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.
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!
Some? You're talking about ONE poster here. And seriously I cannot believe you actually used someone not realizing that there are Redwoods in the Bay Area as evidence that education is better in the Bay Area, who does that? Because considering how ignorant MANY people in the Bay Area are about SoCal, which you can see some of it on this thread, I guess the fact having more people with college degrees doesn't mean people are actually more intelligent. So hopefully you don't equate being educated with intelligence because they are clearly two different things. Your post was about as bad as 'daortiz's. I absolutely love it when some people from the Bay Area claim to be "intellectual" then spew out a bunch of stereotypes and BS clearly showing how fake and unintelligent they really are.
Quote:
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.
Apparently, again, some people in the Bay Area aren't as educated as they think they are because the San Gabriel Mountains clearly does register on this map with a big giant red spot. That "LA folk know nothing of what they speak" statement seems pretty ironic now doesn't it?
Also I'm not sure why you are exactly proud that the Bay Area is one of the prime "biodiversity hotspots" in the world considering that means it's one of the top spots under threat from humans.
I'm sorry but it's just too funny to me, being all proud the Bay Area is a "Biodiversity hotspot" without realizing what it actually is, I guess we know what that says about the education for some people in the Bay Area, haha.
The California Floristic Province is the only major biodiversity hotspot in the United States or Canada and one of only 4 located in the developed world:
The California Floristic Province is a world biodiversity hotspot as defined by Conservation International, due to an unusually high concentration of endemic plants: approximately 8,000 plant species in the geographic region, and over 3,400 taxa limited to the CFP proper.
Thanks Montclair. Much of SoCal is desert so it doesn't surprise me that NorCal would more biodiverse. Found a couple more for anyone who's interested.
Having a larger area of biodiversity doesn't mean it's "more" biodiverse, it's just spread over a larger area. Not surprised you guys would interpret it that way though.
Having a larger area of biodiversity doesn't mean it's "more" biodiverse, it's just spread over a larger area. Not surprised you guys would interpret it that way though.
Yeah it doesn't mean it's more biodiverse...and also it doesn't mean it's less biodiverse, but "spread over a larger area" as you claim (I'm not surprised you interpreted it that way)...all it really means is that on those maps, there is a larger area of pretty colors in Nor Cal. Almost no specific information is given.
BUT, those colorful blobs do mean something, and it can be guessed with reasonable certainty that when we're talking about said area in Nor Cal, which is much larger than the equivalent area in So Cal, that the Nor Cal area may very well be more biodiverse in total. It has MUCH more land within the same upper range of biodiversity as the equivalent area in So Cal, and it's not like the giant blobs of color in Nor cal are all one climate or something (more climates = more diversity)...see what i'm saying?
Yeah it doesn't mean it's more biodiverse...and also it doesn't mean it's less biodiverse, but "spread over a larger area" as you claim (I'm not surprised you interpreted it that way)...all it really means is that on those maps, there is a larger area of pretty colors in Nor Cal. Almost no specific information is given.
BUT, those colorful blobs do mean something, and it can be guessed with reasonable certainty that when we're talking about said area in Nor Cal, which is much larger than the equivalent area in So Cal, that the Nor Cal area may very well be more biodiverse in total. It has MUCH more land within the same upper range of biodiversity as the equivalent area in So Cal, and it's not like the giant blobs of color in Nor cal are all one climate or something (more climates = more diversity)...see what i'm saying?
And I never indicated that it was or could less biodiverse, I was just pointing out how having a larger area of biodiversity doesn't equate to a "more" biodiversity which you seem to agree with so it's looks like you're interpreting it the same way as I am.
When you look at the blobs, each respective region of the state has areas that goes to the highest level of biodiversity. You can go ahead and ASSUME that it's more biodiverse because Northern CA is a much larger area, not surprised you are of course, but the map doesn't really indicate that at all. If what you're trying to say is that Northern CA may be more biodiverse, I never claimed otherwise.
