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'd say Michigan but I think this is a lot closer than the poll indicates. Michigan, Wisconsin and Minnesota are among the tops in the entire U.S. for outdoor recreation.
I voted for WI, because I live here, and I love it. I do think probably Michigan, though. Wisconsin and Michigan have the most Great Lakes shoreline in the country, both far surpassing Minnesota. As someone mentioned previously, Minnesota has a lot of flat plains, where Wisconsin has a much more interesting topography. I don't think Minnesota can come close to WI, with Door County, Bayfield, and the entire eastern border of the state of WI, being Lake Michigan. Been to all 3, and, IMO, they should be ranked Michigan, Wisconsin, then Minnesota.
The argument for Wisconsin is that it's uniformly pictureque. It has Door County and Lake Michigan to its east, Lake Superior and the Apostle Islands to the north, lakes all throughout, including in Madison - which has some of the best natural setting for a city in America.
Then you have bucolic farms, rolling hills in the Driftless Area and forests further north. Not to mention all major cities have water access - Milwaukee/Racine/Kenosha/Sheboygan (Lake Michigan), Madison (Lake Mendota/Lake Monona), Oshkosh/Appleton/Fond du Lac (Lake Winnebago), Green Bay (Lake Michigan/Door County), Superior (Lake Superior), La Crosse (Mississippi River), Stevens Point/Wisconsin Rapids (Wisconsin River), Wausau (Lake Wausau), Eau Claire (Lake Wissota).
I don't think any other Midwest state has such a consistently "picturesque" landscape.
Michigan's problem (though I voted for it) is that 95% of the people live in the Lower Mitten, which is quite dull compared to what Minnesota/Wisconsin offer its residents. Nearly all of its major cities are in flat, waterless land. Detroit has maritime access but Belle Isle/Detroit River/Lake Saint Clair isn't as nice as what Minneapolis/Milwaukee have.
Really, the UP pulls 90% of Michigan's weight (the rest a mix of Traverse City and Lake Michigan beach towns).
)Michigan's problem (though I voted for it) is that 95% of the people live in the Lower Mitten, which is quite dull compared to what Minnesota/Wisconsin offer its residents. Nearly all of its major cities are in flat, waterless land. Detroit has maritime access but Belle Isle/Detroit River/Lake Saint Clair isn't as nice as what Minneapolis/Milwaukee have.
Really, the UP pulls 90% of Michigan's weight (the rest a mix of Traverse City and Lake Michigan beach towns).
I've refrained from commenting so far but why does the Lower Peninsula seem dull, flat and waterless compared to what Minnesota offers its residents? Most of the Minnesota population lives in the MSP area. I think of the many lakes and trees it offers its residents but also the prairies and agriculture that come up to the edge of the metro area. The Detroit area has many lakes as well, especially the NW suburbs. The MSP area has the Mississippi River as well, but the Detroit area also has the areas you mention as well. To me that is a push between the two.
Then you have the Grand Rapids area which might be flat, but the lake influence is as big there as any city in Minnesota or Wisconsin. The city proper might be on a river, but the metro area contains the Lake Michigan shoreline plus some of the Lake Michigan Beach towns, so certainly not waterless.
I'm probably biased here, but I'm not seeing how the Lower Peninsula is quite dull compared to what Minnesota/Wisconsin offer its residents.
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.