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.
Definitely water. Give me Miami or Chicago over Denver and Phoenix anyday. Ideally both would be the best (SF, Seattle) but if I had to pick, defintely water. Mountains are nice to look at but i'm not a rock climber or some outdoor enthusiast extremist. Give me a nice day on the beach.
Austin, Texas is one of the hilliest big cities in the country between the Rocky and Appalachian Mountains. There's also Lady Bird Lake on the southern border of Downtown Austin that has at least a 10 mile hike and bike trail around the lake, and possibly more than 10 miles. Technically a reservoir, Lady Bird Lake is one of 6 lakes/reservoirs of the Colorado River that stretches maybe 60, 70, 80 miles into the Texas Hill Country, officially known as the Texas Highland Lakes. If you like water sports and recreation, those lakes are good places to be.
Definitely water. Give me Miami or Chicago over Denver and Phoenix anyday. Ideally both would be the best (SF, Seattle) but if I had to pick, defintely water. Mountains are nice to look at but i'm not a rock climber or some outdoor enthusiast extremist. Give me a nice day on the beach.
I totally agree. Both = best but if I had to pick, defo water! I don't even care if it's ocean/sea, a large lake like in Chicago or a big river like the Mississippi does it for me. Extra points if there are actual parks/beaches fronting the river and not just industry or higways along it.
It's funny that places known to not have enough water like Atlanta, GA or Midland, TX use what little water they've got in many of their photos online. Just google Midland, TX. Even on their wiki page the first photo is of course showing water: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland,_Texas
One has to ask if water isn't that important why even water-poor cities and towns strive to show off what little water they have like little ponds or fountains...
Seems like water, more than hills even, is like having a hot person in your ads. It sells a place like nothing else can. Don't believe me? Here's a screen cap of the images that come up on Google about Midland, TX :
1. A city directly located next to large mountains or an ocean/large body of water.
2. A city located directly next to large mountains or an ocean/large body of water but with the other amenity within a 5ish hour drive.
3. A city located directly next to large mountains or an ocean/large body of water but the other amenity is not within a 5 hour drive.
I think most will agree 1 and 2 are more desirable than 3, however the quality of the mountains or water in 3 could outweigh lower quality mountains/water in a city falling into categories 1 or 2. Denver or Salt Lake for example.
My city, Phoenix, is set within a nice set of mountains and has some decent sized lakes/rivers as well. But for a major body of water you're driving 3.5 hours. I put us in category 2.
4th category with neither large mountains or large body of water? Something like Odessa/Midland?
It would suck to be without either. Luckily we have the West Coast.
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.
:
