No, this isn't city vs. city on any level. this is about topography vs. topography.

Towards the center of the nation, we have cities that are:

• relatively flat, but face out to the spectacularly open waters of the Great Lakes (i.e. Chicago, Milwaukee, Cleveland)

• along rivers that offer spectacularly beautiful hilly scenery, but no major bodies of water. (i.e. Cincinnati, Pittsburgh)

With comparing the cities on any level, which works better for you in the sense of a beautiful setting:

• wide open water is the most spectacular setting for a city, and this wonderful ammenity gives "open water" the edge over "hilly landscape". In addition, flatness can create a marvelous, walkable, interconnectiveness in cities....that give them a tightly packed urban look.

• open water may be more spectacular than the hills, but it so localized...inland you don't see it. the pervassive hilliness throughout hilly cities gives them the edge over the more localized shoreline of the lake cities

I would say for me personally a lot of it has to deal with the city planning and use of other factors besides those such as green space. Lakes and rivers are great, but if it is completely full of ugly developments that tear down greenspace I don't really find that attractive (of course pretty buildings that have great architecture is another story).

Duluth has both, so it is the roxors! ;)

I'm with vgm.

I'm fairly happy with Minneapolis' and Saint Paul's geography with the bluffs, rivers and lakes. It's definately not the best, but I think it's how a region utilizes its natural environment more than what that environment consists of. Minneapolis and all cities really would be nothing without their park systems.

Both, thats why I'm really loving Seattle!!

But if I was given a choice of just one, I'd take the water body.

water & mountains look the best...California.

If it came down to either...water.

Most of the west coast cities have both. We don't have to choose.

Water. Geographically, water cuts a city's land area in half, therefore usually making the city appear bigger for its size. Think of it like a pie cut in half, vs. a whole pie, with the downtowns being located in the center of the pie. Now imagine the pie (city) that's cut in half, but with the same amount of blueberries and sugar (people and attractions) on the remaining side. Kind of a stupid analogy, but I hope it gets my point across :)

I prefer the hills myself. I love having water around too but bodies of water where i cant see the other side has never really done anything for me. The ocean and great lakes are fun to look at but i can have just as much fun on a smaller lake or river. I also love the cities in the hills built along rivers, like cinncy, pittsburg, and saint paul. The twin cities in general has always had my attention. Other than the two cities them selves theres alot of great natural beauty there. The east side is very hilly and has the Mississippi and St. Croix River valleys. The west side is alot more flat but you have alot of great lakes such as lake minnetonka. Plus another factor for me atleast is the green factor. I love cities with lots of trees, grass and parks and i love cities with four seasons. Growing up in san diego i never got to experience that and i love it!

It doesnt really matter to me. It just depends on the setting in which the features are located. For example in some places the hills are more spectacular while in others the prairie and lakefront are better.

Duluth has both, so it is the roxors! ;)

Definitely the most beautiful city on the Great Lakes, maybe the region, just too cold for most so the city has kept small in size.

Where are the most expensive properties, on the water, look at any city that has a large body of water, and the real estate is by far the most expensive than any hill or river property. Santa Barbara, CA, etc. this is true in any region/city of the country that is by a large body of water.

Most of the west coast cities have both. We don't have to choose.

Yes, however Midwest cities have the advantage of building skylines closer to the water. If you're on a Great Lake, tropical storms aren't high on your concerns.

water. nothing beats a day at the beach at the ocean or at a great lake. and waterskiing is another activity that i greatly enjoy.

water. nothing beats a day at the beach at the ocean or at a great lake. and waterskiing is another activity that i greatly enjoy.

I'd rather swim in any of the metro lakes in Minneapolis than any Great Lake or the Ocean. The Great Lakes and most Ocean beach water temps are too cold for me.

^ 80 degrees is too cold for you? that's how warm shoreline water temps of lake michigan at chicago are in the summer months. yes, lake superior is balls-cold, even in the height of summer, but the southern end of lake michigan is far enough south and relatively shallow enough that our beach water gets just as warm as any minneapolis lake during the summer.

^ 80 degrees is too cold for you? that's how warm shoreline water temps of lake michigan at chicago are in the summer months. yes, lake superior is balls-cold, even in the height of summer, but the southern end of lake michigan is far enough south and relatively shallow enough that our beach water gets just as warm as any minneapolis lake during the summer.

Totally agree. The bays, both man-made and natural, help as well.

