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.
What does proximity to major population centers have to do with anything? This thread is about natural scenery in the United States, not natural scenery that happens to be near major metro areas. Yosemite is >3 hours away from any city in California, yet pretty much everyone uses it as a prime example of California's natural beauty. Upper Peninsula Michigan is spectacular and the fact that it is isolated shouldn't (and doesn't) take anything away from its scenery.
I agree that that much of the great lakes shoreline (particularly MI and WI) is both very beautiful and very underrated. And while I understand the desire to give superlatives to the region like this one to make comparisons to better known coastal regions, I strongly disagree. There are some similarities like dunes, lighthouses, and often no land on the horizon. But claiming that those traits make the Great Lakes shoreline "just like the ocean" misses the mark on what makes the oceanic coastline so special.
It's far more than just beaches and rocks. It's a landscape that changes with the tides (changes constantly with winds and currents, actually), it's the smells, it's the flora and fauna that's adapted to survive (thrive) on saline terrain, it's the adjacent tidal marshlands (which are vastly different than the coastal wetlands along the Great Lakes) and estuaries that serve as breeding grounds for said fauna and provide recreational users a calm and meandering place to explore that looks completely different depending on the time of day and tide. There's no place on the Great Lakes where you can sit on a beach chair and watch whales surface a short distance offshore or see the seals chasing fish (and occasionally being chased by sharks) a few feet from the waves breaking. There's no spot where kids can go pull critters out of tidepools at low tide or walk for miles on the sandflats which will be 10 feet under water in 6 hours. There's no equivalent to the crisp salty air on the Great Lakes shoreline, and even though the Great Lakes get some surf, the sound of the ocean is both louder and more rhythmic. You can feel the power of the ocean in a way that isn't replicated in the Great Lakes.
Again, I completely agree that the Great Lakes are beautiful (stunningly so, in some places), and are extremely underrated whereas the oceanic coastal locations are largely known commodities. But I think the comparisons between the two are misleading beyond the basic "the lakes are big and heave beaches too!" They're very different. And I would never say that someone's preferences for the lake over the ocean is misguided or wrong as a result. But I have an issue with the equivalencies that seem to be drawn between the two regions on this (and other) forums because they paint a pretty inaccurate picture. It seems like this is a common response from people who live near the Great Lakes and I don't understand why it's so hard to just appreciate the Lakes for what they are and not have to try to draw the ocean parallels.
So I can understand and relate to most of this. To address the last part of the post, to me, I think it's due to the "coastal elite" who like to diminish the Great Lakes as nothing more than a small inland lake with small beaches. To those that live around the Great Lakes, their lives revolve around them in a similar manner as those around the oceans, despite many on the coasts not thinking that its possible. It is for that reason why I think that it fits within the parameters of this thread.
I live here and I disagree. The Hill Country is special only because it's in Texas. It would be below average in California or the Carolinas. The Gulf Coast in Texas is mostly industrial or blue collar with the exception of a few resort towns. Tourists from out of state can get more value for their money elsewhere.
I tend to agree with the bolded. When we moved to DFW from the Front Range scads of people told us we had to visit the Hill Country. They acted like it was amazeballs and one-of-a-kind. The places we went reminded me of a much more barren Driftless Region. The forest (if you can call it that) was mostly scrubby and squat. The Hill Country isn't underrated - in fact it's quite the opposite. Of course when you live in an area that looks like Kansas with more trees, even the smallest change in topography seems more impressive.
So I can understand and relate to most of this. To address the last part of the post, to me, I think it's due to the "coastal elite" who like to diminish the Great Lakes as nothing more than a small inland lake with small beaches. To those that live around the Great Lakes, their lives revolve around them in a similar manner as those around the oceans, despite many on the coasts not thinking that its possible. It is for that reason why I think that it fits within the parameters of this thread.
There's miles and miles of ocean coast all over the globe. There's only a handful of miles of coast for large freshwater lakes across the globe, most of it being along the Great Lakes; in that sense, it's more of a world wonder than Cape Cod is. There's more cape cods elsewhere.
I live in Massachusetts, and western MA, northern VT, northern NH, and downeast ME are really nice.
