walking dogs, riding bikes, or just plain walking, like us. In fact, no matter what time of day we go out, there are lots of people outside. That was not the case when I lived in the midwest. Too hot and humid in summer, too cold and damp in winter, no spring, OK fall.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top