Central texas/hill country vs East texas/piney woods (Austin: living in, county)

[Philosophizer]

Let's try to mend things here.

No hills in east texas can match the prominence of the hills in the bandera, concan, leakey, utopia, camp wood areas. I've traveled through both. There are some nice rolling areas in polk, walker, trinity, houston, and cherokee county, but it's farcical to suggest the rival anything but the most gently rolling portions within the hill country.

The hill country is scrubbier than east texas. It always seems to be feast or famine with regard to rainfall in the Edwards plateau. A wet spring will make it the jewel of the earth, bursting forth with wild flowers of every color imaginable. A prolonged drought can make it seem like a desert wasteland. For all purposes, the piney woods is essentially a subtropical rain forest. Pines, white oaks, hickory, sweetgum, etc would tower over most of the oaks in the hill country. The only thing that rivals the trees of east texas as far as height is concerned are the cypress trees that line the banks of our waterways. You'll also see an occasional sycamore which grow to respectable sizes as well. You'll also find some gargantuan live oaks (in terms of trunk width) and pecans in river bottom flood plains.

The big thicket is an awesome place. From orchids to prickly pear cactus, you can find it there. No joke. I've seen them growing only a few miles apart.

We ought to be glad that we have it so much within our state boundary. The only that we really lack IMO is a mountain capable of supporting skiing/snowboarding.

[mrfoe]

I think some people dont realize some parts of central texas has alot of tree cover. Its not as many trees as east Texas but still a decent amount. Some parts hill country are scrubby but some parts are somewhat lush.

[TXEX06]

Lost Maples isn't called Lost Maples for nothing.

[ctk0p7]

Originally Posted by soletaire

Um, you do know I never said anything about central texas right?...you did notice that "right"? I specifically omitted the use of the words central texas so as not to conflate the 2, and then here you come along talking about some "you do know da da da."..and then go on to imply that I have misunderstood the meaning of hill country vs central tx. No...hill country is hill country and central texas just happens to encompass it. Just like the piney woods is only a part of east texas but not all of it...not sure what could be unclear about that.

You are the one that went into a very detailed explanation about the "Brazos Valley" and that on one side of the valley is east texas and the other side is the "hill country". I pointed out that the hill country didn't start until west of I-35 as a general delineation, not the brazos valley. The rolling hills you have between the brazos valley and the hill country are very comparable to the topography seen in east Texas.

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by ctk0p7

You are the one that went into a very detailed explanation about the "Brazos Valley" and that on one side of the valley is east texas and the other side is the "hill country". I pointed out that the hill country didn't start until west of I-35 as a general delineation, not the brazos valley. The rolling hills you have between the brazos valley and the hill country are very comparable to the topography seen in east Texas.

yeah, I was the one who explained that the Brazos Valley was a transition zone between 2 regions of greater elevation. And?...you were the one who went on some misguided diatribe about how no one understands the difference between the hill country and central texas or whatever when i never even mentioned central texas proper save for the nominal reference to the brazos valley being a transitional zone of sorts....so what does the hill country being west of I 35 have to do with that fact?...I dont doubt that some random outcropping of "rolling hills" in central texas is comparable to the terrain of east texas. I think most here are aware that gently rolling hills can be found virtually anywhere in the state outside the gulf coast and parts of the panhandle...including the hill country. But east texas in particular also has hills comparable to those found in the hill country.

[ctk0p7]

Originally Posted by soletaire

East texas absolutely does have comparable hills to the hill country. The height of its trees often does obscure the contrast in elevations...if we were talking about mountains as the ones in western TN, VA, or NC, and not hills, this wouldnt be as relevant...but in the elevations we're discussing trees will certainly change the optical effect that higher elevations have...

But that is why they call it the Brazos Valley...because if you look at whats happening on the grander scale as you move away from see level at the texas coast, heading north, rolling hills and higher elevations become more evident just before you hit the actual ozarks in arkansas and at ...anyone who drives from houston to texarkana or tyler would be able to notice this distinct change..likewise as you move further west away from sea level at the texas coast, hills become more abundant...and in between these 2 increases in elevations there exists a valley in the form of the Brazos Valley forged by the brazos river....but on either side if the brazos valley, there will be a noticeable change in undulation of the terrain. One side being the hill country, the other side being east texas.

I'm glad you clarified that you meant the brazos valley was a transition zone, because that is not mentioned in your post that was in question. As you will note, YOU said the hill country is on one side and east Texas is on the other, I only simply informed you that the hill country was further west of the brazos valley and didn't begin until west of the I-35 area, and that many people get confused with "hill country, and central Texas".

