> Lol @ the assumption that most of these cities don't have "4 seasons". I didn't say that. But for sure Boston has much more dramatic seasonal change than man

> Lol @ the assumption that most of these cities don't have "4 seasons". I didn't say that. But for sure Boston has much more dramatic seasonal change than many of the cities on the list. > Also lol @ the assumption that there's only interesting things within 5 hours from the epicenter of Boston (I couldn't even type that with a straight face). I picked Boston but it applies to the top cities (from the article) as they are more compressed: 1. Boston - has intense seasons 2. Los Angeles - do noes not really have seasons 3. Miami - ditto 4. Chicago - extreme seasons like Boston 5. San Francisco - mild seasons 6. San Diego - no seasons whatsoever I only picked Boston because I know it well. I don't want to get into the all natural hiking granola see the earth shit. Yes clearly areas like Las Vegas win at that. The article even sort mentions my point: "Twenty miles might not seem like much, but in tightly packed New England, it’s the difference between being stuck in Massachusetts or escaping to neighboring Rhode Island or New Hampshire." Otherwise why the hell do you think its so congested? More people and more stuff = more compact. Often this equals more things to see and do. People in Massachusetts do not have to drive 60 miles to get to their job because stuff is more compact. In Atlanta they do! I pick Atlanta because I have lived there and let me tell you have to drive quite a bit even to get to a reasonable body of water (Lake Lanier) let alone the ocean.