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.
Both cities have an immense number of palm trees, and so are pretty strong in that department. However, I choose Miami because the city showcases the diversity it has in palm trees strongly as well; Miami shows off the large variety it has in palms very well, with coconuts, royals, dates, and even ultra-tropical palms from the equator all being prominent around the city. In contrast, while LA does indeed have a high variety of palm trees, it seems that only the Washingtonias, and the dates see prominence in the city.
In addition, palm trees make a natural footprint in Miami, growing naturally, in the wild, all throughout South Florida. In contrast, LA, and the rest of Coastal California do not have native palm trees; the Washingtonias are found only in the desert canyons and oases of the state. The natural footprint left by the palms is something that even Savannah, GA, and Charleston, SC, have over LA.
"Very few can live in L.A."? Have you ever been to L.A.? You can't throw a rock from any point in the city without hitting a palm tree. They are everywhere in that town. Many of the streets, both small residential streets and main thoroughfares are lined with them. You even see them along some of the freeways.
Miami may have a greater variety of different species of palms, but the Washingtonia palms (that are native to the Southern CA desert) are all over the place in L.A. Some reaching heights of 100 feet. There are many Mediterranean date palms as well.
Miami wins for variety of species, but I'd say it's a tie for actual number of trees.
Palma are not natural to LA. They are in Miami. It is as simple as that.
Palma are not natural to LA. They are in Miami. It is as simple as that.
they have become natural, they even grow in the cracks in between sidewalks and freeways. empty lots are full of little palms that werent planted instead other plams nearby drop their seeds and they grow in open spaces like crazy.
Both cities have an immense number of palm trees, and so are pretty strong in that department. However, I choose Miami because the city showcases the diversity it has in palm trees strongly as well; Miami shows off the large variety it has in palms very well, with coconuts, royals, dates, and even ultra-tropical palms from the equator all being prominent around the city. In contrast, while LA does indeed have a high variety of palm trees, it seems that only the Washingtonias, and the dates see prominence in the city.
In addition, palm trees make a natural footprint in Miami, growing naturally, in the wild, all throughout South Florida. In contrast, LA, and the rest of Coastal California do not have native palm trees; the Washingtonias are found only in the desert canyons and oases of the state. The natural footprint left by the palms is something that even Savannah, GA, and Charleston, SC, have over LA.
queen palms are also very prominent in LA's cityscape. our big 3 are the fan palm, CIDP, and Queen.
What the Fan palm is to LA, the Royal is to Miami. so i think the dominance is about equal with these two palms dominating their respective city
Yeah, I would think years of palm seeds seeping into cracks and driveways of Los Angeles, would cause palms to grow wild throughout Los Angeles. At this point, palms might as well be viewed as native to Los Angeles. Why try to get rid of that image at this point, when they can grow wildly through concrete urban areas in Los Angeles?
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.