The Piedmont

[CorgiMatt]

No offense, but Columbia can't lay claim to real Upcountry terrain. That part belongs to the Upstate region alone in this state. If you like mountains and nice rolling foothills with steep slopes, there is no comparison between the Upstate and Midlands terrain. It is actually one of the most attractive qualities of this region, since many people move here to be so near the beautiful Blue Ridge mountains in northern Greenville, Oconee, Pickens, and Spartanburg counties. That is also a major reason Greenville is home to the US Pro Cycling Championship.

Actually Greenville proper and the immediate environs are no hillier than Columbia and Columbia's environs. I have noted that over and over on my trips to Greenville. It's like Greenville is on a plateau. Same with Spartanburg.

And Columbia does have the unique distinction of being an upcountry-coastal plain place. It's also known as the fall line, where one terrain gives way to another.

[goodbye]

Actually Greenville proper and the immediate environs are no hillier than Columbia and Columbia's environs. I have noted that over and over on my trips to Greenville. It's like Greenville is on a plateau. Same with Spartanburg.

And Columbia does have the unique distinction of being an upcountry-coastal plain place. It's also known as the fall line, where one terrain gives way to another.

The terrain is different. Just check a topographical map. Where did you get the idea that Greenville and Spartanburg are on a plateau? Columbia lies in a river basin, where there are hills, but they are more gradual that those in the Upstate. I have to respectfully disagree with the "Upcountry" statement. Where is the nearest mountain in the Midlands? What about the beautiful mountain lakes? Mountain trails? Mountain creeks, streams, and rivers? I just don't see this clearly defined in Columbia, no offence.

[g-man430]

I'll have to agree with Skyliner there.

[CorgiMatt]

The terrain is different. Just check a topographical map. Where did you get the idea that Greenville and Spartanburg are on a plateau? Columbia lies in a river basin, where there are hills, but they are more gradual that those in the Upstate. I have to respectfully disagree with the "Upcountry" statement. Where is the nearest mountain in the Midlands? What about the beautiful mountain lakes? Mountain trails? Mountain creeks, streams, and rivers? I just don't see this clearly defined in Columbia, no offence.

"Upcountry" is a term that has historical signigicance in South Carolina. It means "not the Lowcountry." I called Columbia the Upcountry-coastal plain hybrid, and that is what it is. And it is as hilly in Columbia as in Greenville. And we don't have a mountain range blocking our view of the distant horizon, where the sky of many colors meets the furthest blue ridge (yes, blue ridge) miles away.

And as for the mountains, all a Columbian has to do is make friends with a Greenvillian and agree to meet at a mountain campground. By the time the Greenvillian sets up camp, the Columbian will be there and will have avoided all the hard work.

[The_sandlapper]

The nearest "mountain" in the midlands is little mountain in Newberry County. Not sure how tall it is though, but there are lakes, rivers, streams, hiking, biking, kayaking, throughout the midlands of SC.

[monsoon]

Most of the Upstate and Columbia are considered to be in the Piedmont Plateau, which is the area of land between the Low Country and the Appalachian Mountains. Very little of the Upstate is considered to be in the foothills of the mountains.

[gs3]

Not sure about all of Upstate, but Greenville has a 2,000 ft. plus mountain (called Paris Mountain), that looms over downtown with suburban sprawl running up it. That's where the foothills start, and the "blue wall" just 15 minutes or so beyond that, so Greenville is tucked into the foothills of the mountains. All of Upstate, no. And I must say to some eariler post, don't recall ever seeing a 2,000 ft plus mountain in the Midlands. If you know of one, please let me know.....would love to see it and hike it.

[g-man430]

There is also one in Greenville County called Ceaser's head. Columbia does have lots of cool hiking areas though nearby. Don't forget about Congaree Swamp; the state's only national park.

[monsoon]

Not sure about all of Upstate, but Greenville has a 2,000 ft. plus mountain (called Paris Mountain), that looms over downtown with suburban sprawl running up it. That's where the foothills start, and the "blue wall" just 15 minutes or so beyond that, so Greenville is tucked into the foothills of the mountains. All of Upstate, no. And I must say to some eariler post, don't recall ever seeing a 2,000 ft plus mountain in the Midlands. If you know of one, please let me know.....would love to see it and hike it.

There is 1850+ foot mountain Crowders Mountain just south of Charlotte which is also on the Piedmont Plateau. It forms part of a park with a couple of mountains that includes part of Cherokee county in SC. I am aware of Paris Mountain as I attended Furman for a semester. Like Crowders Mountain, I am not sure it can be considered part of the foothills.

[BrasilnSC]

I would have to agree that both Columbia and Greenville are in the Piedmont region of the state, with Columbia being right at the fall-line. Yes, Greenville is closer to the Foothills, but not in it. There aren't many significant elevation changes in the city with the exception of Paris Mtn. Ceasar's Head is 30 miles away (very beautiful btw). Driving up I-26 through Spartanburg you don't reach the foothills until you are in North Carolina.

[gs3]

City elevations.....Greenville: 966 feet and Columbia: 314 feet.

Over 600 feet difference....fairly significant. Seems Columbia's elevation is more aligned with the lowcountry being only 314 feet from sea level.

But yes, the Piedmont is huge....in multiple states.....but within the the Piedmont, wide variations in height and topography.

