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.
East of 35 and also north of Parmer. Even the trees where Austin has a lot aren't nearly as tall and there is no way the density is the same. You should check out a map. Atlanta is literally built in a forest. Austin was not. Going by your logic, the north Houston suburbs have similar tree cover as Austin... but anyone who has been to both know that isn't true. Are you saying Austin is also as forested as Huntsville TX, which has similar geography as Atlanta?
That's not accurate. What you are referring to are recent suburban developments on former farmland. If it has no trees it's because humans cut them down them for agriculture. There is also very little of that in the Austin city limits. Austin is solid forests, naturally.
For an example, here is a picture I took just now of my completely unmaintained backyard!
That's not accurate. What you are referring to are recent suburban developments on former farmland. If it has no trees it's because humans cut them down them for agriculture. There is also very little of that in the Austin city limits. Austin is solid forests, naturally.
For an example, here is a picture I took just now of my completely unmaintained backyard!
That's a nice view (and you probably live near a creek) but doesn't change the fact that a lot of Austin sits on treeless prairie. Especially as you go further east. Thats why entering all those pine trees around Bastrop was so drastic coming from Austin because the landscape is mostly treeless.
Are you telling me all that land near 130 was forest until farms came?
Again, are you trying to say Austin and Atlanta have similar tree coverage because if you are them I have beachfront property in Waco to sell you lol. You and Frustratedintelligence need to look at the geography each area sits at. They both have different types of beauty.
I'm confused as to why we're even using "shoreline" as a metric to validate the claim that "DFW [supposedly] has more water within a 40 mile radius than any of the metros listed" (which is false.)
How are we defining shoreline? The Tampa Bay area is FULL of lakes, some large, some small. There are multiple rivers running through it, including the Hillsborough River. Springs all over the place, including all of the bayous and rivers in Tarpon Springs. Adding everything up would take forever. There are countless bodies of water in the area.
Exactly. This is just mind boggling that someone thinks DFW can even remotely compare to Tampa Bays access to water. It's beyond ridiculous.
That's a nice view (and you probably live near a creek) but doesn't change the fact that a lot of Austin sits on treeless prairie. Especially as you go further east. Thats why entering all those pine trees around Bastrop was so drastic coming from Austin because the landscape is mostly treeless.
Are you telling me all that land near 130 was forest until farms came?
Again, are you trying to say Austin and Atlanta have similar tree coverage because if you are them I have beachfront property in Waco to sell you lol.
Atlanta has much taller trees, I already said that. However, Austin is built in a forest nonetheless. Treeless prairie is not a natural environment for this part of Texas, that would have been manufactured by humans for agriculture purposes. My backyard is what Central Texas left alone looks like.
Atlanta has much taller trees, I already said that. However, Austin is built in a forest nonetheless. Treeless prairie is not a natural environment for this part of Texas, that would have been manufactured by humans for agriculture purposes. My backyard is what Central Texas left alone looks like.
Well it wasnt left alone so the result is a large portion of Austin's metro has no trees versus Atlanta where you cant find any significant plots of land together like that. There are gaps here and there but we're talking only a few acres versus several hundred square miles like around Austin. It's not all because of farms that Austin doesn't have tree coverage like Atlanta either. Same reason why DFW doesn't.
Besides, Texas generally has less trees the further west you go as the western landscape starts to take over, which is why Central Texas does not have near the tree cover as say East Texas. So East TX closely resembles the rest of the deep south in landscape with tall thick pine trees and rolling hills.
Well it wasnt left alone so the result is a large portion of Austin's metro has no trees versus Atlanta where you cant find any significant plots of land together like that. There are gaps here and there but we're talking only a few acres versus several hundred square miles like around Austin. It's not all because of farms either.
Besides, Texas generally has less trees the further west you go as the western landscape starts to take over, which is why Central Texas does not have near the tree cover as say East Texas. So East TX closely resembles the rest of the deep south in landscape with tall thick pine trees and rolling hills.
Again, the Austin city limits have very little of this (really just east by the airport?), and central Austin does not have any tree-less areas that I am aware of. I'll grant you there are some suburban developments north of Austin that are tree-less (former farmland) in Round Rock, Hutto, parts of Phlugerville, etc. I don't travel to these places often.
The western extremities of Austin have thinner soil that causes a shrubbier landscape, but it's still forested for the most part, just with more cedar trees and less oak. I believe that landscape is also caused by humans using the land for ranches in the 19th and 20th century. Even the dryer parts of the hill country west of Austin, are fairly forested e.g. The Balcones Wildlife Refuge.
Again, the Austin city limits have very little of this (really just east by the airport?), and central Austin does not have any tree-less areas that I am aware of. I'll grant you there are some suburban developments north of Austin that are tree-less (former farmland) in Round Rock, Hutto, parts of Phlugerville, etc. I don't travel to these places often.
The western extremities of Austin have thinner soil that causes a shrubbier landscape, but it's still forested for the most part, just with more cedar trees and less oak. I believe that landscape is also caused by humans using the land for ranches in the 19th and 20th century. Even the dryer parts of the hill country west of Austin, are fairly forested e.g. The Balcones Wildlife Refuge.
This thread is about metro areas. Even just talking city though (which Austin has large city limit boundaries), Austin does not have the tree coverage or density that Atlanta does and it is not even close. I don't think you've been to Atlanta at all. And this isn't saying Austin doesn't have trees either. It's just more like Dallas than it is Atlanta or even Houston.
I'll be honest, I'm kind of surprised to see someone try to say Austin has similar tree coverage to a Southeastern US city. Maybe if Austin was located where Bastrop is and the fire never happened you could have a better case, but that's also a much smaller area.
This thread is about metro areas. Even just talking city though (which Austin has large city limit boundaries), Austin does not have the tree coverage or density that Atlanta does and it is not even close. I don't think you've been to Atlanta at all. And this isn't saying Austin doesn't have trees either. It's just more like Dallas than it is Atlanta or even Houston.
I'll be honest, I'm kind of surprised to see someone try to say Austin has similar tree coverage to a Southeastern US city. Maybe if Austin was located where Bastrop is and the fire never happened you could have a better case, but that's also a much smaller area.
I never said it was equivalent to Atlanta, that is a strawman. I objected to you calling it a "treeless prairie". That is not accurate at all. Have you been to an actual prairie before? Austin is thickly forested.
I never said it was equivalent to Atlanta, that is a strawman. I objected to you calling it a "treeless prairie". That is not accurate at all. Have you been to an actual prairie before? Austin is thickly forested.
Been to Austin more times than I can count. Austin is not "thickly forested" unless you are in certain parts of the city (near the water or in the hills going west/southwest). East and North of downtown, if development hadn't taken place yet, then it's mostly treeless unless there is some water source nearby where trees weren't cut down or have always been. Where development has happened there are trees but that's because they were planted with the neighborhood or shopping center for the most part.
Also, you're asking me if I've been to an actual prairie but you do realize Austin literally sits in Texas' Blackland Prairie right? Does Atlanta sit in a prairie? I think not!
The Pineywoods region of Texas most resembles the deep south (so Atlanta too). Most of the City of Austin does not look like that in coverage or height. If you can't see it by now then I don't know what else to tell you other than travel lol.
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.
