Favorite New England state? (unemployment rate, university, living in)

[mancat100]

Vermont for scenery. Mass for interesting things to do - Boston and the Cape.

[Trimac20]

Hard to choose.

Mass has Boston, the history, and Cape Cod but lacks the mountains.

Vermont has nice mountains, quaint towns, fall foliage (as does everywhere in NE) but lacks the coastline.

Maine has the coast and the wilderness. It also has historic Portland, so I'd probably go for Maine.

NH has what Vermont does but also has a sliver of coastline. It also has the White Mountains.

CT has some nice old towns, but overall it's a little too developed.

[Champ le monstre du lac]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Hard to choose.

Mass has Boston, the history, and Cape Cod but lacks the mountains.

Vermont has nice mountains, quaint towns, fall foliage (as does everywhere in NE) but lacks the coastline.

Maine has the coast and the wilderness. It also has historic Portland, so I'd probably go for Maine.

NH has what Vermont does but also has a sliver of coastline. It also has the White Mountains.

CT has some nice old towns, but overall it's a little too developed.

ahem..... Rhode Island?

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by caphillsea77

ahem..... Rhode Island?

Oh yeah, RH is just small enough it slips through your memory sometimes .

It's a pity CT and MA were the only New England states I got to visit. I'm lucky I got to visit NE nonetheless, as it was a last minute decision, but I have to return in the Autumn/Fall.

[HenryAlan]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

Mass has Boston, the history, and Cape Cod but lacks the mountains.

Ahem!







Although I'm a bit suspicious of this last pic, the Berkshires are definitely mountains and quite beautiful. Certainly, they aren't as dramatic as the White or Green mountains, but don't write them off so quickly!

[Trimac20]

^ They look pretty but come on, they're barely even hills let alone mountains!

[GraniteStater]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

^ They look pretty but come on, they're barely even hills let alone mountains!

Mt. Greylock has a summit above 3400ft, so a very large hill/small mountain and quite rocky.

[HenryAlan]

Originally Posted by Trimac20

^ They look pretty but come on, they're barely even hills let alone mountains!

I come from California originally, so believe me, I get the "why aren't these called hills?" issue. But mountains are technically speaking a geologically defined feature, and low elevation or not, the Berkshires are mountains. And some of them, even at those low elevations, represent rugged hiking conditions. The thing is, though, if you are looking for more serious mountains, New Hampshire is closer to Boston than Western Mass, so I don't really see it as much of an issue. Complaining about a lack of mountains should be reserved for states like Nebraska or Kansas.

[Trimac20]

Originally Posted by HenryAlan

I come from California originally, so believe me, I get the "why aren't these called hills?" issue. But mountains are technically speaking a geologically defined feature, and low elevation or not, the Berkshires are mountains. And some of them, even at those low elevations, represent rugged hiking conditions. The thing is, though, if you are looking for more serious mountains, New Hampshire is closer to Boston than Western Mass, so I don't really see it as much of an issue. Complaining about a lack of mountains should be reserved for states like Nebraska or Kansas.

I assume the last one is Mount Greylock?

It looks like something from the Tetons, I do admit.

You should see Australia's highest 'peak.' It barely looks like a hill, more like a meadow! We have lower peaks that look more jagged/impressive.

I think 600 m is a 'mountain' if I remember right.

But if we're comparing scenery, the mountains of MA just doesn't compare to NH.etc.

[BigCityDreamer]

Massachussetts is pretty much the heart and center of New England, IMO.