NYC has better parks but LA has better and easier access to “real” nature. You can literally be in a remote mountain pass like 20 minutes from Central LA.
Of course, the observatory is crowded. But you can hike around the hills and it's not too bad. Park at the bottom of the hill and hike up to the observatory. You get a nice hike and you can visit the observatory at the end without having to fight through traffic/parking etc. And if you want real wilderness hiking, it's relatively close to the city.
Yeah and you can get to Harriman state park in an hour from NYC. Or be sea kayaking in Jamaica Bay. I could list a shit ton of other places but it seems like you don't know about NYC.
I have a whole other list about train access to other places.
No way LA Is better.
I live in NYV hiked the whole PCT which stays about an hour from LA for a month of walking, and the AT from mid PA to NH along with Harriman a ton and the Catskills and Delaware river and LA is definitely better. Water is a pain, but it's better.
It's an aesthetic choice so I'm not saying it's objectively better, but on the objective metrics: acerage is greater, peak height and prominence is higher there is more diversity of biomes. If you really like deciduous forest and carrying less than 4 liters of water you would make a different choice.
You're not *that* far from some areas in the upper Midwest that are a whole lot more topographically interesting than Illinois is. But yeah, nowhere close to the same league as Seattle, SF, Denver, etc.
Even compared to NYC (OP's current location). There are some nice mountain options 1-2 hours from NYC, including wilderness area in the Catskills. These aren't the big mountains of the West, but it's a lot more than Chicago offers.
That's fair and true, though that area of WI is 3 hours from Chicago.
Not saying there aren't nice natural/scenic areas accessible from Chicago, just that it would be overall a downgrade from NYC on the nature / scenery. If OP was looking for better nature/scenery, Chicago would be a very strange choice.
It’s always funny to see comments like this! I’m from Florida and when I visit in-laws in Chicago I’m always like “damn nice, a hill” lol. The Midwest feels like it has way more topography than most of central and south Florida!
I asked this because someone on tiktok said they were leaving nyc because they wanted better walkable access to nature so they were moving to Chicago.. I was genuinely shocked and confused
The Lake is really nice, and I guess its cheaper to live in Lincoln Park than a comparable neighborhood in NYC, plus you can walk to the beach in the summer. NYC has better within driving distance but it does seem like a nice setup there
That’s what I thought as well. I was confused by the tiktok and it made me question being in nyc because I always thought I had the best nature access for being in a major city (other than Seattle, San Francisco or even LA, but I don’t really want to be there)
Chicago has a lot of woods/preserves compared to new york, especially if you live in the city. Some people just want woods and the lake and that's plenty, but topographically yeah very mid in Chicago
Most people don’t consider that “nature”
* Nature ≠ city parks
* Nature = wilderness
Chicago has some nice city parks (though so does NYC, arguably more accessible by public transportation), but doesn’t have great wilderness areas.
Funny, but within a 1-3 hour drive, there’s tons of great wilderness spots near NYC.
That’s also the catch 22. Most outdoorsy people won’t blink an eye at driving several hours to get to a trailhead or campsite. The goal is to get away from people, not stand in a line to get up Bear Mountain.
Many of my Chicago and Minneapolis area friends spend their summer weekends either kayaking, boating, fishing, or camping, or walking through nature areas or if they are in a suburb with a yard doing yard work. Plenty of nature without mountains and the ocean.
Yep! Seattle has three **national parks** within a 2 hr drive. Beautiful mountains, water. It's the only major city in the US that people move to in order to get **closer** to nature.
Denver is all Rocky Mountain all the time. Seattle and PNW have a large variety of nature. There are mountains, deserts, lakes, islands, sandy beaches etc. Hell there is even a tropical rainforest inside Olympic National Park.
The rainforest in Olympic National Park is a temperate rainforest, not tropical obviously. I'm assuming you know this and just mistyped, but if not here you go.
Not disputing that the PNW has a wider plethora of climates.
The commentor specifically stated that Seattle was "...the only major city people move to in order to get closer to nature." That's simply not the case.
> It's the only major city in the US that people move to in order to get closer to nature.
Portland Oregon has entered the chat.
Also, Denver... back off. Seattle and Portland offer an OOM more diversity in nature than Denver could even hope to provide.
As I mentioned earlier, IMO the (2) best significant MSA in the United States with the most diverse access to nature are Portland and Seattle.
The Big Island is a neat contender as well, but, it is really small. Big diversity, but not deep. I love me some Hawaii, but it's not a good suggestion.
Just in terms of amount of cool stuff within driving distance Seattle wins, but the weather isn't great for outdoor adventures much of the year. That puts it below Denver and San Francisco in my book.
Absolutely. I live in Chicago but LOVE Seattle. It is a Metropolitan area with a insane outdoor scene. Tons to do. My fam goes there every single year.
If you truly love the outdoors then you don’t need 70 degrees sunny days all the time to do stuff. 40s, overcast, and sprinkling is actually the best weather to go on a proper hike.
I'll agree on the ideal temperature being 40s through 60s, and overcast and sunny days both have their charms, but you're not gonna sell me on sprinkling part.
This is so wrong. Seattle is essentially never too hot or cold to be outdoors or exercise. I run outside all winter in shorts and a long sleeve shirt because it rarely dips below 40. 40s is way more comfortable for hiking or any active outdoor activity than high 80s.
Not really compared to SF at least. SF is like Seattle if Seattle were warmer in the winter with less frequent rain and also cooler in the summer. And even if it doesn't get super cold, on any given day from November to April you're looking at a ~50% chance of measurable rainfall with a lot of cloud cover even when it doesn't rain, SF that's more like 30% with lot more sun between storm sequences.
Nowhere in the US is. If that's your mark then it's NYC, then a step down, then LA, then another step down, then the DFW or Houston area, then a big step down, then Chicago.
None of those places are particularly great for 'nature' -- except LA which is another good option.
e. mention Chicago and Midwesterners come out to defend their honor, tale as old as time.
To me, NYC>Chicago>DC/SF>Philly/Boston is the order for one type of city, and then LA>Phoenix/Houston>Atlanta>Dallas is the order for the other type of city.
If somebody is looking to replace their NYC experience suggesting Dallas is laughable, Boston (just as an example) would make a lot more sense.
How is Chicago a big step down from Dallas or Houston in terms of being a metropolitan area? It's bigger than both in terms of Metro and city proper population and is denser too
1) you are clearly high to rank Chicago below Houston and Dallas 2) you clearly do not know Chicago very well. DFW is a culture less neighborhood full of strip malls and franchise vomit.
This is catastrophically wrong. It goes NYC then Chicago. Every other city you listed fails to have the necessary city feel, they are all urban sprawl.
I'm leaving Denver for Portland next week! The nature access in PDX is outstanding. It's been a favorite city of mine for 10 years, so this is a long time coming!
Yeah, that has always been a hesitation of mine. But after some introspection this winter, I realized it’s actually the sub-freezing temps that crush me in the winter. I grew up in northern New England, where it was often overcast and gloomy in addition to being below zero.
I think I’ll do just fine so long as I stay active and maybe book some trips to sunny places here and there. I’ve visited PDX every month of the year at this point, sometimes for weeks at a time. So I’m ready to try it out.
Yep, I live a few blocks above Golden Gate Park (larger than Central Park) and a few blocks below the Presidio (also larger than Central Park). Walk west and you're at the beach / Pacific Ocean. Not to mention viewpoints like Tank Hill and Corona Heights and dozens of other awesome parks scattered throughout the city. Head north across the golden gate bridge and you are in the Marin Headlands, wine country, and the redwoods. Head east and you hit Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park. Head south and you are cruising down highway 1 to Big Sur.
