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.
Again, in the same way the Ozarks are featured. Also, alot of the hill country being "Discovered" outside the state has to do with Austin being a media darling.
Even with the hype the hill country isn't as well known as Yosemite, Yellowstone, the Grand Tetons, the Great Smokys, Grand Canyon, the Badlands, Adirondacks, Olympic National Park, Rockey Mountain National park, Arches Np etc. I'm sure part of that has to do with there not being much public land
Maybe, but I don't think comparing a region of a state with specific national parks is really on point. One could say "the Colorado Plateau isn't really that well known outside of northern Arizona/Southern Colorado," because ask most people what they think of it they'll give you a blank look and say "I guess that's a plateau in Colorado?" But it also happens to be where the Grand Canyon is situated.
There are lots of other places in other states that are known for their beauty - mostly to people from that area: the Berkshires in Massachusetts, the Adirondacks in New York. Now while "Adirondacks" has national name recognition, nationally there probably aren't a lot of people from outside the Northeast making specific trips just to go there. Ironically, the Berkshires have far less name recognition, but probably more people from outside the Northwest go there for fall leafpeeping. "The Hill Country" is going to have even more of a problem with name recognition because it's such a blah, generic name. Which goes back to you saying you didn't know that part of the state was called the Hill Country until you moved here - but you knew about Austin, and had probably seen pictures of the area around it. It's like a lot of people have no idea there is an area in Massachussetts called The Berkshires, but they know of central Mass being a great place to go leaf peeping in Autumn and has seen pictures.
And no matter how the media discovered the hill country, whether it's because Austin is a media darling or not, they've still discovered it and are writing about it. If it were "just" that it's close to Austin, they could just as easily be writing about the parts of Texas just southeast of Austin - there are lots of interesting small towns, and the post oak savannah isn't ugly. But they don't write about that part, because it doesn't look like the Hill Country. And Houston has become a media darling recently for its food scene - but nobody's writing about the beauty of the Gulf Coast Plain, or the Piney Woods - because they don't look like the Hill Country.
Maybe, but I don't think comparing a region of a state with specific national parks is really on point. One could say "the Colorado Plateau isn't really that well known outside of northern Arizona/Southern Colorado," because ask most people what they think of it they'll give you a blank look and say "I guess that's a plateau in Colorado?" But it also happens to be where the Grand Canyon is situated.
There are lots of other places in other states that are known for their beauty - mostly to people from that area: the Berkshires in Massachusetts, the Adirondacks in New York. Now while "Adirondacks" has national name recognition, nationally there probably aren't a lot of people from outside the Northeast making specific trips just to go there. Ironically, the Berkshires have far less name recognition, but probably more people from outside the Northwest go there for fall leafpeeping. "The Hill Country" is going to have even more of a problem with name recognition because it's such a blah, generic name. Which goes back to you saying you didn't know that part of the state was called the Hill Country until you moved here - but you knew about Austin, and had probably seen pictures of the area around it. It's like a lot of people have no idea there is an area in Massachussetts called The Berkshires, but they know of central Mass being a great place to go leaf peeping in Autumn and has seen pictures.
And no matter how the media discovered the hill country, whether it's because Austin is a media darling or not, they've still discovered it and are writing about it. If it were "just" that it's close to Austin, they could just as easily be writing about the parts of Texas just southeast of Austin - there are lots of interesting small towns, and the post oak savannah isn't ugly. But they don't write about that part, because it doesn't look like the Hill Country. And Houston has become a media darling recently for its food scene - but nobody's writing about the beauty of the Gulf Coast Plain, or the Piney Woods - because they don't look like the Hill Country.
I think you make alot of good points. I can see the issue of comparing to specific national parks might be a little unfair, Texas has so little public land.
I'm not sure the Colorado Plateau is a fair comparison, I mean I knew where it is, but I'm sure lots of folks don't. Most people just call it the Grand Canyon. I wasn't aware that the Hill Country was on the Edwards Plateau until about a year ago when I was reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Caro and he gives an overview of the Hill Country Geology. People just call it the Texas Hill Country.
