The Piedmont

[krazeeboi]

The map says it all. Both cities are in the Piedmont; Columbia is where it begins, whereas Greenville is definitely more central to the SC Piedmont.

Now, the statement that started this pissing contest was that Columbia is geographically located in an upland/coastal plain hybrid, not about which city is "more Piedmont." The map verifies this original statement. Back to the discussion at hand--PLEASE.

[Spartan]

The terrain is different. Just check a topographical map. Where did you get the idea that Greenville and Spartanburg are on a plateau?

Greenville and Spartanburg aren't on plateaus, but they are on high points in elevation. Greenville (Actually the area just east of Powdersville, is a plateau of sorts. Its very evident when you drive north on 85 that you are very high up in elevation.

Downtown Spartanburg is on a ridge, so it has relatively good visibility all around.

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.

Thats Kings Mountain in Cherokee.

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

You can see the mountains from Spartanburg, so I dont know what you're talking about. Hogback Mountain is the clearest.

--

As someone who took South Carolina geography in school, as a geographer by trade, and as a native South Carolinian, I can attest that Greenville and Spartanburg are very much in the Piedmont. Now for the foothills argument, let me offer this: what does piedmont mean, exactly? pied = french for foot. mont = french for mountain. The terms foothills and peidmont are synonymous.

I have been taught my whole life that Greenville, Pickens, and Oconee are technically "mountain" counties. Greenville has mountains in its northern areas. Technically Spartanburg County is in there too, but its only because of one mountain near Landrum, so I tend to exclude it.

Anyway, Columbia feels more hilly because its arguably largest slopes are downtown, and on heavily traveled roads (Assembly, Taylor). Columbia splits the piedmont and the coastal plain, so the term "Midlands" its apt in this case, but the geographical patterns don't really follow the political ones too well.

Northern sections of Columbia are not significantly less hilly than in the Greenville area. I dont know what thie gradual sloping mess is about. A a hill is a hill, not a mountain. So why the fuss? Does it really matter which city has more hills? The facts are that they are both hilly places, and both technically exist in the piedmont. You would just have a much harder time selling Columbia that way.

[krazeeboi]

Northern sections of Columbia are not significantly less hilly than in the Greenville area. I dont know what thie gradual sloping mess is about. A a hill is a hill, not a mountain. So why the fuss? Does it really matter which city has more hills? The facts are that they are both hilly places, and both technically exist in the piedmont. You would just have a much harder time selling Columbia that way.

Why the fuss? Who the hell knows.

Does it matter? Of course not.

You are correct that one would have a harder time selling Columbia as a Piedmont city, at least in relation to Greenville or Spartanburg--which is why Corgimatt used the term "hybrid."

We've reached a new low.

[NcSc74]

Why the fuss? Who the hell knows.

Does it matter? Of course not.

You are correct that one would have a harder time selling Columbia as a Piedmont city, at least in relation to Greenville or Spartanburg--which is why Corgimatt used the term "hybrid."

We've reached a new low.

Look at it this way you can only go up from here

[Greenville]

We've reached a new low.

I will second that!

[sonofaque86]

lol

[Spartan]

This topic was moved from the Mt Pleasant thread because it has nothing to do with that topic.

I'm going to leave this topic open for now. I hope that anyone who chooses to reply will have something intelligent to say.

[krazeeboi]

Both GSP and Columbia are in the Piedmont. End of story.

[Greenville]

This is a pointless thread. People seem to have their minds made up as to what constitutes the Piedmont, foothills, hilly terrain, etc. If we are honest with ourselves, we will admit that this is a Greenville vs. Columbia thread in disguise.

[krazeeboi]

Right, started in the same way as the recent ones. I just don't understand what the point was for contending Columbia's inclusion in the Piedmont. If you want to argue what the actual Piedmont is, this is the wrong forum; seek out a geography forum.

[Spartan]

There is no arguement to be made. I majored in Geography, and I am an SC native, therefore I am an authority on the situation. Its flawless logic

[waccamatt]

Certainly Greenville has more hills than Columbia, but if you spend any time in the Columbia area you will see that it is quite hilly. In some places, the hill that is topped by Sesquicentennial State Park in NE Columbia could be considered a mountain.

[sonofaque86]

Looking at the map says it all...

The End.

[Spartan]

This horse died a while back.