Top 3 Mountain cities, or towns (2015, to rent, hotel)
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.
"I love mountains, so top 3 mountains cities/towns, village and it has to be nearby mountains(over 10.000 ft) so no Pittsburgh and the likes."
True, but I think as others have pointed out, 10,000 can be an arbitrary number-take Whistler BC for instance.
Hong Kong may not be Zermatt, but as major cities go, the immediate mountainous around it is surpassed only by Bogota in the entire world. It is on a different scale than Pittsburgh, Montreal, etc. would be. Therefore, even if the OP was only focused on places with 10K ft of elevation, I think for many lovers of mountains, that is info well worth noting : )
That's only because Taiwan is extremely tiny. Taipei is neither mountainous nor coastal. It's a basin.
Perhaps we can agree to disagree? lol. Taipei itself is in a basin, true. But that basin is immediately surrounded by increasingly mountainous landscape. Within a mile of the Taipei 101 is the perhaps modest, but still hilly background of Elephant Mountain. Taiwan itself may be tiny, but there is still 12K plus feet of mountain within 50 miles of Taipei, so while it isn't "in the mountains" per se it definitely has mountains galore right nearby.
If we truly looked at only cities that are in mountains, I think we'd honestly hardly have any left to mention, if any at all.
Much of the built environments of Santiago, Bogota, Mexico City are in relatively flat valleys as well, despite their elevation.
Heck, even the Alpine cities that have been mentioned (Innsbruck, even Chamonix, or somewhere like Pokhara, Nepal) are built down in valleys, even if they happen to be at high elevations themselves or have mountains immediately abutting them.
La Paz is an exception, and I can just imagine the challenge with building that place or even maintaining from a modern perspective, as it looks like the topography there really crosses much if not all of the settled population itself.
Mountain cities and towns are cities that are IN the mountains, even if the majority of them are in valleys. A city in a plain or basin or by the sea is never called a mountain city despite being surrounded by mountains. If they were called mountain cities then Los Angeles would be a mountain city. Ridiculous. Semantics do matter. Taipei is not a mountain city.
Mountain cities and towns are cities that are IN the mountains, even if the majority of them are in valleys. A city in a plain or basin or by the sea is never called a mountain city despite being surrounded by mountains. If they were called mountain cities then Los Angeles would be a mountain city. Ridiculous. Semantics do matter. Taipei is not a mountain city.
But for whom though I mean? I get your ultimate point, that they aren’t IN the mountains. But let’s say I lived in LA and I liked the fact that it has massive mountains right there. I suppose it’s not a “mountain city” directly, but couldn’t it easily be someone’s favorite “city with mountains”, which depending on ones persoective, is it really important to everyone that the city be in the mountains to be a mountain city?
I don’t necessarily have a problem if people think of only a certain base elevation, or range above the city can be counted as “truly mountainous”, I just happen to think about things in a different manner, that’s all-for me, I think about mountains more in the functional manner, of which cities can I visit that offer mountainous hiking, terrain, and views nearby, even if that range in variance is relatively moderate compared to some places. I live in Florida, so anything is a mountain to me honestly, and that’s really just more where my interest lies compared to just thinking of and discussing places that are only above 5,000 base and have the means to host an Olympic ski event or Everest Base Camp right in town, which for my perspective, would severely limit the number of places that could be discussed.
Everyone is different of course though-and I’ve spoken my piece, so I will leave you guys to it now though : )
so oregon doesnt have any mountain cities? it would suck living up high on mountains here. my dad lives in a town in the mountains and it get a lot of snow.
so oregon doesnt have any mountain cities? it would suck living up high on mountains here. my dad lives in a town in the mountains and it get a lot of snow.
All areas over 10,000' in Oregon and Washington have glaciers on them. And they're all volcanoes. And yes living at even 5,000 feet in the Cascades or Olympics would suck. Government Camp, Oregon sits at 4,416 feet, and averages over 22 feet of snow every year. Snoqualmie Pass, Washington sits at only 3,022 feet and gets an average of 36 feet of snow. To give you an idea of what living at over 5,000 feet would be like, the Paradise Ranger Station on Mt. Rainier sits at 5,400 feet and averages 55 feet of snow and has had up to 93.5 feet, and has seen up to six feet of snow in 24 hours. That's a little too much snow to shovel.
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.