I agree--lived there and elsewhere in the Bay Area in the past, now in Seattle. Nature in Western Washington feels larger and, to some degree, wilder, but it's easier to access beautiful spaces in the Bay Area.
My issue with SF is how far it is from the mountains. I don't want to drive 3-5 hours to be in actual mountains.
Seattle is great because in an hour you can be in the mountains
Atlanta. I’m seriously thinking to move there. And the one time I went there for couple days, I was so surprised how green and clean the city is.
Also, everyone was super nice. I also loved how diverse the population is.
No, Chicago absolutely does not have better nature access than NYC.
You can even take a train out of Manhattan to the Jersey Shore, the Hudson Valley, Long Island beaches, Vermont, the Berkshires of Western Mass., the Connecticut River Valley, the Adirondacks, ...
I think D.C. is pretty slept on in terms of nature accessibility (if you’re willing to brave the traffic).
Obviously, D.C. has Rock Creek Park, which is super nice. However, it’s also around an hour and a half to Shenandoah National Park. Then, there’s tons of really cool state parks in Virginia that are close, and you’re close to Chesapeake Bay which also has some beach areas. There’s also Harper’s Ferry with some nice cool trails, and many other hidden gems. Obviously, you’ll have to deal with traffic to get to these places, and there aren’t as many national parks as other cities like Denver. However, it’s still pretty accessible!
Charlotte: mountains adjacent
Denver: mountains adjacent
Jacksonville: tropical forest & ocean access
Las Vegas: ringed by desert mountains with an alpine climate 30 min drive from Vegas
Atlanta: mountains adjacent
Miami: ocean & everglades
Pittsburgh: at the top of the Appalachian range and adjacent to abundant wilderness
Off the top of my head from an East coast perspective.
Everglades? It's pretty inaccessible and very little to do. You go there maybe once, take a swamp boat, get eaten up by mosquitoes, and no reason to go back.
[https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/things2do.htm](https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/things2do.htm) wrong on nothing to do, right on the mosquitos.
But it's not something you do weekly. And it's an hour or two from Miami to get to the closest entrance to the park. Add a wreck on the highway, and it's several hours away. The Everglades are huge, and some of those activities listed actually start on the Gulf Coast - nowhere near Miami.
I live in JAX, not Miami, I can tell you that I 100% access the nature around me weekly: forests, ocean, beaches, marshes, etc.
If I lived in Miami, I'd be accessing Miami's nature weekly as well. Miami has some of the best ocean access of any major city in the world. If you're into fishing, the beach, like going offshore in a boat, I can't think of a better spot for it.
Miami also has (granted limited because of the density of the place) some excellent and beautiful tropical forest access. It's uniquely vegetated and beautiful. Whenever I'm down there, I bring my mountain bike and get into their tropical trails.
Personally I wouldn't want to live in Miami, it's too population dense, it's too aggressive, like LA has a bit of a blingy douchebag element, etc.
I grew up in fort Lauderdale and Tallahassee, the Everglades sucks. I've never heard of any regular person going there for recreation. The beaches are amazing on the panhandle though, they call it the forgotten Coast for a good reason, it's not only beautiful but also not crowded. Nothing in Florida is worth dealing with the rednecks and the maga republicans though, LOL.
I think it depends on what you’re looking for in nature. I’d think NYC would be a great place since you’re in a world class city that has parks and green space, beaches, waterfront and you’re not that far out from the mountains and what not.
Chicago has the lake. For people who want to be near the water but not on the coasts/near the ocean it’s a huge selling point. There are also parks. But if you want more “hiking” type nature you’re going to have to go to Wisconsin or Michigan.
I live in the Twin Cities; I think our access to nature is awesome. We’ve got rivers, lakes, endless parks, mature trees, and green spaces. But for people looking to ski on something bigger than a ski hill, or who want to hike areas with significant elevation they’d have to go elsewhere.
Chicago you have to drive hours into Wisconsin or Michigan for nature. The lakefront access is terrific in Chicago and I'm sure there are fine suburban parks but that's it. Philly is underrated if you're willing to drive a bit to the mountains in PA or the shore in Delaware. Any western town sticks out as an obvious choice. There's a reason people from the western half of the country just dress more outdoorsy casually.
Cleveland is great.
Lake Erie, and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. When the Gorge Dam comes down in 2026, it is really going to be something special.
It is, indeed. The best combination of world-class arts, culture, history, medical care, and infrastructure wrapped up in an affordable package.
If you haven't been there in a while, what they've done in the CVNP is quite remarkable.
There's a fundraiser/event/party at the Cleveland Public Theater called Pandemonium, each year in early September. That would be a good trip, planning it around that event. It's incredible.
San Francisco, LA, San Diego, and Denver for a good combo of proximity to city life along with good nature. Seattle and Portland too obviously but a lot more rain.
Sacramento and especially suburbs east - 45 minutes and you’re in the Sierras, 1.5 hours from Tahoe, 2.5 to 3 from Yosemite, an hour from Napa, 2 hours from the coast (Marin in particular)
Yeah, looking at the top 10.MSA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area I'd say Phoenix wins with LA second then DC, Phi, NYC, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Miami.
If you own a boat the last 3 would be higher but I get sea sick and it's my list.
IDK if these qualify for your “large metro city” but your best bets are:
San Francisco
Seattle
Denver
Phoenix
Of your list, honestly LA is probably the best cause you’ll likely have a car.
Within the city limits itself I don't think it gets better than Central Park. DC has Rock Creek Park which is nice, and then Great Falls outside the city among others. You'd be two hours from an Appalachian Trail trailhead in DC as well.
There is nothing natural about Central Park NYC. Central Park NYC is completely designed and terraformed by man, Fredrick Law Olmsted architected the entire thing. As for man made parks, Tulsa's Gathering Place is better than Central park by a wide margin.
For natural parks, no comparison to Hanna Park in Florida with over a mile of pristine Atlantic coastline, none. Nothing built by man compares with nature.
I used to live on East 90th by Central Park and ride the 6mi loop after work.
DC also has the most park space of any major city and 99% of residents are within walking distance of a park as well as most parks per capita. [Here’s](https://www.axios.com/2023/06/01/public-parks-cities#) the ranking from 2023, but DC had the highest score again this year.
Atlanta - 1.5hrs to mountains, 4-5 to the beach, even trails near the suburban areas. “City in the forest”
I would say Denver as well. The city itself is pretty flat on the plains but the mountains are close.
If the question is largest city with nature access then you have a few cities until you get to Denver. LA, SF and Seattle all fit that bill.
It’s really just an extremely broad set of requirements to be honest.
Even without the mountains I've been to some great trails along the hooch, there's stone mountain, the belt line connects a bunch of green spaces, plus there are so many more green spaces and trails.
Same comments about Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill--which isn't true "access" on a day-to-day basis since you're still driving at least an hour to reach that wonderful "nature"! (Except for some woodsy areas.)
Yeah but 2 hours to the beach is way different than 4-5. 2 is rough for a day trip but makes weekend trips so much more realistic. Can leave after work and still catch the sunset
Twin Cities - its flat as a pancake, but there are lakes, rivers, and tons of parks and trails. Amazingly accessible.
Phoenix, San Diego, Inland Empire, Seattle, Portland all score well in my book too.
Cleveland is super underrated when it comes to nature access. Lake Erie, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, and the Emerald Necklace are all right there. And you're only about two hours from Hocking Hills, in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains. It's still "flat-ish" by West Coast standards but the glacial rivers carved some incredibly beautiful gorges throughout the region which makes the topography a lot more interesting than almost every other city on the Great Lakes.
The Las Vegas valley has incredibly easy to access hiking trails and outdoor recreation. Mount Charleston will be about 45 minutes away to do skiing and snowboarding, there are wetlands 15 minutes away from the strip, further afield Zion National Park is a 2.5hr really easy drive from here, Lake Mead has boating and jet ski access.
