Greater LA/SoCal versus the Bay Area: Nature and Outdoor proximity only! (San Francisco: living, shop)

[Tex?Il?]

I wanted to start this thread for some time. This thread is comparing and contrast ONLY the proximity of natural variety and outdoor activities between the states two premier metropolitan areas. All other comments about the people, the city amenities themselves, etc. are not the topic of this thread. I love California as a whole, and will be exploring all parts of the state over the next couple years, as I have started to already.

Now I first want to say that I love San Francisco and the Bay Area. I can totally understand why one might assume that the Bay Area is much better than Greater LA for nature and outdoors proximity and accessibility. Marin County is directly across the Bay, etc. But as is usually is for me, I am always personally attracted to and intrigued by cities that don't get as much love, and I usually tend to look for faults in cities that get a lot of love. Having said that, I would love to experience living there too sometime.

I think the reason why people think Southern California is not as good are for a couple reasons. Its clearly a larger, more seemingly endless urban area than the Bay Area, a lot of the vegetation of the hills seen from most of the freeways is a more stunted scrub and more fireprone, the more obvious smog/haze makes it difficult to see mountains, etc. While northern California in general is associated with redwoods, Yosemite is the most famous national park, but when you take a closer look as always, I believe they are about the same, but they offer different nature.

Coasts:

Greater LA/SoCal has much more accessible sandy beaches, many of which are wide and open. The Bay Area has much more rocky, rugged cliffs with tidepools, etc. SoCal does have a few areas of rocky coasts such as at Palos Verdes, Torrey Pines, and a couple other areas, but they are impacted by highways, etc. You really have to go up to SLO (and beyond) from LA to see really beautiful rocky coasts. Sandy beaches close to the Bay Area are more limited to cove beaches here and there, and only some are accessible. Both areas do have salt marshes/estuaries with great bird watching, etc. The Bay Area has the inner/south Bay, while SoCal does have some great salt marshes in Orange County (upper Newport, Bolsa Chica).

Coast ranges:

For the most part these are comparably amazing.

LAs Topanga/Malibu, creek Santa Monica rec area is the equivalent counterpart to Marins Golden Gate/Tamalpais, etc. nat. rec area. They are both wilderness areas very close to the urban core, with a diversity of ecosystems, etc.

Here is where the Bay Area clearly has natural features that have no comparison in SoCal. The Big Trees. Muir Woods is amazing, as are just as much the coastal pines, (Monterrey and Bishop pines, mont. cypress, etc.) But heres the thing: despite the fog, the Bay Area is still a Mediteranean climate with months without any real rain. The vegetation around Marin, while beautiful still is mostly grassland, scrub, evergreen broadleaf trees/forest adapted to dry seasons. The redwoods there only exist in a local microclimate. One really has to go up to Humboldt to see extensive redwood.

The East Bay (Antioch, Pleasanton, Livermore, etc.) is similar to LAs Ventura county area around Simi/1000 Oaks). Exurban-suburban, with surrounding open space of grassland, oak savanna, etc.

Proximity to Sierras:

The Bay Area is obviously much closer to Yosemite, but the distance from LA to Sequoia/Kings Canyon isn't that much further than SF to Yosemite. Both amazing national parks. From SF one can go across the mountains to the high Sierra and beyond, from LA, one goes up the Owens Valley/395 to get to high Sierras. I think about equal here.

Deserts/Valleys. I know the valleys and deserts don't have much appeal for most people, but they most definitely have their beauty. LA is obvious for proximity to beautiful desert areas (love the Joshua trees, native Palm oases), although I will say as a midwestern transplant, the Bay Area is closer to the Sacramento Valley, with its marshes and meandering rivers in the middle of agriculture, would make me feel back home.

The Bay Area "wins" with groves of taller, more majestic trees in the coastal mtn ranges, as well as an overall more attractive immediate first impression of travelling around the metro area. Greater LA "wins", in terms of more immediate access to natural parks (IE: Griffith, etc. In SF, one has to cross bridges to get to nature/parks) as well as the high transverse ranges (San Gabriels/Bernardinos) as well as the access to the offshore Channel Islands (including Catalina). (The Bay Area has a little known group of small rocks off the coast called the Farallons, super important seabird and sea lion breeding grounds, but off limits to the public. Everything else is a "tie" but offer different things.

