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 agree for the most part. Little Rock takes more time to explore, and the natural surroundings are great. I think visiting Columbia might give you a better perspective though.
Yeah, if it wasn't so far away I'd have visited SC and GA by now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutiny77
I'd have to question that. Two hours from Columbia puts you almost at the the coast in one direction and in the foothills--almost in the mountains in the other--and Columbia itself sits in the Sandhills. LR sit at the intersection of three corollary geographic regions (Level II ecoregions) within its state also, but is nowhere near the coast which is what gives Columbia an edge there. It does seem that LR's immediate surroundings are more scenic though.
I think it would ultimately depend on how much one likes and visits the ocean. For a land blubber like me, I'd much rather have the Ouachita National Forest nearby than a coastline, but preferences vary.
I think it would ultimately depend on how much one likes and visits the ocean. For a land blubber like me, I'd much rather have the Ouachita National Forest nearby than a coastline, but preferences vary.
I do understand that people will have their preferences when it comes to scenery, but the dramatic variety in geographic landscapes from the coast to the foothills/mountains is still within a 2 hour-ish radius of Columbia. You can go from flat wetlands and marshes with native wild palm varieties and moss-draped oaks to the rolling foothills with more deciduous trees scattered about where the mountains can be seen in the distance.
I haven't been to Columbia, but Little Rocks position at the confluence of 5 ecoregions is pretty neat, so the geography of the 2 hour driving radius around LR is much more varied. And there's more public land in AR than there is in SC.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. A lot of people put a lot of stock of being near the ocean. I like the ocean, but SC isn't a place that I'm drawn to for the ocean. If you don't require an ocean, LR holds it's own just fine here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Need4Camaro
Columbia.
Little Rock has way too much crime for a city its size.
Yes, but Columbia isn't exactly low crime for it's size either. If crime were that much of a concern, there are a lot of places light years ahead of either one of these.
Yeah, I'd agree with that. A lot of people put a lot of stock of being near the ocean. I like the ocean, but SC isn't a place that I'm drawn to for the ocean. If you don't require an ocean, LR holds it's own just fine here.
But we're talking about regional geographical variety here, not the type of geography one personally prefers. The fact of the matter is that the coast contributes significantly to the the geographic variety within Columbia's larger orbit and is something that has no equivalent within the region surrounding Little Rock, so to proclaim that Little Rock is superior for geographic variety because its region has one or two more of one of the smallest types of ecoregions (Level III) which have minimal distinctions among those within the same higher level category (Level II) sounds quite dubious and a bit biased to me.
Also SC's ocean appeal is much more about the cities and amenities that are located along the coast and not really the ocean itself. I'd also add that the Lowcountry natural coastal aesthetic, the regional history associated with it, and the local culture it nurtured also comprise a big part of that appeal
Quote:
Yes, but Columbia isn't exactly low crime for it's size either. If crime were that much of a concern, there are a lot of places light years ahead of either one of these.
While this is true, SC and its jurisdictions tend to utilize more sources (e.g., law enforcement agencies) in compiling its crime statistics than most others, which can skew figures somewhat but most likely not substantially so.
For Little Rock, when it comes to its (historical) reputation for crime and violence, this is where one of those ecoregions that was touted as a geographic advantage acts as a double-edged sword as it also has a socioeconomic disadvantage. The Arkansas Delta, which is basically the Mississippi Delta located within the state of Arkansas, is plagued with some historic and deep-seated inequities, most notably when it comes to poverty, which, in turn, has a strong correlation with urban crime not unlike several other Delta cities (e.g., Memphis, New Orleans, Jackson to a lesser extent, etc). In particular, the proliferation of violent gang activity in the 90s in Little Rock nearly made it a household name due to a popular HBO documentary that covered gang slayings in the city. Reputations of that sort can be hard to shake later down the line and Columbia has nothing comparable, its status as a feature jurisdiction on Live PD notwithstanding.
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.