With cultural/art amenities, there's no tie. LA has more of everything than SF. Getty museum, Norton Simon, MOCA, LACMA. The art collection is simply more substantial in LA than in SF.
LA over SF. How people can compare SF to a mega city is beyond me.
Because it actually has more of certain "city" features than said mega-city. Just the way the cookie crumbles.
I actually don't have a bias toward one area or the other. I'm a lot more familiar with LA, and while I love the hugeness of it and the climate and such, it always seems to be missing something. On the other hand, when I visited the Bay Area as a kid, I didn't really "get it," but as I grow older I'm starting to get what the Bay Area is all about.
Ultimately, what strikes me about the two areas is how similar they are. Sort of like parallel universes. Which you wouldn't expect given the distance between them.
Cultural and arts amenities - Tie. Both rank very high, but neither can compete with NYC.
Cultural diversity - Tie. Both are extremely diverse areas.
Political diversity - Probably LA. Agreed about it having more of a variety of liberal vs conservative strongholds.
Transportation system (roads, rail, ferries, etc.) - SF by far. Other than LA having better freeways, its public transportation fails by comparison. Even though they're experiencing a large growth, I think the ridership tells the story. Caltrain has one line and has nearly the number of riders as 6 or so lines on Metrolink. The problem is that LA is so spread out and jobs are not centrally located, so I'm very skeptical that even with a dramatic expansion, you'll be covering a large proportion of the population. The bay area is very strong in public transportation, except for the Marin/Sonoma corridor, but even there, you have the ferry.
Geographic diversity - They're both good, but I think the bay area wins. You go from a semi-arid south bay to very lush redwood forests (talk about differences in rainfall). In LA, you have higher mountains, but the differences between vegetation is not as great. You go from shrubs by the coast and coastal range to semi-arid pine forests, to deserts....it all still slants on the dry side.
Climatic diversity - The bay area wins again for rainfall differences. However, the temperature deviation between coastal and inland areas is great in both areas.
Sports teams - Tie. The Giants and Sharks are better than the Dodgers/Angels, Kings/Ducks. Also, LA has no pro football team. However, the Lakers are far better than the Warriors and I think the LA college sports are a little better than the Bay Areas.
Higher educational opportunities - Bay Area. Stanford is higher rated than USC and Cal is higher rated than UCLA. However, LA is pretty good in its own right.
Family friendliess - Bay Area. Outside of SF, I think the Bay Area is a better place to raise a family. Having previously lived in SoCal, I think it is more materialistic down there and less intellectual.
"Dynamic" environment (entrepreneurial, social, cultural, etc.) - Tie. The bay area is far more entrepreneurial, but SoCal is more social when you're talking about other areas than the city centers of LA vs SF.
Natural beauty - Bay Area. The lushness and views of the bay are far prettier than anything in LA. I think the beaches in Malibu and Laguna are pretty and the mountains in LA are kind of pretty when they're snowcapped and not smoggy. However, I don't think LA has anything that matches up to say Muir Woods.
Beach quality - LA. More of your typical beaches when you think of California. These are places you want to hang out more, as opposed to the bay area, where you want to hang out a bit inland. However, I do think the natural beauty of bay area beaches is better.
Road rage - If you mean where its better, I'd say the Bay Area. LA traffic is far worse and they're more dependent on cars, so road rage is far worse.
Friendliness of people - Toss up. Neither area is particularly friendly in my opinion. Both are fast paced. LA area tends to be very shallow and all about physical image. The Bay Area tends to be full of pseudo-intellectuals. Neither area makes it to the top of the list of cities with friendly people.
General happiness - Bay Area. People tend to enjoy life more (food and wine scene), very outdoors oriented, etc. I think the surfer culture tends to be a happy one, but I think that's more pronounced as a proportion in San Diego than LA.
YOUR personal preference--and why! - The Bay Area. I think the job opportunities are better. I feel healthier here (better air quality, easier to access nature, etc). I think the food scene up here is better. I like how it is more intellectual and less materialistic. I think people here are far more pragmatic.
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.