On the west side of the valley, you have Red Rock Canyon, an hour outside of the city is Valley of Fire.
I'm not personally very outdoorsy and I'm heat intolerant (don't ask me why I still live here) but I've been to all of these places and there's no denying that they are easy to get to and pretty cheap to enjoy. Lots of hiking, biking, bouldering clubs all over this town.
Outdoor pros and locals agree:
https://www.reddit.com/r/vegaslocals/comments/lcgtek/is_las_vegas_really_that_great_for_outdoors/
Remember that movie/doc about the free climber, call Free Solo? He and a bunch of other Californians have made Las Vegas their home in recent years:
https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-22/why-elite-california-climbers-are-moving-to-las-vegas
I [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegaslocals/comments/lcgtek/is_las_vegas_really_that_great_for_outdoors/gm06r9f/) in that thread you linked and still feel the same way about Vegas. Lots of trails, which outside of Mt. Charleston, are all the same shades of dirt and brown. Mt. Charleston will give you some green and is the only reasonable hiking location from June-August due to heat. I've always found most Vegas locals have an unreasonable need to defend their city, but maybe it's just because I see nothing pretty about dirt, dirt, and more dirt.
Listen, I live here but was born and raised in NY on Long Island. The desert landscape is not personally my cup of tea but lots of people adore it. I prefer a landscape like coastal Maine if we're talking about places to be outdoors.
There are beautiful aspects to the desert and lots of newbies to the area are blown away. The access to the outdoors with proximity to dining and nightlife are pretty unique. Only LA tops it.
But yeah, I rarely ever go to bat for the city I've been living in since 2001. As soon as my kids are both in college (1 out the door in the Fall and 1 with 2 more years of high school) I plan to spend at least half the year in any other place but here.
The city with the absolute best nature access in America is Portland, OR. There is a massive forest within city limits, the most beautiful coastline 90 minutes away, the entire region is dotted with mountains, waterfalls, lush forests, world class hiking and outdoor recreation in every direction.
Second best is Seattle which is very similar to Portland. Then a large gap and you get SF/Denver/SLC. The midwest and east can’t compare to the west don’t let anyone tell you differently lol.
Yup. 100%. Excellent call fellow PDX person.
My personal "significant metro" access to nature tiers look like this:
1) PDX > SEA >> 2) Sacramento=Denver=Boise > 2.5) SLC ~= SF. Everything else, Tier 3. Hell, I am inclined to put Denver at tier 2.5. It's a one trick outdoor pony. SF itself is a bit isolated. Just getting off the peninsula could kill 1 to 1.5 hours.
After that, a lot of places average out and can really only offer 30-40% of what you want, and no mountains.
Seattle and Portland are TOP NOTCH outdoor jumping grounds. Depending on what you are specifically into, either could be tipped into the peak position.
If you like ocean beaches, then, Portland. If you like high desert access, then Portland. If you want boating on salt water and not dying, then Seattle. If you want rainforest, then... both. Personal outdoor predilections will put either or in the top spot.
I've lived: 22 years in Bellingham, 8 years in Seattle, and 13 in Portland. Washington access to nature diversity with minimal effort is amazing... but I think a lot of Washingtonians have no idea how awesome Portland access is.
Extremely good tier list, I totally forgot about Sacramento. I always get annoyed by people talking up Denver, if the criteria for being a good nature city is that there are mountains a couple of hours away then Sac is just as good or better with Tahoe and the wider Sierra Nevada.
This is correct. Seattle I find harder to access nature due to it just taking longer to move about the metro area, but once you’re there it’s pretty on par with Portland.
Here in Portland you can land in some of the most gorgeous quiet terrain in under 90 minutes in many directions. Hundreds of trails in all sorts of climate zones within 2 hours. I like visiting other parts of the country, but I’ve never found any place that comes close to Portland’s access.
It’s definitely a 1A/1B situation but I agree. In Portland you can walk from Powell’s to deep lush forests in like 20 minutes, there’s just nowhere else like that in the country, not even Seattle (though I do love her)
Yeah, if someone wants the absolute peak best nature access I default to Portland (I’m also biased living here), but you’ll likely have way more job opportunities in Seattle, so that may be most people’s actual best bet for amazing access and an income.
I’d be happy in either, but god knows it still blows my mind how close things I only dreamed about growing up are here in Portland.
Nature is very accessible in the Chicago area with the lakefront, beaches, and extensive park system in the city, as well as the forest preserves all over the suburbs. Is it the most impressive nature, no, but it’s extremely accessible and still quite beautiful.
Chicago has a ton of parks, but things like hiking require a day or weekend trip to Starved Rock, Devils Lake, Door County, Michigan, etc.
When people say 'nature' they often mean either mountains, or wilderness. I personally love the black oak savannahs of the upper midwest, but most people don't give a shit about anything besides rocky elevation change to the point they barely even consider it 'nature'.
Moved to Chicago, and love what we are able to access. Yep, it’s not Colorado or California. But in the mornings, my wife can go to a birding sanctuary or the nature preserve down the street. I can take my kids to the lake and enjoy the beach. In the evenings, we can walk down the path next to the river. It’s very nice considering. The lake is absolutely lovely. We also have camping trips planned for Wisconsin and Michigan.
Boston deserves some love - one of the best park systems in the country, not too far of a drive from both mountains and really great beaches. You’ve got all of New England at your disposal for day/weekend trips, and that gives you a TON of things to do, in all seasons. Boston has the best outdoors scene on the East Coast IMO, but people seem to forget that a lot.
For those saying NYC, it is minimum an hour and more like 2-4 to get to any real nature outside of the city. It is one huge drawback to living here. And once you do get to nature, it is mostly just hills and forests, nothing at all like the spectacular geography of the west coast.
I’m in Philly and it takes me 25 min to drive to Wissahickon where there are 50 miles of trails. Still an hour train ride to NYC. It’s worth considering
LA …. you can ski/snowboard and surf the same day.
the year round ridiculous weather is for real. west.la , its even better weather. but some people need the seasonal changes.
Better off getting a car in NYC and exploring the Catskills, Delaware River Gap and Berkshires.
Waaay better nature and wilderness compared to anywhere near Chicago.
I love all the Chicago nature zealots, but having lived there for almost 50 of my 67 years, we finally left for good (to the Bay Area) because of the lack of woods, jawdropping coastlines, hills of any size, roads that curve, and seasons that don’t consistently disappoint. Great food, architecture, and city vibe but winters were soul crushing.
If you're looking for a large metro, LA is the only answer, but only if you can afford to live near the mountains or the ocean. The driving times in LA or outrageous -- the nature is more accessible in NYC than most of LA.
For accessibility, if you don't count DC's nat'l parks as nature, you can't beat Minneapolis/St. Paul -- there's 22 lakes within Mpls city limits alone, so many of us can walk to a lake, and the whole city is within biking distance of lakes. I'm, like, an afternoon's bike away from campsites. But it's not a large metro, and you've got to drive many hours to get to top-tier camping.
Otherwise, anywhere near the mountains or the ocean will have nice nature nearby, but in most of these places, the nature isn't terribly accessible.
Just to clarify, did you intend to pick the (3) largest cities and MSA in America? Is this what you meant?
Or do you have a better definition of "major cities"? Would Portland make the cut? Sacramento? Omaha? Salt Lake City?? Scranton?
You mention topography, and seeking "better" topography. What do you mean by better. What are you looking for, trees, green, hills, mountains, ocean, rivers, lakes, etc.?
Anyways, you request for information is devoid of any meaningful criteria at all. So you are going to get the answers you deserve here.
Anyways, as far as I am concerned, the best significant MSA in America with "access" to a variety of nature, are, Seattle and Portland IMO.
