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.
Yes, it is too bad that most of I-90 goes through a river valley/plains part of the state. It probably does skew my perception of New York, but I do realize that most of NY is more scenic than I-90. I did get a chance once to drive up to I-90 from Cortland, NY and I took back roads to the northwest. I ended up driving next to Owasco Lake and it was a beautiful area with great views from high above the lake. I also drove straight south from Buffalo once into PA, and there were some beautiful hills in that area as well. And, like I mentioned, I had a chance to visit the Adirondacks and that area was very impressive. Now that I really think about it, I certainly wouldn't rank PA ahead of upstate NY for scenery. I like them both a lot, but NY probably has a slight edge.
Here is a pic I took an hour south of Buffalo a couple of years ago:
Cool pic
Even just outside of the major cities you can have some pretty dramatic landscapes (just two quick searches just outside of Philly in the burbs
As someone who has lived in the West for the majority of his life, and lives next to a dramatic 10,000 foot cliff faced mountain, I have concluded that to use some criteria, especially size of mountains or some such, to proclaim that one area of natural beauty is better than another is akin to using the size of a woman's breasts to proclaim she is more beautiful than another.
Size isn't everything. Nor is exposed rock face better than a forested mountain, just as a skimpy halter top does not make a women more beautiful than her t-shirt wearing friend.
:-) Thank you for putting up with my totally sexist analogy!
As someone who has lived in the West for the majority of his life, and lives next to a dramatic 10,000 foot cliff faced mountain, I have concluded that to use some criteria, especially size of mountains or some such, to proclaim that one area of natural beauty is better than another is akin to using the size of a woman's breasts to proclaim she is more beautiful than another.
Size isn't everything. Nor is exposed rock face better than a forested mountain, just as a skimpy halter top does not make a women more beautiful than her t-shirt wearing friend.
:-) Thank you for putting up with my totally sexist analogy!
sometimes I imagine myself between an exposed rock face and a forested mountain
Great pics, MN is a beautiful state! As an FYI, some of these Driftless photos are from Wisconsin (#2 is Lodi near Lake Wisconsin, pretty sure #3 is a WI Driftless aerial, etc.) I consider MN/WI/MI to be the same contiguous region anyway, honestly
Speaking of exposed rock in the East coast region, you can't neglect the Shawangunks, New York's oft forgotten mountain range (yet the closest to NYC, only 1.5 hours away). While it is no Yosemite Half Dome, it is considered a premier climbing area and is also home to rare ecosystems, waterfalls, and 'sky lakes' which sit on top of the ridge well above the surrounding near sea level valleys.
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.
