Nashville vs Knoxville topography (Chattanooga, Cookeville: house, college, living in)

[TBruno23]

For those familiar with both cities, which would you consider having the more striking and expansive topography overall? For context, one of the things I love most about living in Nashville is the abundance of trees and green, hilly terrain... especially on the west/southwest sides of the metro and within our various parks.

Beyond the obvious backdrop of and proximity to the Smoky Mountains, is the Knoxville metro equally as striking, or perhaps even more so? And how do hiking opportunities compare within the city? Admittedly I've spent little time in the area aside from passing through on I-40, so I'm curious what others think.

Apologies if the answer should be evident based upon the differences in geographic location alone.

[crltn19]

Don't know what is considered "striking" but East TN is in the Appalachians so mountains, ridges and valleys, hills and hollers are the norm here. From Knoxville you can often see the Smokies and/or Cumberland Mountains in the distance with good visibility. For hiking, check out Ijams and Urban Wilderness only a short drive from downtown.

[TBruno23]

Originally Posted by crltn19

Don't know what is considered "striking" but East TN is in the Appalachians so mountains, ridges and valleys, hills and hollers are the norm here. From Knoxville you can often see the Smokies and/or Cumberland Mountains in the distance with good visibility. For hiking, check out Ijams and Urban Wilderness only a short drive from downtown.

Thank you for the feedback and local hiking recommendations! To clarify, I refer to "striking" in terms of the scale of hilly, tree-lined terrain within the metros. I like the beauty Nashville offers in this regard, and I'm curious how Knoxville compares. The distant mountain views are a given, but I'm more interested in Knoxville itself, rather than East TN in general.

[crltn19]

Of course that's also the case in and around Knoxville. In fact that can be said for most of the CONUS east of the Mississippi with hilly/mountainous terrains.

Check this out:
https://www.city-data.com/forum/knox...opography.html

[danielj72]

Originally Posted by TBruno23

Thank you for the feedback and local hiking recommendations! To clarify, I refer to "striking" in terms of the scale of hilly, tree-lined terrain within the metros. I like the beauty Nashville offers in this regard, and I'm curious how Knoxville compares. The distant mountain views are a given, but I'm more interested in Knoxville itself, rather than East TN in general.

Knoxville is quite wooded and there are ridges that run through the city. Sharps ridge is the most prominent. House mountain is not in the city but it is in Knox county. While Knoxville is part of the Tennessee valley there are definitely ridges that exist in the valley region that do not rise to mountain levels. Knoxville definitely has more topography than Nashville....no doubt about that.

[BuffaloHome]

People from Nashville who go to Knoxville for the first time are surprised that Knoxville isn't in the middle of the Smoky Mountains. People from Knoxville who go to Nashville for the first time are surprised that Nashville isn't flat.

Davidson County has ridges, too. Not quite as many as Knoxville, but honestly both cities are very similar in their topography. Nashville's biggest hills and ridges are just a few miles farther out of downtown than Knoxville's. And, of course, the Knoxville metro area includes part of the Great Smoky Mountains National Park which is just stunning.

[creeksitter]

Unless you want to be within an hour of the Smokies you aren't going to choose one over the other due to topography. I'll suggest visiting Knoxville to decide your preferance that way. Also visit Chattanooga which has small mountains right in town and lots of hiking as well.

[GraniteStater]

If you want cooler temperatures, go west of Knoxville up to the Cumberland Plateau (Crossville, Fairfield Glade, Lake Tansi) area. More rainfall, better air quality, and easy access to Cookeville and Nashville to the west as well.

[TBruno23]

Thanks for all the great information! This is the exact type of insight I was hoping for.

[nashvols]

Originally Posted by TBruno23

For those familiar with both cities, which would you consider having the more striking and expansive topography overall? For context, one of the things I love most about living in Nashville is the abundance of trees and green, hilly terrain... especially on the west/southwest sides of the metro and within our various parks.

Beyond the obvious backdrop of and proximity to the Smoky Mountains, is the Knoxville metro equally as striking, or perhaps even more so? And how do hiking opportunities compare within the city? Admittedly I've spent little time in the area aside from passing through on I-40, so I'm curious what others think.

Apologies if the answer should be evident based upon the differences in geographic location alone.

Born and raised in Nashville. Spent 5 years in Knoxville during college. I think both have quite a lot of offerings -- some similarities, and a lot of differences.


Nashville is in the northwest corner of a basin (geologically speaking, a collapsed dome, actually). The terrain around Nashville is especially rugged to the immediate north and west of the city, but similar features actually surround it, rising 50 miles to the east and about 70 miles to the south. That rugged area is known as the Highland Rim. Within the basin there are a lot of gently rolling hills, cedar glades, and grasslands. Lots of beautiful pastoral farmland. While rivers cut through the basin, the area could hardly be defined as a river valley. Some areas around Nashville have a beautifully hilly backdrop -- but some areas have barely any backdrop at all.

Knoxville is in the middle of the Tennessee River Valley, which runs in a SW to NE direction, and is characterized by very long, straight, and sometimes steep foothills. The valley is between the Cumberland Plateau (and Cumberland Mountains) and the Appalachian Mountains (specifically the Great Smoky Mountains). The foothills in Knoxville and the rugged hills west and north of Nashville are fairly similar in size and elevation change, but very different in shape. Nashville's ridges tend to spider out into quirky shapes, whereas Knoxville's foothills tend to be long and straight. On a clear day, Knoxville has a spectacular backdrop, with the Smoky Mountains dominating the landscape to the Southeast. You're not *in* the mountains, but you are no doubt near them.

I don't think you'll find a massive difference between the two cities as far as hiking opportunities near the urban area. I had a lot of fun exploring Knoxville's parks and greenways in college, but I think Nashville might have a slight advantage when it comes to opportunities close to town when you consider how close Radnor Lake, the Warner Parks, and Beaman Park are to downtown (not to mention the greenways, especially on the east side). However, when you expand the area to 60-90 minutes from town, I don't think you could contest the options Knoxville has. Not only in the Smokies, but Nashville has nothing like Frozen Head or the Lilly Bluffs, which are northwest of Knoxville.



As far as the city topography overall, I think Nashville has areas in town that are on par with Knoxville, but Knoxville's foothills provide a more consistent overall topographical experience. You're never more than a few blocks from some kind of hill in Knoxville. Northwest Nashville (Whites Creek to Joelton) has more rugged terrain than Knoxville overall, though.