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.
no, lol. last time i visited, i was told that, given the climate, palm trees are not native to SF. they do seem to fare pretty up there though.
LOL
Well,
Palm trees have been part of the normal flora and fauna of The Bay Area for at least the 150 years of historical photographs that Ive seen and I dont think anyone feels they look out of place like some strange abberation.
In fact,
I used to own an old farmhouse in Oakland that had at least a dozen towering canary date palm trees that were planted when the house was built in 1906 after the earthquake.
On the other hand,
it seems that The Bay Area is far greener overall and can sustain not only palm trees but also lots of others. When you drive down on The 5 and see the signs "Entering the Angeles National Forest", its like there's no trees at all but instead little shrubs and weeds. I always found that odd.
Actually, 50% of all land in Colorado is dedicated to public use.
Denver is supposed to contain more parks than any large city.
Maybe that is why they are among the most fit in the nation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by roseba
DEFINITION: "THE MOST " - As in More than any other....
I'm sorry. Back from "being in jail" and catching up with old friends. Rosey, I stated that, "Los Angeles has more wildlife than any other big city" and you come up with unrelated topics. (above) Then I try to understand. You said, 'actually', meaning I was inaccurate somehow. Please, this thread has nothing to do with Colorado, although Denver, I would imagine, has plenty of wildlife.
LOL
When you drive down on The 5 and see the signs "Entering the Angeles National Forest", its like there's no trees at all but instead little shrubs and weeds. I always found that odd.
You may not be at the natural tree line for that area on the 5. Los Angeles is one of a few Meditteranean climate zones in the world, so it would be too warm and arid for pine trees that low. Perfect for citris groves, though. San Francisco is not one of those zones.
You may not be at the natural tree line for that area on the 5. Los Angeles is one of a few Meditteranean climate zones in the world, so it would be too warm and arid for pine trees that low. Perfect for citris groves, though. San Francisco is not one of those zones.
I forgot to mention that on the property of that farmhouse in Oakland were orange trees, lemon trees, apple trees, fig trees, raspberry trees, pear trees and beautiful magnolias.
It seems that even with LAs supposed mediterrenean climate, the Bay Area has MUCH broader array of vegetation and greenery. Basically everything LA has and a lot more.
And as far as climates, San Francisco and its metropolitan area are definitely classified as among the 2% of the world's land surface that are considered "mediterranean climate zone"
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Chicago
4 Santa Fe
5 Quebec City
6 Charleston, South Carolina
7 Vancouver
8 Montreal
9 Victoria, British Columbia
10 Seattle
Also according to the survey, LA people are the worst. No surprise here.
How In The World Can New York City New York Be The World Most Visited City When Las Vegas Is America's Most Visited City .....Please Explan That One To Me Will You Please.....
i live in la but i also hate la the traffic,the people are rude, but thats anywere you go to. but during the summer you got that nasty ol' smog. don't get me wrong about the only thing i like about la is the mild winter and spring thats the only time i like it there. plus my son who lives out there as well but beyond all that la still sucks. there is nothing better than the bay area hands down. and folks who thinks san francisco don't have a night life we have a tons of night life if you go to the right places.
Do some research on your own! San Francisco doesn't even have a population of 800,000! that really shows the REALITY of how favorite this city is. Read who publishes this site and you will loose all credibility.
But look at the tiny postage stamp of land that San Francisco sits on... 47 square miles... and then see how much of it is buildable - less due to geography. Even New York City is composed of 303 square miles. How big can one expect it to be? Add in the city's love of its Victorians, and opposition to removal means that going up can't always happen either... it's clearly extraneous factors are keeping the population the size it is, not lack of popularity. Density is a much better factor here, with 15,834 per square mile.
There's also 7.2 million in the Bay Area.
Many people who claim to love San Francisco are also tourists... just because you love a city doesn't mean you immediately up and move there.
There may not be a Heaven, but there is a San Francisco /Ashleigh Brilliant/
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.