Thoughts? Comments?

[DocGoldstein]

NorCal - Better access to forest
SoCal - Better beaches and access to the desert.

Tied when it comes to mountains.

[ccm123]

Couldn't have said it better myself. Agreed entirely. The areas have two distinctly different feels.

Originally Posted by DocGoldstein

NorCal - Better access to forest
SoCal - Better beaches and access to the desert.

Tied when it comes to mountains.

[Fontucky]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

Deserts/Valleys. I know the... deserts don't have much appeal for most people

Which is why I consider myself a desert rat, although I'm not yet 7/52/365 dweller. But I'm right on the edge. Every move I make gets me closer to the Mojave.

[pch1013]

The SoCal mountains are MUCH taller than the Bay Area ones are. You can almost never see a snow-capped mountain from San Francisco, but on a clear winter's day in LA you almost always can. From downtown LA to the nearest 10,000-foot peak is about 45 miles as the crow flies; from SF it's 150 miles at least.

So although there are plenty of mountains in and around the Bay Area, they're not nearly on the same scale as the ones that surround LA.

[sav858]

I'd say the Bay Area has better access to nature due to how it's developed, it's very linear compared to LA so you're never more than a few miles from undeveloped hills. The LA basin has very little open land/parks in it's center as has a decent amount of sprawl before you get to any hills.

I think the mountains are more dramatic in the LA area but at the ground level the one's in the Bay Area end to be better imo because there are more tree's and vegetation.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by Tex?Il?

The Bay Area "wins" with groves of taller, more majestic trees in the coastal mtn ranges, as well as an overall more attractive immediate first impression of travelling around the metro area. Greater LA "wins", in terms of more immediate access to natural parks (IE: Griffith, etc. In SF, one has to cross bridges to get to nature/parks) as well as the high transverse ranges (San Gabriels/Bernardinos) as well as the access to the offshore Channel Islands (including Catalina). (The Bay Area has a little known group of small rocks off the coast called the Farallons, super important seabird and sea lion breeding grounds, but off limits to the public. Everything else is a "tie" but offer different things.

I think it's the opposite. You're comparing Great LA yet used just the city of SF as an example saying you have to cross bridges. You mention Griffith Park yet leave out GG Park and the Presidio for SF. Someone who lives in Torrance or Long Beach is much farther from a large open space/hills than anyone anywhere in the Bay Area is.

[.highnlite]

Probably in terms of scenic forested beauty, SF area, Point Reyes is hard to beat. The Bay area is nearly ringed with fine hiking and walking hill parks.

LA has access to the PCT, the Angeles, San Bernardino National Forests with high peaks and wilderness areas.

In LA you must drive farther to natural landscapes.

The desert is very scenic and available for a number of different recreation opportunities, from vehicles to horses to hiking to mtn bikes.

[pch1013]

Originally Posted by .highnlite

In LA you must drive farther to natural landscapes.

Depends where in LA you are. If you happen to be in Echo Park, Glendale, etc. then you're no more than 20-30 minutes from the bottom of the Angeles Crest Highway, which leads into a majestic mountain wilderness quite unlike anything in the Bay Area.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by sav858

I'd say the Bay Area has better access to nature due to how it's developed, it's very linear compared to LA so you're never more than a few miles from undeveloped hills. The LA basin has very little open land/parks in it's center as has a decent amount of sprawl before you get to any hills.

I think the mountains are more dramatic in the LA area but at the ground level the one's in the Bay Area end to be better imo because there are more tree's and vegetation.

Agreed. I do feel sorry for those smack in the middle of the LA basin away from the edges. The key is to do some research as to where its both affordable as well as close to the parks, hills, etc. (There are areas where its both, even though I live in Palms/Culver city areas now, I can see myself moving up to Eagle Rock, better parts of Highland Park in the future).

Agreed also about the mountains. In SoCal, you have to get above 4,000 feet before you get into anything that can accurately be called forests (except in the canyon bottoms where you have Sycamore, etc. but those are riparian corridors).