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.
East coast cities don't really care for nature within the city, cities are for urban life, things like hills and mountains leads to limited space and lack of urban amenities.
Any nature you get within just the cities is pretty underwhelming for a true nature enthusiast anyways. Pittsburgh is hillier than probably any major west coast city. Doesn't mean East Coasters go to Pittsburgh to explore nature.
Parkland is good enough for some nature within the city.
East coast cities care for nature, they're just not built like a city like LA for example. Big and vast with a mountain range slicing right thru the middle of the city. There are over 5000 coyotes in Los Angeles along with bears, cougars, foxes, snakes and tons of other wildlife.
East coast cities don't really care for nature within the city, cities are for urban life, things like hills and mountains leads to limited space and lack of urban amenities.
Any nature you get within just the cities is pretty underwhelming for a true nature enthusiast anyways. Pittsburgh is hillier than probably any major west coast city. Doesn't mean East Coasters go to Pittsburgh to explore nature.
Parkland is good enough for some nature within the city.
He's talking about topography, not nature. SF, for example, has sections that are super dense and urban, but also very hilly. And sorry but no - Pittsburgh is not as hilly as SF or Seattle. Compared to the other flat east coast and Midwest cities, it's hilly, but not compared to west coast cities.
It is still really short compared to West Coast mountains. What makes Mt. Washington so tough is 1.) brutal climate / swiftly changing climate and 2.) that the trailhead starts at the very base of the mountain, much lower than most West Coast hikes, where the trailhead starts halfway up the mountain.
True, though in some of the Cascades or Sierra starting even half way up the mountain can mean you sill have another 5000 to 7000 vertical feet to go. For some 14ers outside of Colorado(where you usually can start much higher up) you could be looking at 8,000 vertical feet in elevation gain over the course of a hike.
Mount Washington is pretty cool though--that and the surrounding mountains in that region are probably the closest you get to classic alpine terrain anywhere east of the Rockies. I used to go hike up there a lot when I lived in Boston.
Last edited by CanuckInPortland; 03-22-2015 at 02:58 PM..
East coast cities care for nature, they're just not built like a city like LA for example. Big and vast with a mountain range slicing right thru the middle of the city. There are over 5000 coyotes in Los Angeles along with bears, cougars, foxes, snakes and tons of other wildlife.
They don't care about any of those actually, or just about anything Los Angeles has offer apart from its weather. Even then I'm pretty sure they would rather take something like San Diego instead.
He's talking about topography, not nature. SF, for example, has sections that are super dense and urban, but also very hilly. And sorry but no - Pittsburgh is not as hilly as SF or Seattle. Compared to the other flat east coast and Midwest cities, it's hilly, but not compared to west coast cities.
I'm quite aware he was talking about hills, I just didn't want to make people's interest sound so one-dimentional. Pittsburgh is hillier than SF. Their hills are quite steeper. I could play the Homer here too and say SF is only urban compared to other suburban west coast cities, but I actually know better and have some clue as to what I'm saying.
The best east coast slopes fit right in with the west coast slopes in vertical drop. Whiteface in NY would be ranked 15 on the continent besting such stalwarts as Vail and Breckenridge. Sugarbush in Vermont would be number 36, about equal to Winter Park and Steamboat.
The best east coast slopes fit right in with the west coast slopes in vertical drop. Whiteface in NY would be ranked 15 on the continent besting such stalwarts as Vail and Breckenridge. Sugarbush in Vermont would be number 36, about equal to Winter Park and Steamboat.
Of the Top 50 ski areas in North America based on vertical drop, 3 of them are in the Eastern US, the other 47 are in the West. There's some decent skiing in New England and Quebec, but overall the big ski areas and the best ski areas are all in the Rockies or other western US ranges.
Of the Top 50 ski areas in North America based on vertical drop, 3 of them are in the Eastern US, the other 47 are in the West. There's some decent skiing in New England and Quebec, but overall the big ski areas and the best ski areas are all in the Rockies or other western US ranges.
Skiing is more than just vertical drop. The dry powder snow in the west is not even comparable to the wet east coast snow.
Skiing is more than just vertical drop. The dry powder snow in the west is not even comparable to the wet east coast snow.
It's not that simple. The intermountain west gets dry snow, but 75% of the snow falling on the Sierra's, Cascades, Olympic mountains is very heavy wet stuff. Same with a lot of the inland mountains in the east getting fairly dry powdery snow.
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.
