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.
ABQ: I generally agree with your post in regards to that beautiful views can be found more at lower elevations than at higher ones, but for someone who lives in a place with zero elevation change whatsoever, I can really say that having at least some degree of topography is generally important for having a truly beautiful landscape to me. Even when I am back in Cleveland, which has a relatively modest topography compared to many places, I am thoroughly impressed by 500 foot river valleys, etc.
MrJester: In defense of Sacramento, while it isn't the most scenic city, I think it could certainly do worse...
Dry, I suppose, but hardly ugly. And the fact that it is dry means that temperatures that are hot don't feel excessive even in summer, and it cools down at night. I would guess most people, if they experienced it, would rank Sacramento's year round climate among the Top 10 in the country. I don't have a dog in the fight, but I have never been able to fathom how people dog that city so much. Super underrated, especially when you consider what people have at their disposal within two hours or so.
And.. maybe it's a thing in the US, but I have never been able to fathom how people say that somehow that mountains detract from a places historical beauty. These places seem to fare alright with it:
Now, certainly, there are a good share of super pretty flat cities, too (Venice, Bruges, Chicago come to mind), but with that said, while I may not want to live right on a mountain in a rural area due to certain headaches involved, I certainly think living with at least some degree of mountainous terrain nearby is a significant positive in a number of ways, and I don't anticipate a reality where I feel otherwise.
Hopefully I will eventually again live somewhere somewhat mountainous. Though, right now I live in a place with only 70 ft. of variance within 10 miles, LOL. Even moving further north in Tampa Bay, and having perhaps 200 ft. or so within that distance (my favorite area hiking spot, Little Manatee River, is about 30 minutes away and is my favorite largely because of the topography), would even be an improvement at this point.
Then there are cities like Sacramento which are very flat and are still hot, dry, barren and dead, and have nothing aesthetically going for them at all.
Sacramento has plenty of tree cover and it isn't particularly hot most of the year, except in comparison to nearby San Francisco. Random Google Maps picture below ...
Less than 20 inches of rain annually with bone dry summers. Sacramento must have a good irrigation system to be as tree-filled as it is. Either that, or the species used are super drought tolerant.
Less than 20 inches of rain annually with bone dry summers. Sacramento must have a good irrigation system to be as tree-filled as it is. Either that, or the species used are super drought tolerant.
The blue oaks and valley oaks in that area are designed for the weird precipitation pattern Sacramento has--dry as a bone summers and rainy winters. They actually do poorly if they are steadily watered strangely enough.
I am not sure of the other species which are also listed as growing in Sacramento.
They list willows and boxelders. There are many different species of willows but the majority of them LOVE water; same as the boxelders. If they are typical willows, it would be hard to see them doing well in a hot dry climate without some kind of irrigation.
We have a lot of native willow trees here which grow by streams/ponds/creeks, etc. Some of them even grow in standing (shallow) water in small swamps.
Then there are cities like Sacramento which are very flat and are still hot, dry, barren and dead, and have nothing aesthetically going for them at all.
That's not true imo. Sacramento has a lot of natural and man made beauty
That's not true imo. Sacramento has a lot of natural and man made beauty
While those cities I suppose are flatter than say, San Francisco, they aren't entirely flat, per se. All have at least somewhat significant mountain and generally beautiful natural scenery (Denver obviously much more so), within 2 hours, compared to your average American city. They also are all three excellent (Top 10 among major cities), at incorporating major park spaces into their city areas and all have above average walkability (esp. DC which is Top 5 I'd say).
The list is guess based on a compilation of miscellaneous factors they've chosen. Based on a quick glance, most of those factors have nothing to do with the effect of hills on fitness. The closest one might be prevalence of heart disease, which also has a lot of other factors (along with diet, young demographics, frequency of more athletic activity, etc.).
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.
