The “mountains” in Phoenix don’t really feel like mountains to me (Northern Arizona native perspective) (Tempe: unemployment, trailer)

[locolife]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

And yet they're larger than most of the "mountains" in the PHX Mts Preserve.


I guess we need to call it the PHX Foothills Preserve, I think.


Heck, Michigan has sand dunes higher than "A Mountain" in Tempe. lololol


https://i1.trekearth.com/photos/1157...ngbeadunes.jpg

Hate to break it to you but the tallest natural point in IL has a vertical profile of 95', A mountain is 3x taller.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Mound

In MI you at least get a 950' profile but it's in the extreme northern portion of the state, 8 hours from Detroit.
Similar story for MN.

Nice try though.

[Hschlick84]

I think we should put an end to the dispute.

These are mountains (Grand Tetons Wyoming)


Not mountains. Should be renamed to South Foothills Park.

[Valley Native]

Originally Posted by locolife

Because it’s unique and creates an environment found almost nowhere else near a city of this size in the US.

Well, uniqueness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. If you think being "unique" means having bland brown hills in the middle of a large metro area, and hiking trails being one of the main attractions in the nation's 5th largest city (giving Phoenix the image that we have little else to offer), I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Originally Posted by locolife

It costs a lot less than maintaining endless miles of freeways.

I'd appreciate some statistics to back this up please. Even so, I'd rather have tax money pay for smooth, wide, clean freeways that serve a real purpose than wasting it on rescuing amateurs who become dehydrated & disoriented as a result of their own stupid actions!

[ShampooBanana]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

The Superstitions are very remote, and like I said, unless you're doing Flat Iron or Weaver's Needle and want to get to the big climbs, you're probably going to have to overnight it. No thanks.


Four Peaks is remote. To access it requires 4WD, some bushwhacking, and good scrambling skills. Not exactly "easily accessible".


And once again, I only referenced the Sears Tower for scale because our "mountains" are not really mountains in most cases. They're rocky hills. Most of the PHX Mts are maybe 100' tall. Sorry, that's not a mountain.

LOL that's rich. It seems like ya might just be trolling everyone here. 100'?

The vast majority of the mountains right around Phoenix vastly exceed that. Even little old "A" mountain is more than thrice that.

FYI, Sleeping Bear Dune in Michigan is about 450' high above the lake. There are many mountains in and around Phoenix with far higher prominence (height from base elevation to peak) than that.

The mountain with the highest prominence near Phoenix is Hayes Peak in the Estrellas, which is over 3,200 feet high. Prominence of the White Tanks is over 2,500 feet. South Mountains highest peak prominence (Suppoa) is about 1,500 feet. The east end of McDowell Mountains is over 1,300 feet high. Superstition Mountain is over 1,800 feet while Camelback is also over 1,300 feet and Piestewa just under 1,200 feet high from the base.

Arizona Peaks, 1,000-feet of Prominence and Higher (www.surgent.net)

If you really think that states like Michigan or Nebraska or Illinois (where I lived for decades) has anything that compares remotely to even what's within 20 miles of Phoenix, then

[Jnvlv247]

Originally Posted by BIG CATS

You need to get out and explore!!!!




MN:
https://ssl.c.photoshelter.com/img-g...0/MNP-9020.jpg


MO:
http://www.2cooleys.com/ozarkspt/ozark-mountains-5.jpg


WI:
http://img-aws.ehowcdn.com/560x560p/...5/88017884.jpg


MN
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...27s_Bluffs.jpg


IL
https://positiveprocessing.files.wor...f-the-gods.jpg


MI:
http://media.mlive.com/chronicle/ent...b0d7b89502.jpg


WI:
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/f3/27...37b202da2d.jpg


KS:
http://www.ucredhills.com/Offices/47...0324865150.jpg

Where's the city with hills/mountains??

[take57]

Originally Posted by locolife

They are minor mountain ranges if you want to get super technical but they blow what most cities have out of the water. A hill does not have the geographic connectivity of a south mountain or McDowell mountain range. I lived out East for a while, you should see what they qualify as mountains....

Amen. I grew up in Oregon and when I moved to Detroit some years back and drove past an area between there and Flint with what looked to be lift chairs I thought it was simply some aerial amusement ride not unlike the Disneyland Skyway. Nope, ski resort.