It's probably more fair to compare it to non-national park generic regions like "The Badlands" "Redwoods" "Rockies" "Adirondaks" "White Mountains" "Great Smokies" "Ozarks" etc, etc.
I honestly had no idea that area was called the "Berkshires" or else I had forgotten it, and I've actually been to New England in the Fall. lol
I agree people like the Hill country for being the hill country, I think the coastal plain and Post Oak Savannah kind of prove that point, while not ugly, they aren't super scenic, and the Hill Country if not breath taking is unique looking and a welcome change of pace from the areas around it. I still think it gets alot of local hype for being the "Pretty place" in the Texas Triangle" There isn't a ton of competition.
I think you make alot of good points. I can see the issue of comparing to specific national parks might be a little unfair, Texas has so little public land.
I'm not sure the Colorado Plateau is a fair comparison, I mean I knew where it is, but I'm sure lots of folks don't. Most people just call it the Grand Canyon. I wasn't aware that the Hill Country was on the Edwards Plateau until about a year ago when I was reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Caro and he gives an overview of the Hill Country Geology. People just call it the Texas Hill Country.
It's probably more fair to compare it to non-national park generic regions like "The Badlands" "Redwoods" "Rockies" "Adirondaks" "White Mountains" "Great Smokies" "Ozarks" etc, etc.
I honestly had no idea that area was called the "Berkshires" or else I had forgotten it, and I've actually been to New England in the Fall. lol
I agree people like the Hill country for being the hill country, I think the coastal plain and Post Oak Savannah kind of prove that point, while not ugly, they aren't super scenic, and the Hill Country if not breath taking is unique looking and a welcome change of pace from the areas around it. I still think it gets alot of local hype for being the "Pretty place" in the Texas Triangle" There isn't a ton of competition.
I was driving from Boston to Rochester on IH 90 and drove through the Berkshires. I had heard of it but didn't know where it was at within Massachusetts, until I saw the signs off 90. The Hill Country is nice but the Berkshires have it beat.
I agree people like the Hill country for being the hill country, I think the coastal plain and Post Oak Savannah kind of prove that point, while not ugly, they aren't super scenic, and the Hill Country if not breath taking is unique looking and a welcome change of pace from the areas around it. I still think it gets alot of local hype for being the "Pretty place" in the Texas Triangle" There isn't a ton of competition.
I remember moving to Austin years ago. Compared to anywhere else I'd lived, it was a huge let down for natural beauty & outdoor adventures and it took me a couple of years to adjust and figure out how to meet my needs. I logged many hours of mountain biking on the Barton Creek Greenbelt and Emma Long Park, explored the hill country with friends, and made vacations about seeking the outdoors in Big Bend or more often beyond TX's borders.
Then we moved to Fort Worth, and suddenly Austin's natural beauty and outdoor opportunities seemed abundant in comparison!
I'll never forget a buddy's answer to my question "how do you get your outdoor fix here?" about Fort Worth. Answer: "Have you thought about lowering your expectations?" Ouch.
The excellent thing though is that DFW is a decent home base: good COL to salary situation allows a fair bit of travel to prettier, more awe-inspiring places.
I think you make alot of good points. I can see the issue of comparing to specific national parks might be a little unfair, Texas has so little public land.
I'm not sure the Colorado Plateau is a fair comparison, I mean I knew where it is, but I'm sure lots of folks don't. Most people just call it the Grand Canyon. I wasn't aware that the Hill Country was on the Edwards Plateau until about a year ago when I was reading The Years of Lyndon Johnson by Caro and he gives an overview of the Hill Country Geology. People just call it the Texas Hill Country.
It's probably more fair to compare it to non-national park generic regions like "The Badlands" "Redwoods" "Rockies" "Adirondaks" "White Mountains" "Great Smokies" "Ozarks" etc, etc.
