Great Lakes Cities

[10023]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

Buffalo is the flattest major city in America.

However, Buffalo has the quickest, best and most extensive access to ski country and topography of any Great Lakes city. Appalachia is only a half hour away.

No. The best access to skiing in the Great Lakes would probably be Chicago, because it has the most direct flights to Aspen, Vail, Salt Lake City, etc.

The skiing in western PA is garbage.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by the urban politician

That’s why I never discovered Milwaukee. I never went there before I had kids

Milwaukee is a very drinky town; it's definitely best experienced without children.

Drop the kiddos off at grandma's house for the weekend then head north across the cheddar curtain.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 10023

No. The best access to skiing in the Great Lakes would probably be Chicago, because it has the most direct flights to Aspen, Vail, Salt Lake City, etc.

The skiing in western PA is garbage.

Now this is just called being a pretentious jerk.

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by benp

Quick compare of elevation changes per city limits/metro area:

• Chicago 100 ft/300 ft
• Detroit 110/440
• Buffalo 125/1765
• Milwaukee 310/725
• Cleveland 430/667
• Toronto 430/1400

To compare to a couple of other cities:

• Houston 50 ft/295 ft
• Denver 400/5000+

- Houston is flatter, city and metro, than any major Great Lakes city
- Chicago is the flattest major Great Lakes city and metro
- Cleveland and Toronto have most elevation change in city limits than other major Great Lakes cities, and is higher than than Denver.
- Buffalo has the hilliest Great Lakes metro area

I was referring to city... not metro. Erie County is enormous... and its southern third (half hour south of city of Buffalo) enters ski country / Appalachian plateau. The city is flat as a pancake... and a 125 ft elevation differential compared to Chicago's 100 ft differential doesn't prove that Chicago is flatter. Maybe Buffalo has one hill of 125 ft while Chicago has two hills of 100 ft. Does that make Chicago flatter? No.

You can find a greater elevation differential in Texas compared to West Virginia... but which one is the Mountain State?

[Evergrey]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Now this is just called being a pretentious jerk.

And he obviously is clueless as Buffalonians don't ski in Western PA. They have plenty of ski resorts in Western NY... including Holiday Valley... which regularly wins accolades from the ski press. They do amazing things with their modest 750' vertical.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

And he obviously is clueless as Buffalonians don't ski in Western PA. They have plenty of ski resorts in Western NY... including Holiday Valley... which regularly wins accolades from the ski press. They do amazing things with their modest 750' vertical.

Right. Seemed like a disaparagingly smug comment simply to be disparagingly smug, so I wasn't even going to get into that minor fact.

And anyway, a Chicago to Aspen flight to go skiing? How cute... I only carve in Chamonix or maybe Zermatt.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I was referring to city... not metro. Erie County is enormous... and its southern third (half hour south of city of Buffalo) enters ski country / Appalachian plateau. The city is flat as a pancake... and a 125 ft elevation differential compared to Chicago's 100 ft differential doesn't prove that Chicago is flatter. Maybe Buffalo has one hill of 125 ft while Chicago has two hills of 100 ft. Does that make Chicago flatter? No.

You can find a greater elevation differential in Texas compared to West Virginia... but which one is the Mountain State?

I forgot how big Erie County NY is... how it extends that far south.

[benp]

Originally Posted by Evergrey

The city is flat as a pancake... and a 125 ft elevation differential compared to Chicago's 100 ft differential doesn't prove that Chicago is flatter. Maybe Buffalo has one hill of 125 ft while Chicago has two hills of 100 ft. Does that make Chicago flatter? No.

I never considered Buffalo as hilly, it is more of a rolling topography with a few small hills near Delaware Park (area formerly known as Flint Ridge, and popular with sledders), and some higher ridges along the appropriately named High Street towards downtown and the University Heights neighborhood in NW Buffalo. From UB you can look north and see above the homes toward the Niagara Escarpment, and from the vicinity of High Street/Medical Center can see the Boston Hills rising to the south.

Downtown is the lowest elevation as it is near Lake Erie, and has its own microclimate due to the effects of the lake. Summers are cooler than elsewhere, autumn freezes are delayed by the warmer lake, and spring is delayed by the ice accumulation, with fog only in the downtown area on warm spring days.

Not sure what makes Buffalo flatter than Chicago, other than the height of the buildings in each city. Chicago seems more uniformly flat to me, while Buffalo averages flat but has slowly rolling high and low spots throughout the city (+/- 50 ft).

