Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think many people are fairly ignorant of both the geographical and climatic diversity of LA / SoCal. They incorrectly imagine that the whole place is a sort of semi arid / low desert climate zone. All you need to do is look at the Sunset Western Gardening Guide climate zone maps to realize how incorrect that is.
Perhaps, but the difference is that a far greater variety of trees and shrubs are found in a regular Bay Area neighborhood than what one finds in a regular LA area neighborhood.
That's not to say that LA is not diverse, obviously it is very diverse, probably more diverse than anywhere else, except the Bay, but I just dont see redwoods and palm trees together in LA like I do up north.
Small tangent. Back in the 80s,my dumb Uncle gave my dad directions to his house back in the 1980s and he told my dad, when you leave downtown LA on the 110 going south, your going to see this tall palm tree in the distance, get off at the exit after the palm tree.
So what happens, you drive south of downtown LA on the 110 and there is a sea of tall palm trees in all directions. LOL.
Perhaps, but the difference is that a far greater variety of trees and shrubs are found in a regular Bay Area neighborhood than what one finds in a regular LA area neighborhood.
That's not to say that LA is not diverse, obviously it is very diverse, probably more diverse than anywhere else, except the Bay, but I just dont see redwoods and palm trees together in LA like I do up north.
Is there really more variety or just more trees and shrubs to begin with given that it's more lush overall? Yeah SoCal lacks redwoods but there are lot of plant and tree species that you really don't see in the Bay Area too, mainly those of more tropical varieties like Birds of Paradise plants and Jacaranda trees. You will occasionally find those in places but it's rare from what I've noticed. The variety of palm trees is also greater. One of my favorite types of trees that I have yet to see in the Bay Area that are found in SoCal is the Moreton Bay fig tree, kind of reminds me of Banyan trees you see in places like Hawaii.
Is there really more variety or just more trees and shrubs to begin with given that it's more lush overall? Yeah SoCal lacks redwoods but there are lot of plant and tree species that you really don't see in the Bay Area too, mainly those of more tropical varieties like Birds of Paradise plants and Jacaranda trees. You will occasionally find those in places but it's rare from what I've noticed. The variety of palm trees is also greater. One of my favorite types of trees that I have yet to see in the Bay Area that are found in SoCal is the Moreton Bay fig tree, kind of reminds me of Banyan trees you see in places like Hawaii.
That's not to say that LA is not diverse, obviously it is very diverse, probably more diverse than anywhere else, except the Bay, but I just dont see redwoods and palm trees together in LA like I do up north.
Redwoods in the bay area!! LOL give me a break!
This is not a NoCal vs SoCal thread, it is "Bay Area Vs Los Angeles Area" thread.
The SF bay area itself, sad but true, is a pollution trap that does not have much to offer as far as biodiversity, just a quick drive around the bay area you will find chemical plants polluting the bay as well as all those old ships wrecks and defunct navy ship yards leaking oil and chemicals into the water, believe it or not the arsenic and lead used during the gold rush still washing down into the SF bay area up to this day! and don't even get started with all the chemical pollution derived from agricultural pesticides and fertilizers brought into the bay from the San Joaquin Valley via the Sacramento river!
Really, the bay area is in a calamitous and precarious situation due to pollution on its waters and surrounding areas.
On the opposite side LA has its own share of pollutants as well as its world reknown smog, but at least it has the
San Gabriel mountain range right at its northern edge, not to mention the Santa Monica Mountains west of the city with pristrine natural suroundings both supporting great biodiversity and animal life, there is nothing that even comes close to this in the SF bay area.
residents polled were content with their quality of life while nowhere else in California scored above 50%.
A recent report was released on California regions based on quality of life and the Bay Area had the highest Metro Score.
Here are the top scoring areas in CA(SoCal in Red, NorCal in Blue): Santa Clara-Los Altos/ Mountain View/ Palo Alto 9.35 Santa Clara-Cupertino/Saratoga/Los Gatos 9.12 Orange-Newport Beach to Laguna Hills 8.88 Contra Costa-Moraga to Walnut Creek 8.77 Contra Costa-San Ramon 8.76 Los Angeles-Bel Air/Brentwood/Pacific Palisades 8.75 Orange-Irvine 8.73 Los Angeles-Redondo/Manhattan/Hermosa/El Segundo 8.63 San Francisco-Marina/North Beach/Chinatown 8.27 Santa Clara-Sunnyvale 8.25 Alameda-Piedmont(Oakland Hills) 8.24 San Mateo-City & Pacific Coast 8.20 San Diego-Torrey Pines to Mission Bay 8.17 Los Angeles-Signal Hill/Palos Verdes/Lomita 8.16 Alameda-Livermore 8.07 Marin-Mill Valley 8.06 San Diego-Encinitas 8.06 San Diego-Poway 8.02 Santa Clara-Almaden 8.02
From the same source, the 2008-2009 ranking of US States compared to CA's 5 largest Metro Areas by Human Development.
