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.
Southwestern Dallas County has forested hills. You don’t have to drive to Austin for that.
There’s also Hill Country West of Ft Worth that has some gorgeous nature scenery. DFW has more diversity in its look rather than just forest and pines all over. You have way more water recreation options in DFW as well.
Atlanta is noticeably hilly in certain areas, especially in the northern suburbs.
Surprisingly, so is Dallas in its southwestern suburbs like Kessler Park and you actually have mountainous hiking at Cedar Creek Preserve. It doesn't feel like Texas when you're there.
Clarification on something I said above about the differences being null... I was mainly talking about when you're in the urban parts. Both are tons of concrete with some trees sprinkled throughout.
Urban greenery, ATL might get the nod, but really not that much. I'd really say they're comparable.
Travel an our outside of ATL and you do have ALOT more woods. But woods and pine trees don't exactly get topography points in my opinion.
Clarification on something I said above about the differences being null... I was mainly talking about when you're in the urban parts. Both are tons of concrete with some trees sprinkled throughout.
Urban greenery, ATL might get the nod, but really not that much. I'd really say they're comparable.
Travel an our outside of ATL and you do have ALOT more woods. But woods and pine trees don't exactly get topography points in my opinion.
Atlanta is literally called a city in a forest. It’s not just trees sprinkled here and there. Sure you can compare them, but Atlanta comes out on top quite handily. I’m also not sure why you keep bringing up pine trees like they are the only tree to be seen. Metro Atlanta is chocked full of an exuberant variety of deciduous trees. The far northern suburbs are basically in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains.
Atlanta is literally called a city in a forest. It’s not just trees sprinkled here and there. Sure you can compare them, but Atlanta comes out on top quite handily. I’m also not sure why you keep bringing up pine trees like they are the only tree to be seen. Metro Atlanta is chocked full of an exuberant variety of deciduous trees. The far northern suburbs are basically in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains.
Exactly! To suggest that it is 'nothing but pine trees' is beyond ridiculous, it is loaded with all sorts of hardwood trees. The Fall color right now is beautiful.
Southwestern Dallas County has forested hills. You don’t have to drive to Austin for that.
There’s also Hill Country West of Ft Worth that has some gorgeous nature scenery. DFW has more diversity in its look rather than just forest and pines all over. You have way more water recreation options in DFW as well.
Where in the Metroplex can you fish for Rainbow Trout in an ice-cold, mountain originating river?
I'd pick Atlanta pretty easily here. I do like Dallas, and enjoyed living there, but regardless of income I think Atlanta would be a better fit for me.
I find the conversation on terrain and foliage interesting though. Both Dallas and Atlanta have hills within certain parts of their metros, but there's nothing comparable near Dallas to the north Georgia Appalachian foothills which essentially touch the Atlanta metro. I honestly think that area is prettier than the Hill Country (which isn't close to Dallas at all).
They are very comparable though in many ways. Good thread.
Surprisingly, so is Dallas in its southwestern suburbs like Kessler Park and you actually have mountainous hiking at Cedar Creek Preserve. It doesn't feel like Texas when you're there.
You and I have two drastically different definitions of mountainous. In my book there is literally nothing mountainous within 300 miles of DFW (not even the MINO of Arkansas and Oklahoma).
You and I have two drastically different definitions of mountainous. In my book there is literally nothing mountainous within 300 miles of DFW (not even the MINO of Arkansas and Oklahoma).
Agreed. And don't forget, 300 miles....is STILL 300 miles. Not a fun little day trip at that point.
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.