I honestly had no idea that area was called the "Berkshires" or else I had forgotten it, and I've actually been to New England in the Fall. lol
I agree people like the Hill country for being the hill country, I think the coastal plain and Post Oak Savannah kind of prove that point, while not ugly, they aren't super scenic, and the Hill Country if not breath taking is unique looking and a welcome change of pace from the areas around it. I still think it gets alot of local hype for being the "Pretty place" in the Texas Triangle" There isn't a ton of competition.
The real gem of Texas is the Trans-Pecos. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I've talked to a lot of people recently who have been out there, as opposed to the 80s and 90s when you'd meet a lot of people who "want to get to Big Bend someday." I think the faddish popularity of Marfa (totally overrated) is part of it, but I've also met a lot of people who, like me, have fallen in love with Fort Davis. Of course, even the Trans-Pecos, when you compare it to other parts of the American Southwest, isn't top tier.
Then we moved to Fort Worth, and suddenly Austin's natural beauty and outdoor opportunities seemed abundant in comparison!
I'll never forget a buddy's answer to my question "how do you get your outdoor fix here?" about Fort Worth. Answer: "Have you thought about lowering your expectations?" Ouch.
That's a shame he said that to you, because Glen Rose and Mineral Wells, just an hour southwest and west of Fort Worth, respectively, are very attractive areas with great state parks, all-round great places for outdoors activities.
That's a shame he said that to you, because Glen Rose and Mineral Wells, just an hour southwest and west of Fort Worth, respectively, are very attractive areas with great state parks, all-round great places for outdoors activities.
Love those places. We go there often. But having to drive an hour for places that are much less impressive than anywhere else I've ever lived is a tough pill to swallow.
Also, there's nowhere to have a truly remote, epic canoe ride/ mountain bike ride/ backpacking excursion within 6-7 hours of Fort Worth. We've floated the Brazos, but the dearth of public land along it is a bummer. TX state parks are OK, but insufficient for the number of visitors IMO.
The real gem of Texas is the Trans-Pecos. I don't know if it's a good thing or a bad thing, but I've talked to a lot of people recently who have been out there, as opposed to the 80s and 90s when you'd meet a lot of people who "want to get to Big Bend someday." I think the faddish popularity of Marfa (totally overrated) is part of it, but I've also met a lot of people who, like me, have fallen in love with Fort Davis. Of course, even the Trans-Pecos, when you compare it to other parts of the American Southwest, isn't top tier.
That's the only gem, IMO, and for me it's a really bad thing that Big Bend is getting way more visitors. During Spring Break now it is packed. It reflects the population surge to Texas' big four metro areas by people who are accustomed to visiting National Parks. I don't think Marfa's popularity has much to do with it, honestly.
I agree that the Trans-Pecos can't compare to other parts of the SW.
Love those places. We go there often. But having to drive an hour for places that are much less impressive than anywhere else I've ever lived is a tough pill to swallow.
Also, there's nowhere to have a truly remote, epic canoe ride/ mountain bike ride/ backpacking excursion within 6-7 hours of Fort Worth. We've floated the Brazos, but the dearth of public land along it is a bummer. TX state parks are OK, but insufficient for the number of visitors IMO.
What other places have you lived and what are the impressive places near them you went to?