Other areas do have access to nature, but nothing is as diverse as the PNW. Has almost everything except humid subtropical and humid tropical to offer.
But, I am sure I ran afoul of some requirement. Please feel free to respond with some other criteria and hidden constraints.
I live in Chicago and I think the access to nature within the city itself is great here, especially if you live along the lake. Obviously it's not anything like the West Coast but there's the lakefront trail and lots of green space around Lincoln Park all the way up to Edgewater, etc
I'm considering a move to NYC and was a bit concerned about nature access there, I've been so spoiled by the lakefront here haha
The nature access in NYC is pretty nice. I do prefer hills and forests more than lakes/beaches so I will also say that. There are hills and woods in upper Manhattan and the Bronx, and the mountains upstate are only an hour or 2 drive away.. plus there are beaches and rivers here as well! I only asked this question here because someone on tiktok posted about them leaving nyc to Chicago saying they’d have better nature access and I felt confused. By looking at the responses here I think you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. The parks here are really nice and large as well
Portland has the largest urban wilderness park in the country (Forest Park) and it’s essentially right next to the central city. And due to the urban growth boundaries that every Oregon city has, there’s not much sprawl and so you can get out into the farmland and forests pretty quick. The mountains and coast aren’t far either.
Chicago has forest preserves, but you can drive an hour or two outside of the city and there’s plenty of nature. Not to mention proximity to Wisconsin, and SW Michigan. (I’m skipping over Indiana, but there are some nice beaches/dunes in Indiana too. The north shore suburbs also have beaches not just in the city. Summer is great if you don’t mind the humidity. Spring and fall are also beautiful. Winters suck
Well it depends on what kind of nature you want but any of the metro areas along the Appalachian trail, Rocky Mountains, or along the west coast should give good access to nature. You could also just look at a nation park map and look at metro areas closest to them.
With an all due respect I find it laughable that you live in NY state and asking if Chicago which is located in Illinois has better topography lmao.
Anyways it’s widely known that nyc beats Chicago is both. Parks and topography
DC is the best city for park access! Rock creek is big enough to go for multi hour hikes, and Great Falls is right there. It doesn’t have the western mountains but your within a couple hours of Shenandoah if you want to go bigger.
Seattle is probably the single best one for variety. You have beach, coastline, mountains, and rainforest within a few hours drive.
If you don’t need the beach then Denver for mountains and skiing.
Boston you’re only a few hours drive from Vermont and New Hampshire’s mountains, the Maine coast, and Cape Cod.
Phoenix.
Largest city park in nation (South Mountain). Multiple other decent sized mountain parks in metro area. Lakes nearby. When it's too hot, hour drive to cool pine forests. Grand Canyon 3 hour drive. Saguaro national park 1.5 hrs. Sedona/Red Rock country 1.5 hours.
Raleigh nature is everywhere basicly a city in a forest. Nature trails are everywhere close to the beach and mountains 2.5 hours either way. Agricultural school on city creates even more nature access. Also relatively cheap house compared to other cities mentioned. Also suburbs are are very forested.
Depends on what you're looking for. There's great parks in Chicago and lots of neighborhoods where you can walk from your apartment to the beach or your boat in the marina. It's a nice lifestyle.
SF. Marin and East Bay are gorgeous. Surfing is ok in SF, great in Santa Cruz. World class skiing in Tahoe is not far. Yosemite and Sequoia NP are not far, and are two of the most incredible places on earth. Redwoods in northern CA are mind-blowing.
I feel like nyc is the hardest city to get out of that I’ve ever lived in. Boston has tons of access to nature comparatively but isn’t a major city. La is basically doesn’t feel like a real city and has so much access to nature.
Sacramento.
1.5 hours to world class NorCal coastline, Lake Tahoe, and SF/Marin headlands. 3 hours to Yosemite, and if you want to stay overnight, your options become endless. Just inside the center city there is access to two rivers clean enough to swim in, a large wetland outside the city, and lake Berryessa about 30 minutes away.
California is a nature lovers dream. Such diverse ecosystems (rocky coast, rainforest, redwoods, desert, mountains, alpine glaciers, tropical beaches, volcanoes) and of course cities with all the modern comforts. I moved here for those reasons from NJ. I will never go back!
Nature access in most any northeast/midwest/south city is going to be mid at best. There are some beautiful pockets near the Appalachian mountains, but those arent super close to any major city
You need to move to the west if you want tier A nature access from a major city. LA, SF, Seattle, Denver, SLC will put NYC/Chicago to shame any day of the week.
NYC has better parks but LA has better and easier access to “real” nature. You can literally be in a remote mountain pass like 20 minutes from Central LA.
Dude, Hollywood Hills, Griffith Park, and the observatory are all within LA city limits....
To be fair, those places are all crowed. Many people go out into nature to get away from people
Of course, the observatory is crowded. But you can hike around the hills and it's not too bad. Park at the bottom of the hill and hike up to the observatory. You get a nice hike and you can visit the observatory at the end without having to fight through traffic/parking etc. And if you want real wilderness hiking, it's relatively close to the city.
The San Gabriel Mountains are very close to LA and they are pretty empty once you get a mile in from a trailhead.
Fkn crows
Yeah and you can get to Harriman state park in an hour from NYC. Or be sea kayaking in Jamaica Bay. I could list a shit ton of other places but it seems like you don't know about NYC. I have a whole other list about train access to other places. No way LA Is better.
Would love to see this list!
I'm on mobile give me a day or two.
I live in NYV hiked the whole PCT which stays about an hour from LA for a month of walking, and the AT from mid PA to NH along with Harriman a ton and the Catskills and Delaware river and LA is definitely better. Water is a pain, but it's better. It's an aesthetic choice so I'm not saying it's objectively better, but on the objective metrics: acerage is greater, peak height and prominence is higher there is more diversity of biomes. If you really like deciduous forest and carrying less than 4 liters of water you would make a different choice.
I left Chicago because the access to nature was mid as hell.
OP wondering if Chicago has better topography... What topography? It don't get much flatter than Chicago.
You're not *that* far from some areas in the upper Midwest that are a whole lot more topographically interesting than Illinois is. But yeah, nowhere close to the same league as Seattle, SF, Denver, etc.
Even compared to NYC (OP's current location). There are some nice mountain options 1-2 hours from NYC, including wilderness area in the Catskills. These aren't the big mountains of the West, but it's a lot more than Chicago offers.
Specifically mountains, yeah, but places like the Wisconsin Dells are very pretty.
That's fair and true, though that area of WI is 3 hours from Chicago. Not saying there aren't nice natural/scenic areas accessible from Chicago, just that it would be overall a downgrade from NYC on the nature / scenery. If OP was looking for better nature/scenery, Chicago would be a very strange choice.
It’s always funny to see comments like this! I’m from Florida and when I visit in-laws in Chicago I’m always like “damn nice, a hill” lol. The Midwest feels like it has way more topography than most of central and south Florida!
Well yeah, when your metaphorical 'bar" is below sea level anything is a hill.
Illinois is the second-flattest state in the country (only ahead of Florida), so your mind will be blown if you visit, like, anywhere else
Chicago has like 1 hill and its man made, lol.
Yeah, you can only stare at open prairies so many times before you get bored
I asked this because someone on tiktok said they were leaving nyc because they wanted better walkable access to nature so they were moving to Chicago.. I was genuinely shocked and confused
The Lake is really nice, and I guess its cheaper to live in Lincoln Park than a comparable neighborhood in NYC, plus you can walk to the beach in the summer. NYC has better within driving distance but it does seem like a nice setup there
That’s what I thought as well. I was confused by the tiktok and it made me question being in nyc because I always thought I had the best nature access for being in a major city (other than Seattle, San Francisco or even LA, but I don’t really want to be there)
Chicago has a lot of woods/preserves compared to new york, especially if you live in the city. Some people just want woods and the lake and that's plenty, but topographically yeah very mid in Chicago
Why shocked? Many trails and entire lakefeont in Chicago.