^ 80 degrees is too cold for you? that's how warm shoreline water temps of lake michigan at chicago are in the summer months. yes, lake superior is balls-cold, even in the height of summer, but the southern end of lake michigan is far enough south and relatively shallow enough that our beach water gets just as warm as any minneapolis lake during the summer.

I didn't know that it got that warm. That's how warm it gets in Minneapolis's much smaller lakes, so that's surprising to me. Aren't there tides and currents in Lake Michigan that could make the beach cold in the summer? I check the great lakes and ocean water temps online and the highest reading I've seen near Chicago was in the low 70s, but I don't know where the measurements were taken.

This is from Wikipedia. Not sure how accurate this is:

Lake Michigan beaches, especially those beaches in Michigan and Northern Indiana, are known for their beauty. The sand is soft and off-white, known as "singing sands" due to the squeaking noise made when one walks across it (caused by the high quartz content). There are often high sand dunes covered in green beach grass and sand cherries, and the water is usually clear and cold (between 55 and 70 °F/13 and 21 °C) [1], even in late summer.

^ well, that's complete BS because i grew up 5 blocks from gilson beach in wilmette and i literally lived at the beach during the summer. the water at gilson beach in july and august was routinely between 75 and 85 degrees depending on sunshine and wind. june and september tended to be a tad chillier, but still very swimable. hell, i'd go swimming in may when the water was still in the 50's, but i'm a freak like that.

What are the beaches like on Lake Michigan in Chicago? Are they like the ocean where you have to walk out pretty far for it to get deep? What about sea weed? How's the sand?

well obviously you have to take into effect the whole sequence of the great lakes. It takes till late late summer for lake michigan to reach a near 70 degree temperature. It takes forever for the lake to heat up because the solar radiations long duration of infiltrating throughout the whole lake. Its extremely cold in mid-late spring, as the freezing winter took so long to cool it down. did you ever hear cooler near the lake? only because the lake takes so long in comparison to the land to heat up...i have a midterm on this junk tomorrow...i could go into greater detail but thats not very relevant!

anyways? the perfect elements for a suitable living for me: fresh water lake..as its the most important resource in the world..(well not to the gov't)

What are the beaches like on Lake Michigan in Chicago? Are they like the ocean where you have to walk out pretty far for it to get deep? What about sea weed? How's the sand?

Alot of clean sandy beaches on lake michigan have been created by breakers...If i had to geuss,...lake michigans waters get very deep fast.

What are the beaches like on Lake Michigan in Chicago? Are they like the ocean where you have to walk out pretty far for it to get deep? What about sea weed? How's the sand?

well, i can speak for gilson beach, as that's where i spent 6 out of every 7 summer days in my childhood. the sand was fine and there was never any sea weed due to the dynamic nature of the bottom sand. due to wave action, the water depths were always in flux, but i usually had to go a fair but out, perhaps 50-75 ft. to get to water that was over my head. and there were usually wacky sand-bars that would form, i remember some years the water would get to about 4- 5 ft. deep right from the shore, but then about 30 ft. out you'd get to a sand bar that might be only 12-18 inches deep. and they could extend up to 100 ft. or more out into the lake. the big sand bars were perfect for games of water football because you could play balls-out tackle football with your buddies, no equipment neccessary because the water would always break your fall. and running through 12" water really isn't all that hard, you just had to lift you legs high, kind of like a running/jumping thing.

and sometimes the water would be glass smooth and other times we'd get big giant crashers pounding the shore, but when the waves got too big they'd close the swimming beach due to all the under-tows and riptides created by the sandbar formation at gilson beach.

and the best part about it, it was all fresh-water. i didn't get too swim in a body of salt-water until i was 13 and i rememeber the first time i went in, i was disgusted by how gross it was. growing up as a lake-boy, i found salt-water to be quite nasty.

^I can vouch for your early post about lake temperature. I remember swimming at Oak street beach in early August and the lake was definitely around 80 degrees.

* * *

Hills and open water have their own separate appeals, obviously. Hills offer unique vantage points of the city and create a degree of chaos that I find appealing. But if I had to choose between hills and open water, I'd pick open water. I've always lived very close to large bodies of water my entire life. Even when I lived in Madison, which doesn't have huge lakes, I was right on Lake Mendota. While living in Chicago, I've never strayed more than 4 blocks from the lake. Right now, I live about two blocks from the lake. When I'm out in California, I'm an ocean rat. There's just something psychologically comforting about being very close to water. I'm drawn to water, and I don't think I could ever live anywhere that doesn't have a substantial body of water nearby.

