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 often hear people rave about how beautiful Austin's setting is with the river and the hills. I can't ever recall anyone saying Harrisburg has a spectacular setting. And yet .it's broadly similar with a river and then hills/ridges to the west.
Austin is far larger and has vastly more cultural cachet. But when it comes to natural setting, which do you prefer?
I often hear people rave about how beautiful Austin's setting is with the river and the hills. I can't ever recall anyone saying Harrisburg has a spectacular setting. And yet .it's broadly similar with a river and then hills/ridges to the west.
Austin is far larger and has vastly more cultural cachet. But when it comes to natural setting, which do you prefer?
If it’s city vs city then it’s Austin since Harrisburg’s official city limits are tiny and mostly developed. If comparing the areas (which is more logical) then imo it’s Harrisburg by a long shot. The Appalachian ridges are far more rugged than Austin’s hill country. Also Harrisburg is much greener and the trees are way taller which is prettier to me.
I happen to think that Harrisburg's riverfront park along the Susquehanna is particularly attractive, but I see that Austin has done a pretty decent job with lining the Colorado River (no, not that one; this one flows through Texas exclusively) through the city with parks.
So that's more of a wash than I thought it would be.
But at the regional level, Harrisburg definitely takes the prize, as it's situated where the low rolling hills of Southeastern and South Central Pennsylvania give way to the Alleghenies.
Some homer bias on this one, but I'm still voting.
Austin has some interesting and unique "Western-ish" features for sure, but after seeing so much of the country (and particularly traveling out West), I've come to realize just how underrated Pennsylvania is for easily having some of the best countryside in the US. The ubiquitous rolling landscape and lush deciduous forest just hits different.
Having lived in both states (not Austin, and not Harrisburg, but familiar with both), the reason why Austin is recognized for being scenic is because it is relative to the rest of the Texas triangle. And it is quite scenic, especially coming from Dallas. But when comparing to other regions, brakes need to be pumped just a bit on how pretty it is.
Harrisburg is in the middle of the Northeast, which has all sorts of hills/mountains/rivers/forests. So it doesn't necessarily stand out relative to other areas - for example, I would never suggest to my wife & kids that we take a weekend trip to the beautiful Harrisburg area, because there are so many other areas available to us. But when we lived in Dallas, we absolutely would suggest a weekend trip to the hill country because, well, there just weren't that many places worth driving to.
Some homer bias on this one, but I'm still voting.
Austin has some interesting and unique "Western-ish" features for sure, but after seeing so much of the country (and particularly traveling out West), I've come to realize just how underrated Pennsylvania is for easily having some of the best countryside in the US. The ubiquitous rolling landscape and lush deciduous forest just hits different.
Those are horrible pics that represent austin hill country.
I agree. Very underwhelming.
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.