Most people don’t consider that “nature” * Nature ≠ city parks * Nature = wilderness Chicago has some nice city parks (though so does NYC, arguably more accessible by public transportation), but doesn’t have great wilderness areas. Funny, but within a 1-3 hour drive, there’s tons of great wilderness spots near NYC. That’s also the catch 22. Most outdoorsy people won’t blink an eye at driving several hours to get to a trailhead or campsite. The goal is to get away from people, not stand in a line to get up Bear Mountain.
Many of my Chicago and Minneapolis area friends spend their summer weekends either kayaking, boating, fishing, or camping, or walking through nature areas or if they are in a suburb with a yard doing yard work. Plenty of nature without mountains and the ocean.
[удалено]
We get it, you hate Chicago 😂
A lot of New Yorkers suffer from living in a bubble in their own communities. That New Yorkers will be making an update in a year disappointed lol
yikes
So "mid" now means "way way below average" huh. I also left because of that. Best decision I ever made.
Seattle
Yep! Seattle has three **national parks** within a 2 hr drive. Beautiful mountains, water. It's the only major city in the US that people move to in order to get **closer** to nature.
I think folks in Denver might take issue with that statement.
Denver is all Rocky Mountain all the time. Seattle and PNW have a large variety of nature. There are mountains, deserts, lakes, islands, sandy beaches etc. Hell there is even a tropical rainforest inside Olympic National Park.
The rainforest in Olympic National Park is a temperate rainforest, not tropical obviously. I'm assuming you know this and just mistyped, but if not here you go.
Not disputing that the PNW has a wider plethora of climates. The commentor specifically stated that Seattle was "...the only major city people move to in order to get closer to nature." That's simply not the case.
Ah, good catch!
> It's the only major city in the US that people move to in order to get closer to nature. Portland Oregon has entered the chat. Also, Denver... back off. Seattle and Portland offer an OOM more diversity in nature than Denver could even hope to provide. As I mentioned earlier, IMO the (2) best significant MSA in the United States with the most diverse access to nature are Portland and Seattle. The Big Island is a neat contender as well, but, it is really small. Big diversity, but not deep. I love me some Hawaii, but it's not a good suggestion.
Just in terms of amount of cool stuff within driving distance Seattle wins, but the weather isn't great for outdoor adventures much of the year. That puts it below Denver and San Francisco in my book.
Absolutely. I live in Chicago but LOVE Seattle. It is a Metropolitan area with a insane outdoor scene. Tons to do. My fam goes there every single year.
If you truly love the outdoors then you don’t need 70 degrees sunny days all the time to do stuff. 40s, overcast, and sprinkling is actually the best weather to go on a proper hike.
I'll agree on the ideal temperature being 40s through 60s, and overcast and sunny days both have their charms, but you're not gonna sell me on sprinkling part.
The fog coming off the trees in weather like that is magical though. I love hiking in all four seasons in Seattle.
This is so wrong. Seattle is essentially never too hot or cold to be outdoors or exercise. I run outside all winter in shorts and a long sleeve shirt because it rarely dips below 40. 40s is way more comfortable for hiking or any active outdoor activity than high 80s.
I’ll take high 80s with low humidity over 40s and raining any day…but I tend to run cold so maybe that’s why.
Not really compared to SF at least. SF is like Seattle if Seattle were warmer in the winter with less frequent rain and also cooler in the summer. And even if it doesn't get super cold, on any given day from November to April you're looking at a ~50% chance of measurable rainfall with a lot of cloud cover even when it doesn't rain, SF that's more like 30% with lot more sun between storm sequences.
Yea, but traffic is awful and all the hikes are crowded now.
Unfortunately Seattle isn't really a metropolitan area that can be even remotely compared to nyc
Nowhere in the US is. If that's your mark then it's NYC, then a step down, then LA, then another step down, then the DFW or Houston area, then a big step down, then Chicago. None of those places are particularly great for 'nature' -- except LA which is another good option. e. mention Chicago and Midwesterners come out to defend their honor, tale as old as time.
To me, NYC>Chicago>DC/SF>Philly/Boston is the order for one type of city, and then LA>Phoenix/Houston>Atlanta>Dallas is the order for the other type of city. If somebody is looking to replace their NYC experience suggesting Dallas is laughable, Boston (just as an example) would make a lot more sense.
How is Chicago a big step down from Dallas or Houston in terms of being a metropolitan area? It's bigger than both in terms of Metro and city proper population and is denser too
Chicago is America’s proper 2nd city. Houston and Dallas are strip malls and parking lots. LA is in between.
1) you are clearly high to rank Chicago below Houston and Dallas 2) you clearly do not know Chicago very well. DFW is a culture less neighborhood full of strip malls and franchise vomit.
This is catastrophically wrong. It goes NYC then Chicago. Every other city you listed fails to have the necessary city feel, they are all urban sprawl.
Portland OR.
I'm leaving Denver for Portland next week! The nature access in PDX is outstanding. It's been a favorite city of mine for 10 years, so this is a long time coming!
As long as you’re cool with the weather. Definitely less sun here compared to Denver.
Yeah, that has always been a hesitation of mine. But after some introspection this winter, I realized it’s actually the sub-freezing temps that crush me in the winter. I grew up in northern New England, where it was often overcast and gloomy in addition to being below zero. I think I’ll do just fine so long as I stay active and maybe book some trips to sunny places here and there. I’ve visited PDX every month of the year at this point, sometimes for weeks at a time. So I’m ready to try it out.
San Francisco wins this one.
Yep, I live a few blocks above Golden Gate Park (larger than Central Park) and a few blocks below the Presidio (also larger than Central Park). Walk west and you're at the beach / Pacific Ocean. Not to mention viewpoints like Tank Hill and Corona Heights and dozens of other awesome parks scattered throughout the city. Head north across the golden gate bridge and you are in the Marin Headlands, wine country, and the redwoods. Head east and you hit Lake Tahoe and Yosemite National Park. Head south and you are cruising down highway 1 to Big Sur.
I miss living next to Golden Gate Park 😢
I agree--lived there and elsewhere in the Bay Area in the past, now in Seattle. Nature in Western Washington feels larger and, to some degree, wilder, but it's easier to access beautiful spaces in the Bay Area.
My issue with SF is how far it is from the mountains. I don't want to drive 3-5 hours to be in actual mountains. Seattle is great because in an hour you can be in the mountains
Atlanta. I’m seriously thinking to move there. And the one time I went there for couple days, I was so surprised how green and clean the city is. Also, everyone was super nice. I also loved how diverse the population is.
Yeah for cost of living, it’s a good balance of everything. Just live close to work because traffic is one of the worst in the country
No, Chicago absolutely does not have better nature access than NYC. You can even take a train out of Manhattan to the Jersey Shore, the Hudson Valley, Long Island beaches, Vermont, the Berkshires of Western Mass., the Connecticut River Valley, the Adirondacks, ...
That’s what I thought…thanks for confirming
I think D.C. is pretty slept on in terms of nature accessibility (if you’re willing to brave the traffic). Obviously, D.C. has Rock Creek Park, which is super nice. However, it’s also around an hour and a half to Shenandoah National Park. Then, there’s tons of really cool state parks in Virginia that are close, and you’re close to Chesapeake Bay which also has some beach areas. There’s also Harper’s Ferry with some nice cool trails, and many other hidden gems. Obviously, you’ll have to deal with traffic to get to these places, and there aren’t as many national parks as other cities like Denver. However, it’s still pretty accessible!
