Has to be Florida! Florida is like a death sentence for anyone who loves the mountains; a geographic mistake. Hell I'd live in Texas before I lived in Florida! I find any place without so much as even a small hill deeply depressing. When I'm 90 and can no longer walk, make sure to push my wheelchair to a window with a view of some 14'ers so I can continue to at least dream about the best places on earth.

HAHAHA If I had a dollor for every time that I said the same damn thing man!

goldenhopper I am guessing you have not yet lived in Texas.

mrchad9 wrote:goldenhopper I am guessing you have not yet lived in Texas.

No never lived there, but have spent some time there. You'll never convince me that it's worse than Florida. At least it's central and has the Austin music scene. Unless you're suggesting that Texas is big pimpin?

There some pretty stout climbing in both the southern and northeastern sections of Texas.

Can't say that at all about Florida.

For Florida state high pointers the death zone is not a consideration at 345'. I grew up in St Petersburg. A trip back there in 84' after living in the SF bay area I couldn't believe it. The highest things around were the freeway overpasses.

Chief, don't forget the mountains of West Texas too.

Florida has the added problem of being a soulless wasteland, like the San Fernando Valley with humidity.

Here in the Midwest--another bad place for an SPer--I have grown to appreciate the question, "What can I reach in a day's drive?" For Florida, the best answer is the southern Appalachians, which are not without their charms. Lots of Texas can reach New Mexico in a day. As for me, I'm learning to drive 1000-mile days.

Arthur Digbee wrote:

Florida has the added problem of being a soulless wasteland, like the San Fernando Valley with humidity.

Sorry Art, but the San Fernando Valley is humid now too. Last couple of weeks were 100+ and sticky. At least there are 10K peaks less than 1hr away! Also, the SFV itself has some charms; you just have to look real hard.


Funny how Floridian’s aren't jumping to its defense. It's just that bad I guess.

Netherlands, literally meaning Low Lands. The bigest hills here are the speed control humps. Although they do provide some good winter routes when it gets properly cold.

TomtenVoorde wrote:Netherlands, literally meaning Low Lands. The bigest hills here are the speed control humps. Although they do provide some good winter routes when it gets properly cold.

How far are you from the Ardennes? They even have some vertical rock there don't they?

FL would be the worst place... unless you took up cave diving, and then it's the best place in the US to live. Lots of climbers (including several on here) have found themselves drawn to the dark side. It has a number of similarities with technical climbing, including being gear-intensive, and requiring a mixture of physical skill, mental composure, and tolerance for risk of death vs. willingness to push the limits of exploration.


(Image by Wes Skiles, RIP)

Florida…you’ve got the Everglades at least. All sorts of swamp hiking. Spring Training. Still, I agree with those who factor in days drive from mountainous hiking…Florida it’d be a full day to get out of the state.

Texas wouldn’t be as bad, with West Texas, and you’re within driving distance of New Mexico, Arizona, San Juans, Southern Utah even. Granted it’s probably a huge difference if you’re living in Dallas, or somewhere more to the southeast al la Houston, Corpus Christi, etc, that’ll probably add a day to your drive. (I actually lived as a kid in Beaumont for a bit, home of former Red Sox whiskey chugger Kevin Millar. Good times)

I should be satisfied in Boston, since I’m much closer to the mountains than someone in the Midwest, or Florida, or something like that. But as much as they are good for dayhikes around here the Appalachians don’t compare to the west, and living in Indianapolis you’re still a full day closer to the Rockies than Boston. Especially now that I’m almost finished with the NH 48 (1 left to go), Boston’s gonna get a lot more less interesting pretty quickly.

If I weren’t so obsessed with everything out West I’d seriously considering living somewhere down south…Virginia, the Carolinas, George, and/or eastern Tennessee/Kentucky. Still mountains down there, but even the landscape, the mountains, ridges, valleys, seem less hectic, more tranquil compared to the northeast.

goldenhopper wrote:Funny how Floridian’s aren't jumping to its defense. It's just that bad I guess.

My wife lived in Florida for a year for a job (Tampa area). She hated it. This was after she lived in Seattle and San Diego. She biked a lot and canoed some of the coastal islands to keep busy but ultimately, she wanted the deserts and mountains to explore. This is not a defense of Florida. There are things to do apparently, but hiking as we know it is out of the question. Me, my whole accumulated time spent in Florida is about 8 hours: arrive late one night, stay in hotel, visit state HP early the next morning, then leave via Alabama. I have not been back, and have no interest to go.

As for Texas, the western panhandle has wonderful mountains, even a few with public access. The Chisos in the Big Bend, the Guadalupes, the Franklins near El Paso and the Davis Mountains are all fantastic places to hike and explore. Do most Texans know they have mountains in their state?

Lincoln, Nebraska?

Yous guys should try São Paulo.
19.000.000 people just in the city. (the whole São Paulo state: 41.000.000!!!)

I know, not "America" but the right way to think is (for you guys) "North America" since we are americans too, South Americans!

Btw, São Paulo is the largest city in South America. Hell, just hell!