I've always lived, with the exception of a couple years in Urbana, within a few blocks of Lake Michigan. There is something about being close to a large body of water that feels very comforting. (well, at least to me, since that's what I 'know')

You really do feel the breeze off the lake, even when you're pretty far from it.

Also, while hills can be truly amazing and I'd love to have some here in Illinois.. ;) I just love open water. One of my favorite spots is in the upper penninsula of Michigan where Lake Huron and Lake Superior meet. The open water is very beautiful up there.

Ah, the Great Lakes... its a shame that so many people in this country don't realize this beautiful natural resource.

The water is where its at:

http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a232/boatnurd/DSC00969.jpg
http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a232/boatnurd/DSC00723.jpg

Im with Boat

I prefer open water. There is nothing better than during a humid Midwest summer than to go down to the lakefront and cool off--especially when there is all kinds of fun stuff to do--ie. Summerfest, fishing etc.

There is also something nice about not having to see land (especially developed land) on the other side of a body of water. I dont know, this probally willl sound kind of corny--but it makes you feel more free and more relaxed.

http://img114.imageshack.us/img114/9939/0719268el.jpg (http://imageshack.us)

Good one Redd... As an avid boater, my favorite moments are heading due east with nothing in sight but blue water and the horizon. Then, turning around (facing west) when I am out about 10 miles and seeing the skyline of my favorite city. No sound but the splash of water on the keel. I'm getting chills just typing.

Good one Redd... As an avid boater, my favorite moments are heading due east with nothing in sight but blue water and the horizon. Then, turning around (facing west) when I am out about 10 miles and seeing the skyline of my favorite city. No sound but the splash of water on the keel. I'm getting chills just typing.

lol, yeah...it just makes me look forward to late spring, early summer more and more.

UWMilwaukeeJay]well obviously you have to take into effect the whole sequence of the great lakes. It takes till late late summer for lake michigan to reach a near 70 degree temperature. It takes forever for the lake to heat up because the solar radiations long duration of infiltrating throughout the whole lake. Its extremely cold in mid-late spring, as the freezing winter took so long to cool it down. did you ever hear cooler near the lake? only because the lake takes so long in comparison to the land to heat up...i have a midterm on this junk tomorrow...i could go into greater detail but thats not very relevant!


I think I read that Lake Erie and Lake Ontario heat up and col much faster then the other Great Lakes because of their much lessar volume. Is this true do you know? If so that is a great bonus to them. I think I read that some parts of Lake Superior (due more to its size then its northern location) never even heats up to the point where it is really swimable.

I also got to agree with Steely Dan on the ocean/lake comparison. The first time I remember swimming in the ocean was near Boston when I was 12 or so and though I liked the slightly bigger waves I was not liking the salt water in the mouth effect. I just took for granted swimming in nice non-salt water where you can keep your mouth open when you swim without the slightest ill effect. Some coasters might poo-poo such a differance but I think it is one great plus of a great lake over the ocean.

Well I know Erie is usually the first to freeze because its the shallowest. Although it hasn't as of yet this year. About the lake temps- I know this past summer the Lake temp here in Cleveland in Late July and throughout all of August and September was in the 84 degree range.

Hills are nice and pretty to visit but suck to live near. They make driving in winter treacherous, and they exacerbate any flooding problems after it rains.

But living near the ocean sucks because of storms and erosion.

Living near a great lake on the leeward side sucks because of frigid winter winds and excessive lake effect snow that occurs further inland.

So I'll take open water if it's the windward side of a midwestern great lake. Beautiful scenery with few downsides.

This is from Wikipedia. Not sure how accurate this is:

Lake Michigan beaches, especially those beaches in Michigan and Northern Indiana, are known for their beauty. The sand is soft and off-white, known as "singing sands" due to the squeaking noise made when one walks across it (caused by the high quartz content). There are often high sand dunes covered in green beach grass and sand cherries, and the water is usually clear and cold (between 55 and 70 °F/13 and 21 °C) [1], even in late summer.
That's just plain wacky. I used to go to Indiana Dunes during summers as a child, and the water was never that cold.

That's just plain wacky. I used to go to Indiana Dunes during summers as a child, and the water was never that cold.

That was the warm outflow from the steel mill cooling systems and chemical plants that you were feeling.