[CorgiMatt]

City elevations.....Greenville: 966 feet and Columbia: 314 feet.

Over 600 feet difference....fairly significant. Seems Columbia's elevation is more aligned with the lowcountry being only 314 feet from sea level.

But yes, the Piedmont is huge....in multiple states.....but within the the Piedmont, wide variations in height and topography.

It doesn't matter how high above sea level a place is. The place itself can still be flat. Greenville itself is no hillier than Columbia.

[gs3]

^ A pissing contest over hills. You're right. Greenville is just flat as a pancake! That waterfall is really a pond and it's only 1 inch deep because Greenville is so flat. Those views off Paris Mountain really don't exist. All the ravines with creeks in neighborhoods, not there. Roper Mountain off 385 with the star on top.....it's really a desert and the mountain image is just a mirage.

[BrasilnSC]

City elevations.....Greenville: 966 feet and Columbia: 314 feet.

Over 600 feet difference....fairly significant. Seems Columbia's elevation is more aligned with the lowcountry being only 314 feet from sea level.

But yes, the Piedmont is huge....in multiple states.....but within the the Piedmont, wide variations in height and topography.

I was just stating facts. Columbia is at a much lower elevation than Greenville this is true, but I was talking about the terrain. Neither is flat as a pancake. Both cities have small rolling hills, Paris Mountain is the exception in Greenville.

[sonofaque86]

When I go to Spartanburg I never see a mountain unless I'm going to North Carolina or I can see them from miles away...It doesn't seem any hillier, and when I went to Greenville I saw mountains but while drving through the city there weren't that many hills either....I mean the elevation was higher but I couldn't tell the difference between Greenville/Spartanburg and Columbia, because Columbia has alot too...lol..we talkin bout hills now

Soon we gon fight over the beach sand in NE Richland County and the beach sand in Charleston County

[sonofaque86]

LOL! Who said bigger? I'm just saying I didn't see a difference last weekend in the city of Greenville itself, not the county

[sonofaque86]

EXACTLY...On my 3 minute drive through the entire city limits I couldn't tell...lol!!!

[gs3]

While I still don't see the similarities (in Greenville, sit in the baseball stadium and you have a mountain in your face as the backdrop to the skyline). I must say this thread has been very complimentary of Greenville. I do find it a great compliment that so many persons from the Midlands want their geography to be like Greenville's, thus all the similarity comparisons. Thanks guys!

[krazeeboi]

You guys are funny. Since when does Columbia have hills bigger than Greenville? Greenville is not in the piedmont. It's in the upstate, duh. Myrtle Beach has also got a mountain.

Columbia has hills for sure, but bigger than Greenville's? I really don't know about that, but who cares?

Ummm, "Upstate" is simply a term we use for the northwest portion of the state. "Piedmont" is a geographical region that means "foot of the mountains." The Upstate, along with Columbia on up through Charlotte, the NC Triad, and the NC Triangle, constitutes the Carolina Piedmont region.

[goodbye]

Columbia has hills for sure, but bigger than Greenville's? I really don't know about that, but who cares?

Ummm, "Upstate" is simply a term we use for the northwest portion of the state. "Piedmont" is a geographical region that means "foot of the mountains." The Upstate, along with Columbia on up through Charlotte, the NC Triad, and the NC Triangle, constitutes the Carolina Piedmont region.

I totally understand the topographical designation, "Piedmont," but between Greenville and Columbia, which city would you say is truly at the foot of the mountains? Columbia has no claim to a single mountain, whereas Greenville has several in less than a 30-minute drive, plus two within a few minutes or less of the city itself - Roper Mountain and Paris Mountain. Sorry guys, Greenville is Upcountry South Carolina. The lakes, trails, rivers, and streams I spoke of are in the mountains too, not just the rolling foothills. People who truly love mountain outdoor activities usually prefer to live in the mountains. I personally am one of them and would find it quite irritating to be forced to drive 1 1/2 hours to a cold water mountain stream to fish for native trout, or take off on a pleasant mountain trail to a large and beautiful waterfall, or visit one of the many quaint mountain arts and crafts villages I have grown to adore. In Greenville, I can do that without any planning and late in the day on a whim, or when the opportunity arises, and still be back home at a very reasonable time.

[sonofaque86]

Wow...There should be a thread called the hilliest SC city

Oh...Ya'll should go to Lexington, it really feels like you're in the mountinas on one of those high ways

[monsoon]

I think this map pretty much settles it. Greenville like Columbia is in the Piedmont. Only a very small portion of SC can be considered to be in the foothills of the NC mountains and this is some distance from Greenville. From a topological point of view there really isn't much difference between Greenville and Columbia.

[goodbye]

I see a whole lot more tightly-packed hills (steeper) in the Upstate. Hills are hills, but they are not always the same, which is definitely the case here in SC.

[monsoon]

I believe we were talking about the topology of Greenville which is a definite point on that map south of Paris mountain that is definately in the Piedmont.

[goodbye]

I believe we were talking about the topology of Greenville which is a definite point on that map south of Paris mountain that is definately in the Piedmont.

I never said Greenville isn't in the Piedmont. I said that considering the location of both Greenville and Columbia, which city would best fit the "foot of the mountains" designation? Greenville literally is at the foot of the mountains, and Columbia is 100 miles beyond. I don't see any reason to dispute beyond that fact.