Between Almo and Oakley

 What do you call a rock the size of a house? "Rock" and "stone" hardly seem fitting for such a massive feature. "Monolith" sounds good but is too solitary a word. It also lacks the girth needed to properly convey the magnitude of the natural object before you. "Cliff" sounds promising but draws images of mountain ridges or canyon walls whereas what is before you is a standalone geological event, absent of the dirt or inclined ground in which to be incorporated. Likewise, while "butte" calls forth images of lonely sentinels of the desert or forest, it is too large and too solitary to be accurate.

Perhaps attempting to label the individual silicate structures in futile. It is not just that you are craning your neck looking up at an object eh size of an apartment block or gothic church made of large grained granite, but that there are dozens of these behemoths all around you, hemming you in. A single such object would be a curiosity, but the number and proximity of these formations to each other makes the individual stones common place and turn region into the curiosity. Not a group of stones, more like a community of silicates. But that is not enough. No. It is a  City of Rock, with walls tall and broad. Towers and structures made of stone, standing proudly above the trees and streams. With deer and chipmunks instead of cars and pedestrians. With paths and alcoves in place of streets and alleys. And unlike the manmade metropolises with their hustle and bustle, this City of Rocks is quiet. The structures silent and the denizens still. The loudest sound is the wind that carries the clouds past and bears up the soaring raptors that witness the existence of a natural wonder that rivals the works of man without even trying.