It wouldn't have made an acceptable bunny run back home.

[Prickly Pear]

Originally Posted by Ponderosa

The Estrella range is the most mountainy looking place in the Phoenix metro. The highest point in the Estrellas is 4512 feet so the relief (what makes a mountain fit the concept) is about 3500 feet. It'shigh enough for some juniper woodlands near the peak, but not enough to be lush. In a wet winter the Estrellas get pretty green looking especially on north facing slopes. White Tanks go over 4K too, but for some reason it doesn't look like it to me. The best mountains in AZ are the White Mountains, not the peak near Flagstaff. Escudilla is a very cool area. The sky islands of SE AZ are rather fascinating as well. As for Phoenix "mountains", not much to see here but beats the daylights out of anything east of the Pecos.

Casual reminder that mountains have the definition of reaching an altitude of 2000 feet. Factoring in the fact that Phoenix sits at about 1000 feet, many of the "hills" in Phoenix which have a rocky, sharp, unsmooth appearance, somehow ironically are more mountainous than the grassy "mountains" of Kansas based on the numbers. Interesting how that works.

I prefer not to go by definitions however, as they are dynamic and always changing. If you understand the context of a message it doesn't matter how it gets across to you. That's how "literally" changed its definition. Language is qualitative, and adjusts based on how people use them. Socially constructed. This is how we get slang.

"Mountains" as a word has a connotation associated to it which generally refers to rocky, sharp ridges, and steep inclines. Unless something happened in the last 24 hours, this hasn't changed. "Hills" by contrast are almost an antonym of mountain's connotation with rounded edges so to speak.

The Superstitions are one range I can think of that are rocky, sharp, and have steep inclines. Do they have a prominence of less than 2000 feet? Maybe, I don't know. I haven't googled it. Nor am I going to take a tape measure to it, unless someone is paying me. But they do have a "mountainous" appearance, based on the connotation. Referring to them as mountains, even if they don't fit the quantitative definition of 2k feet prominence, they DO fit the QUALITATIVE definition, and thus an accurate name for a SOCIALLY CONSTRUCTED language.

When working with qualitative information--in this case, a socially constructed human language that is not based in math and science or quantitative information--qualitative data is just as important if not more important than quantitative in this scenario.

So in other words, connotation > definition in the socially constructed English language.

Connotation would have all of these "hills" in Phoenix labelled as mountains. Just based on what the word "mountainous" implies. Calling them mountains is not inaccurate, because the English language doesn't have to be proper and 100% based in science and studies all of the time. Especially since few things in science are laws and so most of it can be changed based on new information. These objects in time and space do need to be referred to as something and classified as something, humans chose to use the word "mountains".

[timothyaw]

I'd like to see some of these people that call these "hills" in the Phoenix metro, get out and hike these "hills". I'd imagine some of you, not all, couldn't get to the base of the "hill" before giving out.

Some of us that actually hike these "hills" know better. No, they're not the Rockies, but they are smaller mountain ranges.

[LagunaMom]

Our mountains are attractive because of their distinctive shapes more than anything else, I think.

[locolife]

Originally Posted by Valley Native

Well, uniqueness is in the eye of the beholder I suppose. If you think being "unique" means having bland brown hills in the middle of a large metro area, and hiking trails being one of the main attractions in the nation's 5th largest city (giving Phoenix the image that we have little else to offer), I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.



I'd appreciate some statistics to back this up please. Even so, I'd rather have tax money pay for smooth, wide, clean freeways that serve a real purpose than wasting it on rescuing amateurs who become dehydrated & disoriented as a result of their own stupid actions!

I fully support everything about growing Phoenix's economic and cultural attractions, I back and support every effort I see that I believe will do so. I'm also an avid outdoors-man and I cherish the fact that I can knock out multi-thousand foot hikes, mountain bike and road bike rides literally pedaling out of the nation's 5th largest downtown. This is a unique quality and if anything we should be using it to build more success like you're looking for. Open space, preserves and recreational opportunities are a real asset to an area and you can find countless examples of cities across the country investing in bike paths, green belts, trails and so on.

Here are some statistics to back it up.

Economic Benefits of Open Space, Recreation Facilities and Walkable Community Design