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

there's nothing bad about about jacksonville. it's all good.

jacksonville has the 3rd most impressive skyline on the continent.

it's even better than toronto's skyline.

If you're gonna poke fun at me, then don't go overboard. I never said Jacksonville was one of the best handful of skylines on the continent.

But with that said, neither is Toronto, at least in my opinion. One of the biggest? Yes--one of the best few? Nope...

[10023]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Now this is just called being a pretentious jerk.

What's pretentious about wanting more than 1,000 feet of vertical?

That's the absolute highest you can get in Western PA or NY. Even New England skiing is pretty lame if you're not really local. Icy, cloudy and fucking freezing. Makes sense if you're in Boston or Albany, but by the time you've driven to Vermont from NYC you could have flown Southwest to the Rockies or Utah where the skiing is 10x better.

I've been snowboarding for 20 years, and I'm sorry, but a 750' vertical just isn't interesting. I want to spend more time on the slopes than on the chairlifts.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 10023

What's pretentious about wanting more than 1,000 feet of vertical?

That's the absolute highest you can get in Western PA or NY. Even New England skiing is pretty lame if you're not really local. Icy, cloudy and fucking freezing. Makes sense if you're in Boston or Albany, but by the time you've driven to Vermont from NYC you could have flown Southwest to the Rockies or Utah where the skiing is 10x better.

I've been snowboarding for 20 years, and I'm sorry, but a 750' vertical just isn't interesting. I want to spend more time on the slopes than on the chairlifts.

It just seemed to come across that way. Sorry, I guess I should have given you the benefit of the doubt.

I don't think anyone would contend that the skiiing in western PA or NY (or in the entire eastern US for that matter) is anywhere near comparable to the skiing in Colorado, Utah, etc.

I'm pretty sure Evergrey was just making the point that while Buffalo is very flat, it's also in very close proximity to mountains which offer some of the better skiing in the eastern US. Your point about easier access from Chicago to the western US, which obviously offers a much higher level of skiing, is certainly understood. It just seemed like an irrelevant response, only serving as a dig.

[10023]

Well it was a bit of a dig against Appalachian skiing, but a fair one I think. Sure, it's fine for a day trip if you're within an hour to 90 minutes, but any farther than that isn't worth it, and as an avid skier I'd still want to go out west a few times a winter.

[Steely Dan]

the great lakes region is certainly not a great skiing region.

however, it is one of planet earth's absolute best roller coaster regions!


source: http://www.shoresandislands.com/?lod=1

[JManc]

^ Is that Cedar Point? My brother drove down there for his honeymoon...and rode on roller coasters for a week instead of islands and Europe.

Anyway I'd rather drive to Vermont from New York City than drag all my shit on a plane and fly to Utah or Colorado. Here, people do it all the time because they have no choice but when I lived back in NY, almost no one went to CO because what a pain in the ass when you can slap your skis on the roof of your busted ass Corolla and head to Stowe.

[LouisVanDerWright]

SO MUCH to correct...

Originally Posted by Evergrey

I was referring to city... not metro. Erie County is enormous... and its southern third (half hour south of city of Buffalo) enters ski country / Appalachian plateau. The city is flat as a pancake... and a 125 ft elevation differential compared to Chicago's 100 ft differential doesn't prove that Chicago is flatter. Maybe Buffalo has one hill of 125 ft while Chicago has two hills of 100 ft. Does that make Chicago flatter? No.

You can find a greater elevation differential in Texas compared to West Virginia... but which one is the Mountain State?

Nope, Chicago's total rise is 100' over 234 Square Miles and the highest points are literally slight rises along a terminal moraine at the very outskirts of city limits. Buffalo is 125' over 54 Square Miles, almost 1/5th of the area. Chicago is probably the flattest city on Earth not on a coastal plain.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Milwaukee is a very drinky town; it's definitely best experienced without children.

Drop the kiddos off at grandma's house for the weekend then head north across the cheddar curtain.

Very drinky indeed, good thing you can legally drink with your children in Wisconsin. Just belly up to the bar and order two beers, give one to your child. Teach them how gross beer is so they don't try it again until college. Either that or instill in them the right way to drink, in moderation, over longgggg periods of time. Like from a few hours before the Badgers game starts at 9 AM until 2 AM.

Originally Posted by pj3000

Right. Seemed like a disaparagingly smug comment simply to be disparagingly smug, so I wasn't even going to get into that minor fact.

And anyway, a Chicago to Aspen flight to go skiing? How cute... I only carve in Chamonix or maybe Zermatt.