I love the desert, and I find the area from Las Vegas to CA along interstate 15 to be really cool.
Coming down from Salt Lake City and having the Bonneville Salt Flats just appear is spectacular.
Driving across KS or NE and seeing what appears to be clouds for hours until you realize you are looking at the Rockies is quite a sight.
The area of Seattle/Vancouver is beautiful.
What does proximity to major population centers have to do with anything? This thread is about natural scenery in the United States, not natural scenery that happens to be near major metro areas. Yosemite is >3 hours away from any city in California, yet pretty much everyone uses it as a prime example of California's natural beauty. Upper Peninsula Michigan is spectacular and the fact that it is isolated shouldn't (and doesn't) take anything away from its scenery.
Proximity and ease of access is absolutely relevant when it comes to frequency of enjoying the area and ones identification to the local geography. Mackinac Island is 5-6 hours and a ferry ride away from Ann Arbor MI and the Detroit burbs, and about equally as far from Grand Rapids and Lansing MI. It may be in the same state, but who cares? You just live in a giant state, which is an arbitrary administrative jurisdiction.
Yosemite might be 3 hours away, but it's not just Yosemite. Even minor tourist attractions on the West Coast within minutes from major urban areas are quite impressive compared to say Starved Rock in IL, and there are thousands of them.
I used to live in the Midwest and Texas, and now live in Seattle. The difference in concentration of scenic areas is simply on a different magnitude. I walk outside my house for a block and I see snow-capped mountain ranges. My local park 10 minutes away has bluffs and dunes. I live in the city.
Proximity and ease of access is absolutely relevant when it comes to frequency of enjoying the area and ones identification to the local geography. Mackinac Island is 5-6 hours and a ferry ride away from Ann Arbor MI and the Detroit burbs, and about equally as far from Grand Rapids and Lansing MI. It may be in the same state, but who cares? You just live in a giant state, which is an arbitrary administrative jurisdiction.
Yosemite might be 3 hours away, but it's not just Yosemite. Even minor tourist attractions on the West Coast within minutes from major urban areas are quite impressive compared to say Starved Rock in IL, and there are thousands of them.
I used to live in the Midwest and Texas, and now live in Seattle. The difference in concentration of scenic areas is simply on a different magnitude. I walk outside my house for a block and I see snow-capped mountain ranges. My local park 10 minutes away has bluffs and dunes. I live in the city.
You live in one of the most scenic places in the US. However, thats not the thread title, its most underrated places. Thus why places in the Midwest keep getting brought up. Most of us aren't saying that where you live isn't scenic.
I mean just search the internet for most scenic states and many lists have MI in the top 10. Many other states in the Midwest also have incredibly scenic areas, again, as other posters have mentioned
You live in one of the most scenic places in the US. However, thats not the thread title, its most underrated places. Thus why places in the Midwest keep getting brought up. Most of us aren't saying that where you live isn't scenic.
I mean just search the internet for most scenic states and many lists have MI in the top 10. Many other states in the Midwest also have incredibly scenic areas, again, as other posters have mentioned
You know, a lot of scenic reputation comes down to do you get good postcard / instragrammable photos out of a place. The Amazon rainforest is a scenic place, but you really can't get a lot of postcard landscape photos out of a dense forest on flat land. Conversely somewhere like Colorado or Wyoming is notorious for calendar photos because you have these amazing valleys, but photos can have a distorting effect where the flat brush land in between ranges is ignored in the public image where it's definitely a part of the state when you're there on the ground. I would bet the first image that pops into peoples head when you mention CO is this:
In reality, most mountains in the state don't really even have a shape like that, they are more smooth.
People generally don't scrounge Google Earth / Maps to get their idea of what a place looks like. It was funny how many people came (and moved even!) to Denver and were shocked to find out they weren't surrounded by spruce trees and mountains with snow. So the public perception and reality are misaligned quite often.
The Atlantic is running a series of articles with photos for each state called Fifty and I think they do a great job of representing a good glimpse into what the various parts of every state looks like. I've been surprised myself at places like Delaware where it didn't look like what I had in my mind before hand.
For me, Wisconsin is the most underrated for natural beauty.
The entire state or just the coastline and driftless area?
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.
