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 wasn't quite my point. I was just saying that Denver is closer to a major mountain than Seattle. It's a whopping 150' lower than Rainier, but it's still a 14er.
Rainier dominates in prominence, though, and it's considerably more challenging to ascend than Evans (which can be mostly driven up from Memorial Day-Labor Day).
I think Denver is indeed closer to a major mountain than Seattle, as you point out. However, getting back to the OP's title "Best city/nature combo", I still will go with Seattle with the combination of mountains and water.
Though the OP never defined the "city" experience, I inferred that the OP was talking about density, which Seattle wins. If the OP was simply talking about nature "within" a city, then that is a whole other argument.
Albany New York ? Forests and rolling hills and rivers in every direction from downtown . Surrounded by the berkshire mountains the cattskill mountains and 45 minutes north you are in the beautiful adirodacks
Honestly, I know this is an unpopular opinion, but I don't like having nature intertwined with the city I'm living in. As long as there are a few forest preserves and parks, that's fine by me. I actively dislike the aesthetic a lot of Western cities like Seattle and Denver have where there's very visible mountain scenery just outside the metropolis. To me it kind of says "ha ha, humans, you can build up all you want but this will always be superior".
I prefer the more grimy, concrete-jungle aesthetic - maybe you can travel a couple counties out to get a nature fix, but you're not surrounded by it. I like the feeling of our species having completely bulldozed over and transformed the land into something alien. I grew up in the city of Chicago and went to preschool in a 21-story tower in the Loop - I guess it made its impression early.
Salt Lake City. The metro area has a population of 1.2 million. It has all of the amenities of a bigger city except for the presence of an NFL team and a major league baseball team. And when it comes to nature, the Wasatch Mountains are literally 30 -35 minutes from the airport.
This is a joke right? Neither these cities are very outdoorsy at all and both aren't near mountains. I mean Birmingham is near some hills, but NOLA great as it is, isn't even near those.
I think SLC is what alot of people imagine Denver to look like. There isn't a better city for skiing and the city is literally built up to the side of serious mountains. Southern Utah has some of the coolest landscapes and you aren't that far (comparatively) from the Grand Tetons or Yellowstone either.
City wise, for a western metro just over a million, SLC has pretty good transit and (streetcar) urbanism.
This is a joke right? Neither these cities are very outdoorsy at all and both aren't near mountains. I mean Birmingham is near some hills, but NOLA great as it is, isn't even near those.
Lol why? Birmingham is very outdoorsy and so is New Orleans.
“Birmingham, known as the Magic City, is the largest city in Alabama and is a treasure trove of outdoor gems for people that are passionate about reconnecting with nature in an otherwise urban landscape. There are beautiful routes for trail running, hiking, and mountain biking.”
Didn’t know “outdoorsy” only meant that a City was to be surrounded by mountains.
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.