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.
I think the western hills of the Austin area are more striking than the hilly, wooded scenery of Atlanta. I really like the Mediterranean look. The Colorado River also adds some nice water scenery. I agree that the flatter parts of the majority of Austin are typical flat and bland Texas city scenery.
Atlanta is the winner overall for consistency, but Austin has higher highs imo. Hill country is almost mountainous and provides amazing views. I think Austin is being a bit undersold in here
Yeah, I agree with this. Atl has a pleasant, lush, rollling topography throughout. But, it lacks the "instagram" scenery of a place like Mount Bonell with dramatic views of the river and hills. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mt...733421!5m1!1e4
I watched both videos keeping an open mind and nohing I saw in either of these videos strikes out to me as anything better than in the Atlanta metro. These hills can be found all over the Atlanta metro . In Atlanta The exposed rock along with the hilly lush terrain stand out more to me,
Austin just doesnt seem to hold a candle to Atlanta in this regard although its still very attractive area in its own right
Yeah, I agree with this. Atl has a pleasant, lush, rollling topography throughout. But, it lacks the "instagram" scenery of a place like Mount Bonell with dramatic views of the river and hills. https://www.google.com/maps/place/Mt...733421!5m1!1e4
I dont get why you would say that. You got views from Stone Mountain to Kennesaw
I dont get why you would say that. You got views from Stone Mountain to Kennesaw
Kinda agree and kinda disagree. The hills in Atlanta on average are much softer than the hills in W.Austin besides the actual mountains themselves and the Blueridge region. Atlanta does have striking hills but they don't hold consistently as well as West Austin's topography does, they are mainly only in certain areas like Vinings, Stone Mountain, Kennesaw - but are also much further from the core than the hills in Austin are. In terms of forestry, I would say Atlanta wins easily. In hills though West Austin has more consistent hill topography overall if not comparing to the Blueridge region. Atlanta also has very striking hill topography as well, its just not as consistent overall mainly because Atlanta sits at the very base of the foothills of Appalachia were as W.Austin is technically 'in' Hill Country - The far north hills of Atlanta metro though are on another level than Hill Country.
I'm by no means trying to boost Austin over Atlanta, just stating over the observation between having lived in both, the hills seem a bit more pronounced in Austin than they do in metro Atlanta with the exception of Kennesaw Mountain, Stone Mountain, Vinings area on a level of consistency. Atlanta does have areas like W.Austin but they are sectioned off into certain vicinities until you get to the north metro like around N.Cummings, Coal Mountain, Dawsonville, Dahlonega, ect. I am not saying you can't see stuff like this in Atlanta, but W.Austin's topography seems to hold these scenic points more consistently.
When comparing metro's as a whole though, Atlanta's lush and hilly scenery is more consistent as central and eastern Austin will drag the rest of the metro below Atlanta's level.
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.