Woaahhh, culture shocked, Phoenix is much larger than i thought (Glendale: 2013, condos)

[cjseliga]

Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220

No, probably won't anytime soon either, is Humphrey's like Agassiz where you can't go past the tree line in summer?

Humphrey's Peak is open all year round to the summit, most only attempt to hike it in the summer, I've done it twice, both in July. Interesting useless fact, before the San Francisco Peaks erupted around 200,000 years ago, geologists/volcanologists guesstimate the peak of the stratovolcano would have been around 16,000 ft. above sea level, which would have made Arizona having the second highest state high point, only behind Denali. Now Humprey's peak is "only" 12,633 ft. above sea level, making it the 12th tallest state high point.

That would have been one heck of an eruption to witness. From certain angels you can almost see how high the San Francisco Peaks would have been, by drawing imaginary lines from the edge of the eruption.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by cjseliga

Humphrey's Peak is open all year round to the summit, most only attempt to hike it in the summer, I've done it twice, both in July. Interesting useless fact, before the San Francisco Peaks erupted around 200,000 years ago, geologists/volcanologists guesstimate the peak of the stratovolcano would have been around 16,000 ft. above sea level, which would have made Arizona having the second highest state high point, only behind Denali. Now Humprey's peak is "only" 12,633 ft. above sea level, making it the 12th tallest state high point.

That would have been one heck of an eruption to witness. From certain angels you can almost see how high the San Francisco Peaks would have been, by drawing imaginary lines from the edge of the eruption.

That's an interesting fact and relatively speaking 200,000 years ago isn't actually that long in geologic time. I've spent some time in the Northern reaches of the Appalachian range which is very old, something like 300+million years or more... they estimated that those mountains were once as high as today's Himalayas 20,000+. Geology is pretty cool.

[ElleTea]

This thread is about the urban sprawl of the valley, not chatting about various mountain ranges. Let's steer this back the right way, please.

[JGMotorsport64]

Originally Posted by ElleTea

This thread is about the urban sprawl of the valley, not chatting about various mountain ranges. Let's steer this back the right way, please.

We have to discuss just the sprawl not the mountains within the sprawl?

[ElleTea]

Originally Posted by JGMotorsport64

We have to discuss just the sprawl not the mountains within the sprawl?

What was being discussed was mountains that are not located here. Local mountains are, of course, a part of the valley. The thread was on the way to becoming "mountain climbing chat" which does not belong here.

[Java Jolt]

Back on topic, Phoenix would probably look smaller but more condensed from an aerial view or on a map if there were no mountains.

The mountain preserves add to the MSA's land area, and the development just leaps over the mountains and seems to go on forever.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by RelocatingWestHelpMe

My visit was for fun, althought i wouldn't mind buying a condo in Scottsdale.

And yes Houston's lack of geographic beauty makes it depressing. I will NEVER live in a completely flat metropolitain region.

That eliminates Chicagoland.

[DougStark]

Originally Posted by locolife

That's an interesting fact and relatively speaking 200,000 years ago isn't actually that long in geologic time. I've spent some time in the Northern reaches of the Appalachian range which is very old, something like 300+million years or more... they estimated that those mountains were once as high as today's Himalayas 20,000+. Geology is pretty cool.

Yeah, I read or saw the same thing. The eastern US mountains have been worn down by rain and the elements of nature.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Java Jolt

Back on topic, Phoenix would probably look smaller but more condensed from an aerial view or on a map if there were no mountains.

The mountain preserves add to the MSA's land area, and the development just leaps over the mountains and seems to go on forever.

Yeah, there's a stat on this somewhere out there, when you take the developed part of Phoenix (remove parts that are annexed but not yet developed, a lot of empty land here) and also remove the areas that are protected and will never be developed (preserves, washes, etc...) the Phoenix area as a whole ranks very well for density. There's no section of Phoenix that competes with Manhattan or SF city limits density but as a region we're on par with some regions of the East like greater Boston.

But for the most part people like to eat up easy stats and say things like "it's endless sprawl here" without actually taking a few minutes to think about it in a little more detail.

[Adamson865]

Originally Posted by DougStark

That eliminates Chicagoland.

and Miami.