Have you done the Big Thicket in East Texas? I'd recommend going in the Fall or Spring, fantastic canoe camping. I think it's a spectacular place. But then again, I'm an environmental scientist, so a lot of places most people are meh about, I see the ecological beauty of. Texas is an extremely unique place because it's a crossroads, a meeting place, between eastern and western ecosystems,and between neotropical and temperate species. Some people like to go on and on about how "ugly" Galveston is, but I look at Galveston Bay and see one of the most biologically productive estuaries in North America. I like a nice bright caribbean beach as much as the next guy, but compared to a coastal salt marsh I see a nearly sterile environment. I look at Big Bend and note that it it doesn't have the big architectural cacti like organ pipes and saguaros that Arizona's Sonoran desert does, but Texas' Chihuahuan Desert is the most biologically diverse desert in the Western Hemisphere, with more species of cactus than any other desert. I think I'd disagree with your friend that Texas natural beauty is not about lowering your expectations, but changing them to appreciate more than just the cheap, flashy seduction of a grand vista. And back to the Big Thicket, yes, part of the reason I love it is it is one of the most biodiverse places in the world (owing to being a crossroads between ecosystems on both sides of the Mississippi) but it's also just a darned pretty place where you can certainly feel you've gone back into another age in the forest primeval.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Campeador
That's the only gem, IMO, and for me it's a really bad thing that Big Bend is getting way more visitors. During Spring Break now it is packed. It reflects the population surge to Texas' big four metro areas by people who are accustomed to visiting National Parks. I don't think Marfa's popularity has much to do with it, honestly.
I agree that the Trans-Pecos can't compare to other parts of the SW.
But still, other than Thanksgiving and Spring Break, Big Bend area is still far from being crowded. And even Big Bend's spring break crowds are nothing compared to Yellowstone or Yosemite's everyday crowds most of the year. in BBNP, we car-camped in Chisos Basin in the summer, had no problem getting a decent spot without a reservation, and though it didn't feel like we had the campground to ourselves, it didn't feel crowded or hectic. And it was highs of about 84, lows in the 50s up there in the Chisos Mountains. Now Big Bend Ranch State Park, we felt like we had the whole 300,000 acres to ourselves. It was almost spooky. I hadn't felt that isolated in a park anywhere since I had been to Tanzania.
We're planning to hit Guadalupe Mountains National Park either this Christmas break or Spring break. From what I hear, GMNP may actually be comparable to a lot of other great areas in the Southwest. We'll see. I'd rather backpack but wife and daughter love car and walk-in camping, still working to convince them to go on their first backcountry trip. I hear the only time GMNP gets anything close to what could be called "crowded" is end of Oct-beginning of Nov when the bigtooth maples in McKittrick Canyon are ablaze. I'm still a little worried about getting a campsite for car camping there during spring break since they aren't reservable, but emailed the ranger and he replied they may actually be reserving through recreation.gov by then. Fingers crossed.
What other places have you lived and what are the impressive places near them you went to?
Too many to list, honestly. But I used to do a lot of bicycle touring and back packing and I moved to/travelled through a number of different countries in Europe and Latin America and many US states throughout my 20s. For natural beauty and outdoor recreation, my 16 years in TX have been difficult. I like it for other reasons, however, and fortunately my profession allows me to travel to a lot to beautiful places.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmonkey
Have you done the Big Thicket in East Texas? I'd recommend going in the Fall or Spring, fantastic canoe camping.
I've heard others speak highly of it too. Does it compare to other options of equal distance? (i.e. Arkansas, TX Hill Country)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Reefmonkey
I think I'd disagree with your friend that Texas natural beauty is not about lowering your expectations, but changing them to appreciate more than just the cheap, flashy seduction of a grand vista.
Cheap and flashy seduction! This line cracked me up. I can appreciate subtle beauty, I assure you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this point though.
The biodiversity you mention in the Big Thicket surprises me. I have lived in Oaxaca, Mexico, which is one of the most biodiverse places in the world. There, one only needs to travel a short distance to notice major ecological and geological changes. In TX, I feel that the opposite is true, so I'm looking forward to visiting the Big Thicket.
* Good to know about the Chisos spots in the summer. I love BIBE. Every time I go, I pledge to go more often... but that drive! Ugh! Pre-kiddos, I convinced my wife to backpack there with me in Marufo Vega and the high chisos sites. I highly recommend both (especially MV). We've floated the RÃo Bravo (Grande) several times. Also highly recommended; the park looks different from the water and you can avoid seeing people.
* Guadalupe is on my radar. Please let me know what you think of it.
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.