Don't forget Great Falls (and the Mather Gorge) which has to be one of the most underrated national parks.
DC also has been ranked best US city for public parks for the fourth year in a row: https://www.axios.com/2023/06/01/public-parks-cities#
Within a 4 hour drive you also get access to most of WV and Western PA with amazing Appalachian wilderness.
I scrolled down way too far to get to DC!
Charlotte: mountains adjacent Denver: mountains adjacent Jacksonville: tropical forest & ocean access Las Vegas: ringed by desert mountains with an alpine climate 30 min drive from Vegas Atlanta: mountains adjacent Miami: ocean & everglades Pittsburgh: at the top of the Appalachian range and adjacent to abundant wilderness Off the top of my head from an East coast perspective.
Boston is just as mountain-adjacent as Charlotte, and much closer to the coast obviously
This is a list from my personal experiences. Boston isn't a place I've spent much time in. I'm sure there are a lot of cities that I missed.
Everglades? It's pretty inaccessible and very little to do. You go there maybe once, take a swamp boat, get eaten up by mosquitoes, and no reason to go back.
[https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/things2do.htm](https://www.nps.gov/ever/planyourvisit/things2do.htm) wrong on nothing to do, right on the mosquitos.
But it's not something you do weekly. And it's an hour or two from Miami to get to the closest entrance to the park. Add a wreck on the highway, and it's several hours away. The Everglades are huge, and some of those activities listed actually start on the Gulf Coast - nowhere near Miami.
I live in JAX, not Miami, I can tell you that I 100% access the nature around me weekly: forests, ocean, beaches, marshes, etc. If I lived in Miami, I'd be accessing Miami's nature weekly as well. Miami has some of the best ocean access of any major city in the world. If you're into fishing, the beach, like going offshore in a boat, I can't think of a better spot for it. Miami also has (granted limited because of the density of the place) some excellent and beautiful tropical forest access. It's uniquely vegetated and beautiful. Whenever I'm down there, I bring my mountain bike and get into their tropical trails. Personally I wouldn't want to live in Miami, it's too population dense, it's too aggressive, like LA has a bit of a blingy douchebag element, etc.
I grew up in fort Lauderdale and Tallahassee, the Everglades sucks. I've never heard of any regular person going there for recreation. The beaches are amazing on the panhandle though, they call it the forgotten Coast for a good reason, it's not only beautiful but also not crowded. Nothing in Florida is worth dealing with the rednecks and the maga republicans though, LOL.
Keys/Key Biscayne are the US Caribbean
Some mighty good kayaking in those parts!
I think it depends on what you’re looking for in nature. I’d think NYC would be a great place since you’re in a world class city that has parks and green space, beaches, waterfront and you’re not that far out from the mountains and what not. Chicago has the lake. For people who want to be near the water but not on the coasts/near the ocean it’s a huge selling point. There are also parks. But if you want more “hiking” type nature you’re going to have to go to Wisconsin or Michigan. I live in the Twin Cities; I think our access to nature is awesome. We’ve got rivers, lakes, endless parks, mature trees, and green spaces. But for people looking to ski on something bigger than a ski hill, or who want to hike areas with significant elevation they’d have to go elsewhere.
Head west: LA, SD, SF, Seattle, Denver, SLC Atlanta, Charlotte, DC aren't bad either
Chicago you have to drive hours into Wisconsin or Michigan for nature. The lakefront access is terrific in Chicago and I'm sure there are fine suburban parks but that's it. Philly is underrated if you're willing to drive a bit to the mountains in PA or the shore in Delaware. Any western town sticks out as an obvious choice. There's a reason people from the western half of the country just dress more outdoorsy casually.
The lakefront is nice in Chicago but I wouldn’t call it natural by any stretch.
The beach is certainly a fascinating liminal point between an ancient glacial lake and an imposing megalopolis.
SLC
(Shh! Don’t tell them!)
Cleveland is great. Lake Erie, and the Cuyahoga Valley National Park. When the Gorge Dam comes down in 2026, it is really going to be something special.
Lived there as a kid. I think it's the most underrated metro in the country.
It is, indeed. The best combination of world-class arts, culture, history, medical care, and infrastructure wrapped up in an affordable package. If you haven't been there in a while, what they've done in the CVNP is quite remarkable.
I should pay a visit in the near future. I still have a few elderly relatives there.
There's a fundraiser/event/party at the Cleveland Public Theater called Pandemonium, each year in early September. That would be a good trip, planning it around that event. It's incredible.
The Metroparks are also awesome and accessible!
San Francisco, LA, San Diego, and Denver for a good combo of proximity to city life along with good nature. Seattle and Portland too obviously but a lot more rain.
Sacramento and especially suburbs east - 45 minutes and you’re in the Sierras, 1.5 hours from Tahoe, 2.5 to 3 from Yosemite, an hour from Napa, 2 hours from the coast (Marin in particular)
Ok but how is Sac a major city
2.5 million metro puts them close to top 20 in the US but I haven’t heard your definition as to what’s “major”.
PNW so Seattle Olympia Portland Vancouver Wa and Vancouver BC...maybe Tacoma
Phoenix metro area. No kidding, beautiful hiking all over
Yeah, looking at the top 10.MSA https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metropolitan_statistical_area I'd say Phoenix wins with LA second then DC, Phi, NYC, Dallas, Atlanta, Chicago, Houston, Miami. If you own a boat the last 3 would be higher but I get sea sick and it's my list.
IDK if these qualify for your “large metro city” but your best bets are: San Francisco Seattle Denver Phoenix Of your list, honestly LA is probably the best cause you’ll likely have a car.
Within the city limits itself I don't think it gets better than Central Park. DC has Rock Creek Park which is nice, and then Great Falls outside the city among others. You'd be two hours from an Appalachian Trail trailhead in DC as well.
There is nothing natural about Central Park NYC. Central Park NYC is completely designed and terraformed by man, Fredrick Law Olmsted architected the entire thing. As for man made parks, Tulsa's Gathering Place is better than Central park by a wide margin. For natural parks, no comparison to Hanna Park in Florida with over a mile of pristine Atlantic coastline, none. Nothing built by man compares with nature. I used to live on East 90th by Central Park and ride the 6mi loop after work.
You obviously haven’t been to SF if you think there’s nothing better within city limits
I dunno if I would hype central park up that much. It’s really cool but it’s not really “nature”, it’s more like an extremely nice and big garden
DC also has the most park space of any major city and 99% of residents are within walking distance of a park as well as most parks per capita. [Here’s](https://www.axios.com/2023/06/01/public-parks-cities#) the ranking from 2023, but DC had the highest score again this year.
DC area has some great access to parks and nature
Atlanta - 1.5hrs to mountains, 4-5 to the beach, even trails near the suburban areas. “City in the forest” I would say Denver as well. The city itself is pretty flat on the plains but the mountains are close.
If the question is largest city with nature access then you have a few cities until you get to Denver. LA, SF and Seattle all fit that bill. It’s really just an extremely broad set of requirements to be honest.
Love AtL, but 4-5 hrs to beach is not really a selling point lol. What can you do make that trip once or twice a year?
Even without the mountains I've been to some great trails along the hooch, there's stone mountain, the belt line connects a bunch of green spaces, plus there are so many more green spaces and trails.
Same comments about Raleigh/Durham/Chapel Hill--which isn't true "access" on a day-to-day basis since you're still driving at least an hour to reach that wonderful "nature"! (Except for some woodsy areas.)
Yeah but 2 hours to the beach is way different than 4-5. 2 is rough for a day trip but makes weekend trips so much more realistic. Can leave after work and still catch the sunset
Twin Cities - its flat as a pancake, but there are lakes, rivers, and tons of parks and trails. Amazingly accessible. Phoenix, San Diego, Inland Empire, Seattle, Portland all score well in my book too.