Aspen is dirt anyhow, it's somewhere you go skiing if you also like shopping for furs. Whistler, Vail, Park City, Jackson Hole, Big Sky, etc are all wayyyy better.

Originally Posted by 10023

What's pretentious about wanting more than 1,000 feet of vertical?

That's the absolute highest you can get in Western PA or NY. Even New England skiing is pretty lame if you're not really local. Icy, cloudy and fucking freezing. Makes sense if you're in Boston or Albany, but by the time you've driven to Vermont from NYC you could have flown Southwest to the Rockies or Utah where the skiing is 10x better.

I've been snowboarding for 20 years, and I'm sorry, but a 750' vertical just isn't interesting. I want to spend more time on the slopes than on the chairlifts.

HEY RUDY YOU CAN KISS MY ASS!

• Video Link

Seriously though, let's race to the bottom to see who has the right to buy the mountain and redevelop it...

Also you can get 1,000' vert in the Great Lakes, it's called Mt Bohemia and is easily as technical as any terrain all but the best skiers would hit out West.


Also, here's fun video watching someone totally send Corbets Couloir at Jackson Hole:

https://www.tetongravity.com/video/s...nity-is-stoked

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

^ Is that Cedar Point?

yep. that's the one and only cedar point, aka roller coaster heaven!

that pic is actually a little outdated now as they've added a couple more coasters since it was shot several years ago.

[The North One]

Boyne Mountain has some decent skiing/snowboarding


http://www.lakeshoremag.com/wp-conte...n-1024x683.jpg

[JManc]

MI reminds me a lot of Upstate NY. That photo is further proof.

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

yep. that's the one and only cedar point, aka roller coaster heaven!

that pic is actually a little outdated now as they've added a couple more coasters since it was shot several years ago.

Brother and his wife absolutely loved it. lol And she has to be cool to be down with an amusement park for their honeymoon as well as the 10 hour drive from Syracuse. Reminds me of Magic Mountain in California...my only frame of reference for a big ass roller coaster park though heard this one was better. Something about having tallest of fastest roller-coaster...

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by 10023

Well it was a bit of a dig against Appalachian skiing, but a fair one I think. Sure, it's fine for a day trip if you're within an hour to 90 minutes, but any farther than that isn't worth it, and as an avid skier I'd still want to go out west a few times a winter.

There's no argument that skiing in the Rockies is superior to skiing in the Appalachians. I would prefer to ski out west all the time as well.

But it's quite not something I was able to just pack up and do when I was a child or a teen if the urge to ski struck me. But since I grew up in Pennsylvania only 18 miles from the nearest ski slope in PA (Mount Pleasant) and only 22 miles to the nearest resort in SW NY (Peek n' Peak), I was able to do exactly that once I turned 16 and bought a beat up VW Rabbit... and I was able to do it multiple times per week. Could also do an easy day trip to places like Ellicottville NY (Holiday Valley, HoliMont), Laurel Highlands PA (Seven Springs, Hidden Valley, Laurel Mountain). And the same holds true to this day... it's pretty nice living in Pittsburgh and having a good friend with a sweet mountain house in the Laurel Highlands that I can just jump in the car and drive to in just over an hour and ski as much as I want to in the winter. I've gone skiing or snowboarding 12 times this winter already and will probably go at least another 12 times before March.

Sure, I wish that in March I could say that I skied 24 times in Telluride, Vail, and Jackson Hole rather than 24 times at Seven Springs, Holiday Valley, and Peek n' Peak... but unfortunately I'm not a man of leisure and reality gets in the way of hopping on a flight whenever I want to and heading out west.

Is the skiing anywhere near as good as it is in Colorado (or even Vermont)? Nope, but it's far from garbage. I'm actually quite thankful I have the multiple skiing options I have in such close proximity, since the vast majority of the country's population cannot say that.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by JManc

Reminds me of Magic Mountain in California...my only frame of reference for a big ass roller coaster park though heard this one was better. Something about having tallest of fastest roller-coaster...

yeah, magic mountain out in cali is one of the other roller coaster heavyweights.

CP is a bit special in that, regardless of what kind of roller coaster they build, they typically attempt to make it the tallest, fastest, baddest, whateverest one around.

it's the only amusement park in the world with 6 roller coasters that stand over 200' tall. the next closest contender in that department is magic mountain with 3. most other amusement parks only have 1 or 2.

Cedar Point stands above the crowd, both literally and figuratively.


but the great lakes region is home to some other serious roller coaster heavyweights as well: kings island, six flags great america, and canada's wonderland.