San Francisco-Oakland-Fremont Metro Area 6.97
1 Connecticut 6.37
2 Massachusetts 6.27
3 New Jersey 6.14
4 District of Columbia 6.14
5 Maryland 5.99
6 Hawaii 5.82 San Diego-Carlsbad-San Marcos Metro Area 5.80
7 New York 5.81
8 New Hampshire 5.80
9 Minnesota 5.72 Sacramento-Arden Arcade-Roseville Metro Area 5.66
10 Rhode Island 5.62 11 California 5.62
12 Colorado 5.59
13 Virginia 5.56 Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana Metro Area 5.52
16 Washington 5.41
17 Alaska 5.35
18 Delaware 5.22
19 Wisconsin 5.20
20 Michigan 5.13 US Average 5.06
21 Iowa 5.03
22 Pennsylvania 5.03
23 Nebraska 5.00
24 Florida 4.96
25 Kansas 4.93
26 Arizona 4.90
27 North Dakota 4.90
28 Oregon 4.90
29 Maine 4.86
30 Utah 4.86
31 Ohio 4.79
32 Georgia 4.74
33 Indiana 4.64
34 North Carolina 4.61
35 Texas 4.57
36 Missouri 4.54
37 Nevada 4.54
38 South Dakota 4.53
39 Wyoming 4.53 Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario Metro Area 4.52
40 New Mexico 4.49
41 Idaho 4.37
42 Montana 4.34
43 South Carolina 4.27
44 Kentucky 4.12
45 Tennessee 4.10
46 Oklahoma 4.02
47 Alabama 3.98
48 Arkansas
49 Louisiana 3.85
50 West Virginia 3.84
51 Mississippi 3.58
Where'd you find this list? I'm curious to take a look at it.
Redwoods in the bay area!! LOL give me a break!
This is not a NoCal vs SoCal thread, it is "Bay Area Vs Los Angeles Area" thread.
I'm curious what is so funny about this, are you trying to imply there are not redwoods in the Bay Area? Because there definitely are redwoods in the Bay Area. There is a suburb named after them for christs sakes, REDWOOD CITY.
Quote:
The SF bay area itself, sad but true, is a pollution trap that does not have much to offer as far as biodiversity, just a quick drive around the bay area you will find chemical plants polluting the bay as well as all those old ships wrecks and defunct navy ship yards leaking oil and chemicals into the water, believe it or not the arsenic and lead used during the gold rush still washing down into the SF bay area up to this day! and don't even get started with all the chemical pollution derived from agricultural pesticides and fertilizers brought into the bay from the San Joaquin Valley via the Sacramento river!
Really, the bay area is in a calamitous and precarious situation due to pollution on its waters and surrounding areas.
On the opposite side LA has its own share of pollutants as well as its world reknown smog, but at least it has the
San Gabriel mountain range right at its northern edge, not to mention the Santa Monica Mountains west of the city with pristrine natural suroundings both supporting great biodiversity and animal life, there is nothing that even comes close to this in the SF bay area.
What does pollution have to do with geographic diversity that was being discussed? I don't get why you are even bringing this up as no one claimed the bay is clean, everyone knows it's polluted. Honestly no one from LA can really give any other area crap when it comes to pollution, not even water pollution. If you want to pull up a list of Ca's most polluted beaches you're probably not gonna like what you see. Or perhaps you should take a trip down to Long Beach and take a look at the beautiful berm that holds back all the garbage that flows down the LA "River". I mean come one already, that's like an Angeleno complaining about Bay Area traffic or traffic anywhere else for that matter.
Both areas offer a lot of biodiversity and it's pretty close overall, I can see an argument for either and to say one doesn't "even come close" to the other is just false. If you're gonna talk about "truth" then at least attempt to speak it.
Funny how some of these LA folk know nothing of what they speak. It just speaks to the fact that education's better in the Bay too! Especially higher ed! However, it didn't take too many brain cells to figure out that we do indeed have soaring Redwood trees 15 minutes north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Muir Woods National Monument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let's deal with facts here. The following is a map of biodiversity hotspots in the country. The Bay absolutely trumps the LA region. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say it's THE prime hotspot in the US, and one of the prime hotspots of the World. So, please keep your San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains, because they appear to not even register based on this map.
Funny how some of these LA folk know nothing of what they speak. It just speaks to the fact that education's better in the Bay too! Especially higher ed! However, it didn't take too many brain cells to figure out that we do indeed have soaring Redwood trees 15 minutes north of the Golden Gate Bridge. Muir Woods National Monument - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Let's deal with facts here. The following is a map of biodiversity hotspots in the country. The Bay absolutely trumps the LA region. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say it's THE prime hotspot in the US, and one of the prime hotspots of the World. So, please keep your San Gabriel and Santa Monica Mountains, because they appear to not even register based on this map.
Are we talking about biodiversity hotspots in the usual sense of the term (which I assume the nature conservancy is using)? If so, then it doesn't necessarily mean more endemic fauna and flora for the Bay Area so much as it means it has 1) enough over a certain threshold percentage and 2) it is all hella endangered due to significant loss/encroachment.
Also, biodiversity in the Bay Area or Los Angeles individually are not really near the top simply because it doesn't usually have enough precipitation or endemism that many other regions have.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