How close would you consider accessible (ie you get off work and straight up hit the trails or you drive a couple of hours?)
Cleveland is super underrated when it comes to nature access. Lake Erie, Cuyahoga Valley National Park, and the Emerald Necklace are all right there. And you're only about two hours from Hocking Hills, in the foothills of the Appalachian mountains. It's still "flat-ish" by West Coast standards but the glacial rivers carved some incredibly beautiful gorges throughout the region which makes the topography a lot more interesting than almost every other city on the Great Lakes.
Any west coast city
The Las Vegas valley has incredibly easy to access hiking trails and outdoor recreation. Mount Charleston will be about 45 minutes away to do skiing and snowboarding, there are wetlands 15 minutes away from the strip, further afield Zion National Park is a 2.5hr really easy drive from here, Lake Mead has boating and jet ski access. On the west side of the valley, you have Red Rock Canyon, an hour outside of the city is Valley of Fire. I'm not personally very outdoorsy and I'm heat intolerant (don't ask me why I still live here) but I've been to all of these places and there's no denying that they are easy to get to and pretty cheap to enjoy. Lots of hiking, biking, bouldering clubs all over this town. Outdoor pros and locals agree: https://www.reddit.com/r/vegaslocals/comments/lcgtek/is_las_vegas_really_that_great_for_outdoors/ Remember that movie/doc about the free climber, call Free Solo? He and a bunch of other Californians have made Las Vegas their home in recent years: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2024-05-22/why-elite-california-climbers-are-moving-to-las-vegas
I [posted](https://www.reddit.com/r/vegaslocals/comments/lcgtek/is_las_vegas_really_that_great_for_outdoors/gm06r9f/) in that thread you linked and still feel the same way about Vegas. Lots of trails, which outside of Mt. Charleston, are all the same shades of dirt and brown. Mt. Charleston will give you some green and is the only reasonable hiking location from June-August due to heat. I've always found most Vegas locals have an unreasonable need to defend their city, but maybe it's just because I see nothing pretty about dirt, dirt, and more dirt.
Listen, I live here but was born and raised in NY on Long Island. The desert landscape is not personally my cup of tea but lots of people adore it. I prefer a landscape like coastal Maine if we're talking about places to be outdoors. There are beautiful aspects to the desert and lots of newbies to the area are blown away. The access to the outdoors with proximity to dining and nightlife are pretty unique. Only LA tops it. But yeah, I rarely ever go to bat for the city I've been living in since 2001. As soon as my kids are both in college (1 out the door in the Fall and 1 with 2 more years of high school) I plan to spend at least half the year in any other place but here.
Boston, close to new hampshire
LA has way better near in access to nature than NYC. NYC has multiple large public parks, but I wouldn't say you feel like you're in nature.
DC, Vegas, and they aren't large metros but Knoxville and Chattanooga
[удалено]
Easily 1 Not even fair, really
Chicago is the worst city for nature accessibility
The parks get larger and the topography more interesting as you go west. The east coast and midwest are mediocre by comparison.
The city with the absolute best nature access in America is Portland, OR. There is a massive forest within city limits, the most beautiful coastline 90 minutes away, the entire region is dotted with mountains, waterfalls, lush forests, world class hiking and outdoor recreation in every direction. Second best is Seattle which is very similar to Portland. Then a large gap and you get SF/Denver/SLC. The midwest and east can’t compare to the west don’t let anyone tell you differently lol.
Yup. 100%. Excellent call fellow PDX person. My personal "significant metro" access to nature tiers look like this: 1) PDX > SEA >> 2) Sacramento=Denver=Boise > 2.5) SLC ~= SF. Everything else, Tier 3. Hell, I am inclined to put Denver at tier 2.5. It's a one trick outdoor pony. SF itself is a bit isolated. Just getting off the peninsula could kill 1 to 1.5 hours. After that, a lot of places average out and can really only offer 30-40% of what you want, and no mountains. Seattle and Portland are TOP NOTCH outdoor jumping grounds. Depending on what you are specifically into, either could be tipped into the peak position. If you like ocean beaches, then, Portland. If you like high desert access, then Portland. If you want boating on salt water and not dying, then Seattle. If you want rainforest, then... both. Personal outdoor predilections will put either or in the top spot. I've lived: 22 years in Bellingham, 8 years in Seattle, and 13 in Portland. Washington access to nature diversity with minimal effort is amazing... but I think a lot of Washingtonians have no idea how awesome Portland access is.
Extremely good tier list, I totally forgot about Sacramento. I always get annoyed by people talking up Denver, if the criteria for being a good nature city is that there are mountains a couple of hours away then Sac is just as good or better with Tahoe and the wider Sierra Nevada.
This is correct. Seattle I find harder to access nature due to it just taking longer to move about the metro area, but once you’re there it’s pretty on par with Portland. Here in Portland you can land in some of the most gorgeous quiet terrain in under 90 minutes in many directions. Hundreds of trails in all sorts of climate zones within 2 hours. I like visiting other parts of the country, but I’ve never found any place that comes close to Portland’s access.
It’s definitely a 1A/1B situation but I agree. In Portland you can walk from Powell’s to deep lush forests in like 20 minutes, there’s just nowhere else like that in the country, not even Seattle (though I do love her)
Yeah, if someone wants the absolute peak best nature access I default to Portland (I’m also biased living here), but you’ll likely have way more job opportunities in Seattle, so that may be most people’s actual best bet for amazing access and an income. I’d be happy in either, but god knows it still blows my mind how close things I only dreamed about growing up are here in Portland.
Nature is very accessible in the Chicago area with the lakefront, beaches, and extensive park system in the city, as well as the forest preserves all over the suburbs. Is it the most impressive nature, no, but it’s extremely accessible and still quite beautiful. Chicago has a ton of parks, but things like hiking require a day or weekend trip to Starved Rock, Devils Lake, Door County, Michigan, etc.
When people say 'nature' they often mean either mountains, or wilderness. I personally love the black oak savannahs of the upper midwest, but most people don't give a shit about anything besides rocky elevation change to the point they barely even consider it 'nature'.
Moved to Chicago, and love what we are able to access. Yep, it’s not Colorado or California. But in the mornings, my wife can go to a birding sanctuary or the nature preserve down the street. I can take my kids to the lake and enjoy the beach. In the evenings, we can walk down the path next to the river. It’s very nice considering. The lake is absolutely lovely. We also have camping trips planned for Wisconsin and Michigan.
Boston deserves some love - one of the best park systems in the country, not too far of a drive from both mountains and really great beaches. You’ve got all of New England at your disposal for day/weekend trips, and that gives you a TON of things to do, in all seasons. Boston has the best outdoors scene on the East Coast IMO, but people seem to forget that a lot.
Montreal
For those saying NYC, it is minimum an hour and more like 2-4 to get to any real nature outside of the city. It is one huge drawback to living here. And once you do get to nature, it is mostly just hills and forests, nothing at all like the spectacular geography of the west coast.
It takes me one hour to get to the mountains and “real nature” !
I’m in Philly and it takes me 25 min to drive to Wissahickon where there are 50 miles of trails. Still an hour train ride to NYC. It’s worth considering
DC! Would not move to Chicago for nature access
LA …. you can ski/snowboard and surf the same day. the year round ridiculous weather is for real. west.la , its even better weather. but some people need the seasonal changes.
My coworkers do this
Better off getting a car in NYC and exploring the Catskills, Delaware River Gap and Berkshires. Waaay better nature and wilderness compared to anywhere near Chicago.
Minneapolis
Take the metro north up to cold spring ny! Or LIRR to port Washington and go to sands point. There’s plenty of nature in NY!
