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.
NW Arkansas is prettier than anywhere in Iowa, and the state's climate is more mild. We range from -30 in the winter to north of 100 in the summer. You can see 70 degree swings in less than a week.
We blow the doors off Arkansas in every other category.
The Ozarks are very nice, and I'm inclined to agree that it's more picturesque than anything Iowa has to offer, but the Driftless Area doesn't seem to get its due. It's certainly one of the country's better-kept secrets.
The Ozarks are very nice, and I'm inclined to agree that it's more picturesque than anything Iowa has to offer, but the Driftless Area doesn't seem to get its due. It's certainly one of the country's better-kept secrets.
I live on the edge of the Driftless Area and absolutely love it, but the Ozarks are a step up scenery wise.
Honestly, I'm glad the Driftless still slides under the national radar. When people come upon it, they tend to be blown away/completely surprised.
The biggest knock against the Driftless Area in Iowa is that it covers only a very small portion of the state. The bulk of the area is actually in Wisconsin.
The Ozarks are mainly in southern Missouri, but the Arkansas Ozarks is still significantly larger than the Iowa Driftless Area.
The biggest knock against the Driftless Area in Iowa is that it covers only a very small portion of the state. The bulk of the area is actually in Wisconsin.
The Ozarks are mainly in southern Missouri, but the Arkansas Ozarks is still significantly larger than the Iowa Driftless Area.
It's bigger than people realize, I think. Pretty much from north of Clinton along the Mississippi, and extends 50ish miles to the west. The bulk is definitely in Wisconsin, but the Iowa and Minnesota portions are significant, and Iowa's contains arguably the most dramatic scenery (Upper Iowa River) it has to offer.
It's not really on main travel routes, and Dubuque is the only city larger than 12,000 in the Iowa portion. There just aren't a lot of people up this way, and no one passes through on their way to somewhere else.
But the Arkansas Ozarks are definitely more square miles, and there is more public land. There is no national forest in the Driftless at all.
It's bigger than people realize, I think. Pretty much from north of Clinton along the Mississippi, and extends 50ish miles to the west. The bulk is definitely in Wisconsin, but the Iowa and Minnesota portions are significant, and Iowa's contains arguably the most dramatic scenery (Upper Iowa River) it has to offer.
It's not really on main travel routes, and Dubuque is the only city larger than 12,000 in the Iowa portion. There just aren't a lot of people up this way, and no one passes through on their way to somewhere else.
But the Arkansas Ozarks are definitely more square miles, and there is more public land. There is no national forest in the Driftless at all.
Technically, the Effigy Mounds National Monument is in the Driftless Area, but IIRC it's among the least-visited sites governed by the National Park Service. That's probably in no small part due to inaccessibility - I-90 does go through the Minnesota and Wisconsin portions of the Driftless Area, but tourist draw is minimal because so much of the area is dominated by private land, and most of the remainder is state parks and forests that might get more visitors if it were federally-funded rather than state-funded. But I don't think there's much clamoring to make the Driftless Area a national park or forest.
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.