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by ctk0p7

[/b]

I'm glad you clarified that you meant the brazos valley was a transition zone, because that is not mentioned in your post that was in question. As you will note, YOU said the hill country is on one side and east Texas is on the other, I only simply informed you that the hill country was further west of the brazos valley and didn't begin until west of the I-35 area, and that many people get confused with "hill country, and central Texas".

Really, my post was never in question to begin with and i have restated exactly what i meant twice now. The hill country IS on one side of the brazos valley with east texas on the other. That is simple geology. And this isnt the first clarification youve received because Im not sure what else could have been inferred from

and in between these 2 increases in elevations there exists a valley in the form of the Brazos Valley forged by the brazos river....but on either side if the brazos valley, there will be a noticeable change in undulation of the terrain. One side being the hill country, the other side being east texas.

that sounds like a pretty clearcut reference to a transition zone to me. The transition zone obviously being from an area of one kind of vegetation to an area of different vegetation and from one hillier region through a valley, and into another hillier region. In truth you should be questioning your own statements. Because what youve chosen to engage in right now is an exercise in tautology and pedantry. Quibbling over the fact that the hill country proper starts west of I 35 which is just another way of saying it starts in west austin. Austin being on 1 side of the brazos valley, east texas being on the other. You act like im typing in latin here or something. Thats what I said in the first place and then you want make it seem like you were in such dire need of clarification...man, quit wasting peoples' time

[mrfoe]

Just imagine imagine if hill country had swamps. They would look unique.

[ctk0p7]

Originally Posted by soletaire

East texas absolutely does have comparable hills to the hill country. The height of its trees often does obscure the contrast in elevations...if we were talking about mountains as the ones in western TN, VA, or NC, and not hills, this wouldnt be as relevant...but in the elevations we're discussing trees will certainly change the optical effect that higher elevations have...

But that is why they call it the Brazos Valley...because if you look at whats happening on the grander scale as you move away from see level at the texas coast, heading north, rolling hills and higher elevations become more evident just before you hit the actual ozarks in arkansas and at ...anyone who drives from houston to texarkana or tyler would be able to notice this distinct change..likewise as you move further west away from sea level at the texas coast, hills become more abundant...and in between these 2 increases in elevations there exists a valley in the form of the Brazos Valley forged by the brazos river....but on either side if the brazos valley, there will be a noticeable change in undulation of the terrain. One side being the hill country, the other side being east texas.

Originally Posted by soletaire

Really, my post was never in question to begin with and i have restated exactly what i meant twice now. The hill country IS on one side of the brazos valley with east texas on the other. That is simple geology. And this isnt the first clarification youve received because Im not sure what else could have been inferred from
that sounds like a pretty clearcut reference to a transition zone to me. The transition zone obviously being from an area of one kind of vegetation to an area of different vegetation and from one hillier region through a valley, and into another hillier region. In truth you should be questioning your own statements. Because what youve chosen to engage in right now is an exercise in tautology and pedantry. Quibbling over the fact that the hill country proper starts west of I 35 which is just another way of saying it starts in west austin. Austin being on 1 side of the brazos valley, east texas being on the other. You act like im typing in latin here or something. Thats what I said in the first place and then you want make it seem like you were in such dire need of clarification...man, quit wasting peoples' time

Pull a map out and learn some geography. The hill country is on the west side of the Colorado River, not the Brazos River, Austin isn't on the side of the Brazos Valley, it's in the middle of the Colorado River Basin. You might as well be speaking latin when you don't know what you are speaking of.

[soletaire]

Originally Posted by ctk0p7

Pull a map out and learn some geography. The hill country is on the west side of the Colorado River, not the Brazos River, Austin isn't on the side of the Brazos Valley, it's in the middle of the Colorado River Basin. You might as well be speaking latin when you don't know what you are speaking of.

Arighty im going to pull out a map to "learn geography" and ill wait while u pull your head out of your ass and look at an encyclopedia to find out what a river valley is and how it applies to the geography we recognize today ...

all this talk about is the colorado river and I 35 and whatever else never had anything to do with what I was talking about initially, and if you knew anything about geology youd know that the very mention of it in this context only serves to reiterate my initial point. So i guess i just dont see what your point is with these petty inferences that I said otherwise

u seem to think that i said that on one side of the brazos river banks is austin and on the the other river bank directly lies lufkin...this is exactly why i said in my very first post regarding this, that ON A GRANDER SCALE east texas is on one side of the brazos VALLEY (not river) and the hill country begins on the other. U do know that river valleys are formed by rivers that were once wider than they are today right? And you do know that the colorado river and the brazos river were once conjoined as one very large river dont you?.. smh...but I agree with you on one point though. You might as well be speaking latin when you dont know what youre talking about.