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.
All the pictures taken by the Alpinist and others above are in Western Washington and within daytrip distance of downtown Seattle.
You can just compare Washington state with New England, which is actually the same area size.
Fair enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thealpinist
Yea was just thinking the same thing.
WA state basically is the same land area as the entirety of New England. Even if you added New York and New Jersey it would not change much in terms of natural beauty. Mainly because the PNW is just more geologically active and this fact combined with latitude has had a profound impact on the landscape.
I think what New Jersey and New York add are mostly with the coastline for both which is somewhat different with its more southerly latitude and so a fairly wide range that comes from that and then the Great Lakes and Adirondacks from NYS.
Hmmm, this actually gets convoluted. If you live in the western side of the states of the PNW, then PNW wins but the eastern side is all desert and can’t hold a candle to New England. New England’s natural beauty is more accessible to the entirety of the region rather than just one corridor (along I-5 basically).
Not all of eastern Oregon and WA is high barren desert. It is a bit simplistic and actually a misnomer. In fact large parts of Eastern OR and eastern WA has quite a bit more dramatic scenery compared to New England.
The Cascades in WA basically bleed into the Northern Rockies and become a subrange of the Selkirks. The largest area of tundra in the lower 48 exists there.
Granted the climate is quite a bit dryer than the west side.
Ah CD, where posters seem to confuse bigger with better, and appreciation for subtlety is lost in a game of trying to one up the other guy with meaningless opinions.
I voted for New England. I feel the scenery in New England is beautiful at a more accessible and human scale and I’ve always liked how the forests of New England featured lush yet spaced out trees that make it possible to walk anywhere in the forest, something I haven’t seen in other areas of the country to the same extent
I voted for the PNW. In fairness, in terms of sheer natural beauty I'm not sure that any other region can compare to the northwest. I get that the area is a lot bigger. Sure, add NY/NJ/PA and the result is still the same by a large margin.
Someone else mentioned it more eloquently than I will, but where New England would come out ahead is if you took the combination of really nice small towns & cities (of which there are MANY) against a backdrop of rolling hills or rugged coastline. But for sheer nature on it's own, its the PNW in a landslide, imo of course.
Ah CD, where posters seem to confuse bigger with better, and appreciation for subtlety is lost in a game of trying to one up the other guy with meaningless opinions.
I don’t think this is a mere case of bigger = better. PNW just has more varied and striking terrain.
I've gotta admit, the scenery within a short drive from Seattle is a-ok. This is from a hike I took last summer in the Cascades.
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.
