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.
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!
I said I was done with this topic but I'm so glad you mentioned this. In the past I've brought up how none of the cities in the Texas Triangle are true Plains cities but were historically forested terrain, and this fact falls on deaf ears every single time. Apparently people see an open area of land and believe it must have always looked that way.
Atlanta lacks riverfront access for most and most wouldn't know it was there as doesn't traverse the city like water does for Austin and Nashville. I'd rank Austin's tree canopy as good as Atlanta's and I lived in the latter and visit the former often.
Now this I disagree with. No part of Austin should be described as treeless, but its present day canopy is definitely not on par with Atlanta's.
I said I was done with this topic but I'm so glad you mentioned this. In the past I've brought up how none of the cities in the Texas Triangle are true Plains cities but were historically forested terrain, and this fact falls on deaf ears every single time. Apparently people see an open area of land and believe it must have always looked that way.
So because Austin had more trees 400+ years ago it somehow means there are more trees there today, and it looks similar to Atlanta? Weren't you the one just a few pages ago saying they should have planned better in Houston to keep the landscape attractive before it got real populated?
Here is a graph of the tree canopy's of certain cities in the U.S., not surprisingly Atlanta is number one but Austin is number six in the country. So yeah Austin's tree canopy is not quite on the same level as Atlanta but Austin is just outside the top five. So this notion that Austin is some treeless prairie is simply not true. https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1554...7f87c288_b.jpg
I'm going with Atlanta. The tree converage is unmatched and the hills make driving relaxing when off the freeway. Very green. Nashville comes close and I even think it has higher elevatoon points than ATL closer into the city.
Honestly surprised Miami has gotten so many votes. It looks nice along the coast but go inland and itslike any flat suburban area for the most part. No hills, forests, and the only waterways are there for drainage purposes.
Many people don't know it, but Metro Miami is the only one in the nation that borders 3 National Parks which abut its urban boundaries:
Everglades National Park
Biscayne National Park
Big Cypress National Preserve (it is a national park, but hunting is allowed)
Most visitors here just see the the drive to and from the beach and fail to understand that it is the only tropical zone in the continental US. Drive 45 minutes out of Downton Miami and you reach the upper Florida Keys which another different world. So I think the uniqueness of its vistas in relation to the rest of the US counts for something.
However, Miami is best experenced by boat. I took it in Biscayne Bay in 2014 - at 6:05 you can see the skyline in the background.
Does it really matter if it's a national park, state park, national forest, national wildlife refuge...
Many metros have multiple government managed treed areas. Houston for example has the Brazos, Trinity, Anahuac and San Bernard National Wildlife refuge along with the Sam Houston National Forest. In addition there are multiple state managed parks and wildlife areas.
I know there is a difference in terms of function, but they all contribute in terms of aesthetics
Many people don't know it, but Metro Miami is the only one in the nation that borders 3 National Parks which abut its urban boundaries:
Everglades National Park
Biscayne National Park
Big Cypress National Preserve (it is a national park, but hunting is allowed)
Most visitors here just see the the drive to and from the beach and fail to understand that it is the only tropical zone in the continental US. Drive 45 minutes out of Downton Miami and you reach the upper Florida Keys which another different world. So I think the uniqueness of its vistas in relation to the rest of the US counts for something.
However, Miami is best experenced by boat. I took it in Biscayne Bay in 2014 - at 6:05 you can see the skyline in the background.
But the Everglades, while definitely cool in its own way, isn't exactly what I'd call "scenic." It's a giant swamp/marshland with low shrubs that looks like a bigger version of [insert any of the 100+ Central FL swamp/marsh names here].
Here is a graph of the tree canopy's of certain cities in the U.S., not surprisingly Atlanta is number one but Austin is number six in the country. So yeah Austin's tree canopy is not quite on the same level as Atlanta but Austin is just outside the top five. So this notion that Austin is some treeless prairie is simply not true. https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1554...7f87c288_b.jpg
Well that's not the notion that was made if you go back and read, but Austin posters have ran with it lol. If we were talking city limits then sure, but this thread is about metro areas and that's where Austin loses the tree battle even more to ATL.
Besides your link is bogus. There is no way San Fran or Dallas has more trees or more of a "tree canopy" than Houston or Nashville. What's the source?
Quote:
Originally Posted by atadytic19
Surprised that Dallas is that high. On par with Portland.
One thing with the Atlanta/ Austin debate, not only are the Atlanta trees look bigger, but they also look more of a brilliant green.
Trees on the East and West coast states seem to keep up better in the summer.
Austin is not lacking for trees though. Dunno why this debate has had so much steam
I'd like to see the source on that link though because it feels very incomplete. I think the reason for the "steam" is because some posters forgot we were talking about metro areas so when I mentioned there were parts of Austin metro that were like a treeless prairie to me when compared to Atlanta (east of 35 and especially around the tollway, and as you head north), some Austinites disagreed. One even saying there used to be trees there 400 years ago as if that mattered.
Here is a graph of the tree canopy's of certain cities in the U.S., not surprisingly Atlanta is number one but Austin is number six in the country. So yeah Austin's tree canopy is not quite on the same level as Atlanta but Austin is just outside the top five. So this notion that Austin is some treeless prairie is simply not true. https://farm2.static.flickr.com/1554...7f87c288_b.jpg
That list doesn't even have Seattle or Houston on it.
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.