I love all the Chicago nature zealots, but having lived there for almost 50 of my 67 years, we finally left for good (to the Bay Area) because of the lack of woods, jawdropping coastlines, hills of any size, roads that curve, and seasons that don’t consistently disappoint. Great food, architecture, and city vibe but winters were soul crushing.
If you're looking for a large metro, LA is the only answer, but only if you can afford to live near the mountains or the ocean. The driving times in LA or outrageous -- the nature is more accessible in NYC than most of LA. For accessibility, if you don't count DC's nat'l parks as nature, you can't beat Minneapolis/St. Paul -- there's 22 lakes within Mpls city limits alone, so many of us can walk to a lake, and the whole city is within biking distance of lakes. I'm, like, an afternoon's bike away from campsites. But it's not a large metro, and you've got to drive many hours to get to top-tier camping. Otherwise, anywhere near the mountains or the ocean will have nice nature nearby, but in most of these places, the nature isn't terribly accessible.
Just to clarify, did you intend to pick the (3) largest cities and MSA in America? Is this what you meant? Or do you have a better definition of "major cities"? Would Portland make the cut? Sacramento? Omaha? Salt Lake City?? Scranton? You mention topography, and seeking "better" topography. What do you mean by better. What are you looking for, trees, green, hills, mountains, ocean, rivers, lakes, etc.? Anyways, you request for information is devoid of any meaningful criteria at all. So you are going to get the answers you deserve here. Anyways, as far as I am concerned, the best significant MSA in America with "access" to a variety of nature, are, Seattle and Portland IMO. Other areas do have access to nature, but nothing is as diverse as the PNW. Has almost everything except humid subtropical and humid tropical to offer. But, I am sure I ran afoul of some requirement. Please feel free to respond with some other criteria and hidden constraints.
California has more natural diversity than the PNW, of course.
I live in Chicago and I think the access to nature within the city itself is great here, especially if you live along the lake. Obviously it's not anything like the West Coast but there's the lakefront trail and lots of green space around Lincoln Park all the way up to Edgewater, etc I'm considering a move to NYC and was a bit concerned about nature access there, I've been so spoiled by the lakefront here haha
The nature access in NYC is pretty nice. I do prefer hills and forests more than lakes/beaches so I will also say that. There are hills and woods in upper Manhattan and the Bronx, and the mountains upstate are only an hour or 2 drive away.. plus there are beaches and rivers here as well! I only asked this question here because someone on tiktok posted about them leaving nyc to Chicago saying they’d have better nature access and I felt confused. By looking at the responses here I think you shouldn’t have anything to worry about. The parks here are really nice and large as well
What nature? The lakefront trail isn’t nature. It’s an urban park.
And what about that great big wet blue thing? Are you telling me that Lake Michigan isn't nature? It's just different nature.
How do you define large? On any list that includes Seattle, Seattle wins hands down. Denver also. But if its just the top 4 cities then probably LA.
What do you consider a large metro?
SF is like if someone took a slice of Queens and threw it on the California coast.
Seattle, Portland, San Francisco
Portland has the largest urban wilderness park in the country (Forest Park) and it’s essentially right next to the central city. And due to the urban growth boundaries that every Oregon city has, there’s not much sprawl and so you can get out into the farmland and forests pretty quick. The mountains and coast aren’t far either.
SF
Chicago and good topography don’t go together. It’s flat as hell.
Chicago has forest preserves, but you can drive an hour or two outside of the city and there’s plenty of nature. Not to mention proximity to Wisconsin, and SW Michigan. (I’m skipping over Indiana, but there are some nice beaches/dunes in Indiana too. The north shore suburbs also have beaches not just in the city. Summer is great if you don’t mind the humidity. Spring and fall are also beautiful. Winters suck
There are plenty of gorgeous spots within driving distance of Chicago
La easily Theres a mountain range in the center of the city You can take the subway with in 1/2 mile of trails.
Well it depends on what kind of nature you want but any of the metro areas along the Appalachian trail, Rocky Mountains, or along the west coast should give good access to nature. You could also just look at a nation park map and look at metro areas closest to them.
With an all due respect I find it laughable that you live in NY state and asking if Chicago which is located in Illinois has better topography lmao. Anyways it’s widely known that nyc beats Chicago is both. Parks and topography
Do you mind sharing the link to the tik tok ceater? I’d love to see him explain his reasoning and what he finds to be nature?
https://www.tiktok.com/t/ZPREL3pQP/
Check out Milwaukee, WI
DC is the best city for park access! Rock creek is big enough to go for multi hour hikes, and Great Falls is right there. It doesn’t have the western mountains but your within a couple hours of Shenandoah if you want to go bigger.
I liked Chicago city and its far away suburbs and I don't know why. The architectural city is superb.
Seattle is probably the single best one for variety. You have beach, coastline, mountains, and rainforest within a few hours drive. If you don’t need the beach then Denver for mountains and skiing. Boston you’re only a few hours drive from Vermont and New Hampshire’s mountains, the Maine coast, and Cape Cod.
San Francisco.
Phoenix. Largest city park in nation (South Mountain). Multiple other decent sized mountain parks in metro area. Lakes nearby. When it's too hot, hour drive to cool pine forests. Grand Canyon 3 hour drive. Saguaro national park 1.5 hrs. Sedona/Red Rock country 1.5 hours.
Any city out west tbh. Denver, Seattle, SLC, Phoenix, Tucson, Los Angeles, etc
Atlanta. City in the trees plus near the best kept secret N. Ga mountains and lakes
Metro Detroit has one of the best park systems in the country, and you're only an hour or two away from true forest wilderness and the Great Lakes.
This is something only a local would believe. Park access within the metro is abysmal compared to other cities.
Raleigh nature is everywhere basicly a city in a forest. Nature trails are everywhere close to the beach and mountains 2.5 hours either way. Agricultural school on city creates even more nature access. Also relatively cheap house compared to other cities mentioned. Also suburbs are are very forested.
Depends on what you're looking for. There's great parks in Chicago and lots of neighborhoods where you can walk from your apartment to the beach or your boat in the marina. It's a nice lifestyle.
Vancouver, BC. 30 mins from downtown and you’re hiking in the mountains! Also, the ocean and nice beaches right in town!
Portland, Seattle, Denver, Albuquerque
SF. Marin and East Bay are gorgeous. Surfing is ok in SF, great in Santa Cruz. World class skiing in Tahoe is not far. Yosemite and Sequoia NP are not far, and are two of the most incredible places on earth. Redwoods in northern CA are mind-blowing.
Chicago is flat as can be and not much around it for hours. Don’t recommend.
Seattle wins hands down. You are right in the city, surrounded by endless trees, mountains, and ocean.
I feel like nyc is the hardest city to get out of that I’ve ever lived in. Boston has tons of access to nature comparatively but isn’t a major city. La is basically doesn’t feel like a real city and has so much access to nature.
Philadelphia has the wissahickon :)
How’s Boston for access to nature? And how do you access nature there?
Sacramento. 1.5 hours to world class NorCal coastline, Lake Tahoe, and SF/Marin headlands. 3 hours to Yosemite, and if you want to stay overnight, your options become endless. Just inside the center city there is access to two rivers clean enough to swim in, a large wetland outside the city, and lake Berryessa about 30 minutes away. California is a nature lovers dream. Such diverse ecosystems (rocky coast, rainforest, redwoods, desert, mountains, alpine glaciers, tropical beaches, volcanoes) and of course cities with all the modern comforts. I moved here for those reasons from NJ. I will never go back!
San Francisco
Nature access in most any northeast/midwest/south city is going to be mid at best. There are some beautiful pockets near the Appalachian mountains, but those arent super close to any major city You need to move to the west if you want tier A nature access from a major city. LA, SF, Seattle, Denver, SLC will put NYC/Chicago to shame any day of the week.