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.
In terms of scenery, which of these regions is the most beautiful?
How are they similar and different?
Which place would you choose for an extended vacation and why?
I live in the United States and was thinking about going to Patagonia, but then I realized that British Columbia has similar scenery and is much easier to get to from where I live. So unless Patagonia is very different from British Columbia, I figure I can save myself some trouble and expense and go to British Columbia instead.
I lived in Vancouver BC and i've been to Patagonia three times.In my opinion, Patagonia is way more spectacular than British Columbia. In Patagonia you have volcanos, lakes, glaciares, and of course the andes. The variety os scenery in Patagonia was much more impressive to me than Canada's British Columbia. I can't comment on New Zealand but from photos i would rank:
1-Patagonia
2-New Zealand
3-British Columbia
If you live in the us, BC looks like Montana, and Washington State. I would definitely head south to Patagonia if i were you.
IMO one of the best ways to see British Columbia and see off-the-beaten-track breathtaking scenery is to sail up the coast, checking out the fjords along the rugged coastline of what's called the "Inside Passage" up to Alaska. The Queen Charlotte Islands can also be visited on a tour like that; they're a World Heritage Site, with old Native villages with ancient totem poles, and contemporary Native culture as well. You can sign onto sailing tours, or hire a skipper and a boat, depending on what you can afford. There are motorboat tours that cover the same route, too.
Milford Sound in New Zealand is spectacular, too--Google it and look at the photos. On the North Island, there are fabulous beaches, and there are probably coral reefs for snorkeling or diving.
But going by the preceding poster's description, Patagonia may be even more scenic, but without the coral reefs.
It depends on what you're interested in, OP. In NZ and BC, they speak English. In Patagonia--Spanish. I don't know if that would make a difference for you.
IMO one of the best ways to see British Columbia and see off-the-beaten-track breathtaking scenery is to sail up the coast, checking out the fjords along the rugged coastline of what's called the "Inside Passage" up to Alaska. The Queen Charlotte Islands can also be visited on a tour like that; they're a World Heritage Site, with old Native villages with ancient totem poles, and contemporary Native culture as well. You can sign onto sailing tours, or hire a skipper and a boat, depending on what you can afford. There are motorboat tours that cover the same route, too.
Milford Sound in New Zealand is spectacular, too--Google it and look at the photos. On the North Island, there are fabulous beaches, and there are probably coral reefs for snorkeling or diving.
But going by the preceding poster's description, Patagonia may be even more scenic, but without the coral reefs.
It depends on what you're interested in, OP. In NZ and BC, they speak English. In Patagonia--Spanish. I don't know if that would make a difference for you.
Great write up. I think the key point here is that, BC might be something the OP is already familiar since he lives in the US. Of course BC is stunting, but in my opinion it lacks the wow feel found in Patagonia....Regardless of what you choose, you are in for some stunning views.
Also since Patagonia is in another continent, you will be exposed to a totally different culture, with unique cities, villages and of course people.
I've never been to Patagonia, but I've read some travel memoirs about it, and it has an almost other-worldly strangeness to its beauty in my imagination.
Mind you... much the same could be said about Middle Earth aka New Zealand.
BC would be breathtaking in a more grand scale, I guess, due to the Rockies, the forests with ancient growth, and so many other things that are found on such a huge scale in the landscape.
I've just finished reading Paul Theroux's The Old Patagonian Express. He is so negative about the trip from MA down through the midwest, Oklahoma, Texas, Mexico, Central America and on south. I thought Patagonia sounded like the ends of the earth from his viewpoint.
I'll have to look up some pictures to see what's really there.
I've just finished reading Paul Theroux's The Old Patagonian Express. He is so negative about the trip from MA down through the midwest, Oklahoma, Texas, Mexico, Central America and on south. I thought Patagonia sounded like the ends of the earth from his viewpoint.
I'll have to look up some pictures to see what's really there.
In terms of scenery, which of these regions is the most beautiful?
How are they similar and different?
Which place would you choose for an extended vacation and why?
I live in the United States and was thinking about going to Patagonia, but then I realized that British Columbia has similar scenery and is much easier to get to from where I live. So unless Patagonia is very different from British Columbia, I figure I can save myself some trouble and expense and go to British Columbia instead.
Thank you for your thoughts.
Most beautiful in terms of scenery? its like choosing btw your mother, your father and your son. Both are a big win in that department. However, if you are taking strictly BC province, maybe i choose Patagonia since its the more diverse among the three (to begin with, andean Patagonia and extra andean Patagonia are two completely different worlds).
Patagonia has a great ambiance on summer in my experience (lots of hitchickers and aventure). An example:
Most beautiful in terms of scenery? its like choosing btw your mother, your father and your son. Both are a big win in that department. However, if you are taking strictly BC province, maybe i choose Patagonia since its the more diverse among the three (to begin with, andean Patagonia and extra andean Patagonia are two completely different worlds).
Patagonia has a great ambiance on summer in my experience (lots of hitchickers and aventure). An example:
Great vid -I'm a mad keen bridge jumper and river swimmer -have been swimming in the local river since early November.
I don't know if Patagonia is the most diverse. I think it lacks the mangrove lined harbours and inlets, or palm and tree fern filled rainforests that much of NZ has, and which is very much the quintessential NZ imo.
Great vid -I'm a mad keen bridge jumper and river swimmer -have been swimming in the local river since early November.
I don't know if Patagonia is the most diverse. I think it lacks the mangrove lined harbours and inlets, or palm and tree fern filled rainforests that much of NZ has, and which is very much the quintessential NZ imo.
I think Patagonia is a very good rival to New Zealand. Patagonia is wilder is the aspect that it is harder to reach some of the beautiful places. They both offer similar stuff; Volcanos, Fiords, Glaciar, Wild Rivers....But
NZ is a compact place, with better infrastructure.
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.
