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.
This is so true.LA average neighborhoods are not nearly as nice on average. SD os much more greener overall.People are confusing scenery with outdoors access.
For instance take a city like Denver,its not a pretty city but has a great scenic skyline from an aerial view.On the ground driving around ,its just doesnt stand out
LA is beautiful from afar but far from beautiful. On the ground it's just not a very pretty or scenic city overall.
My few times in San Diego I honestly didn't think it was that greeen or lush at all.
Nowhere in Southern CA is really "lush" at all. But San Diego has A LOT more green space and parks where people actually live. I think that's what the poster was referring to.
No offense to San Diego, but Greater LA has everything Greater San Diego has, and more.
Greater LA has both the Mojave and the Sonoran Deserts. Greater LA has ten thousand foot plus mountains and ski resorts, although said ski resorts are puny and the snow quality is usually questionable.
Orange County receives a couple inches more rain than San Diego County. I find Orange County to be slightly more green than SD county, and Saddleback Mountain is just much closer to suburban OC than Mt Cuyamaca or Mt Palomar is to the SD suburbs. It's absolutely dramatic at how suddenly you exit suburban OC into uninhabited, pristine Santa Ana Mtn wilderness, how much Saddleback Mtn dominates the South OC landscape, and how nicely planned and terraformed the South OC suburbs are laid out on the San Joaquin Hills that plunge right into the Pacific.
The beach in Dana Point is easily the most scenic on the West Coast and outstrips even La Jolla.
The only thing I can possibly disagree with is that I think Laguna Beach is the most scenic.
The only thing I can possibly disagree with is that I think Laguna Beach is the most scenic.
You got me there. I definitely think you have a case for Laguna Beach. I think it's cool at how Laguna Canyon is so deep and narrow and suddenly opens up to the ocean.
I think Dana Point has more impressive architecture, though, so that's why Dana Point is my favorite SoCal beach. And the fact it has a lot of free parking.
LA is beautiful from afar but far from beautiful. On the ground it's just not a very pretty or scenic city overall.
That's because of the often run down and haphazard sprawl versus the nicer, better maintained neighborhoods of San Diego. And it has more smog. In terms of natural scenery it ain't the best in the country, but it is ahead of many areas including San Diego.
That's because of the often run down and haphazard sprawl versus the nicer, better maintained neighborhoods of San Diego. And it has more smog. In terms of natural scenery it ain't the best in the country, but it is ahead of many areas including San Diego.
I just think San Diego did a much better job at preserving its natural scenery. For example seems like nearly every creek or "river" in the LA area is lined with concrete while none are in SD. Or somewhere like Baldwin Hills could be a nice, sizable chunk of green space in the middle of the LA sprawl but instead it's mostly oil fields.
I just think San Diego did a much better job at preserving its natural scenery. For example seems like nearly every creek or "river" in the LA area is lined with concrete while none are in SD. Or somewhere like Baldwin Hills could be a nice, sizable chunk of green space in the middle of the LA sprawl but instead it's mostly oil fields.
Yeah, I can see that, but the San Diego and Sweetwater Rivers are hardly my idea of beautiful bodies of water. Saying they're better than the LA River isn't saying much, the LA River is simply one of the most hideous bodies of (mostly dry) water in the country if not the world.
There is also a section of the LA ricer upstream that actually looks pretty nice, with waterfalls and water mostly year round. But we're talking about the section running through the city, right?
If you think that any of the rivers and creeks in San Diego are as beautiful as the Mighty Mississippi then we need to talk, pronto.
Yeah, I can see that, but the San Diego and Sweetwater Rivers are hardly my idea of beautiful bodies of water. Saying they're better than the LA River isn't saying much, the LA River is simply one of the most hideous bodies of (mostly dry) water in the country if not the world.
There is also a section of the LA ricer upstream that actually looks pretty nice, with waterfalls and water mostly year round. But we're talking about the section running through the city, right?
If you think that any of the rivers and creeks in San Diego are as beautiful as the Mighty Mississippi then we need to talk, pronto.
I think you read way too much into my comment. I just said SD did a better job at preserving its natural scenery, not that its creeks and rivers were "beautiful" or anything. But they don't detract from scenery the way LA's waterways do was more my point.
Pound for pound San Diego. The coastline overall is more scenic, a lot of LA/OC beaches are wide, flat and pretty meh. The mountains are more dramatic and beautiful in LA but where most people actually live is flat, sprawly, and not very scenic at all. So many residential areas in San Diego sit atop mesa's separated by undeveloped canyons. It way easier and more affordable to get a home overlooking a canyon in SD than LA. There is just way more green space (parks and undeveloped canyons) dispersed throughout San Diego than LA on a per capita basis. Your average neighborhood in SD is going to be nicer looking/more scenic than your average LA neighborhood imo. SD was partly designed with the City Beautiful Movement in mind, I don't think LA was at all.
You're forgetting about South OC beaches. Lots of cliffs, canyons, and hills. The communities over there are developed in hills that are bigger than hills in San Diego.
I think you read way too much into my comment. I just said SD did a better job at preserving its natural scenery, not that its creeks and rivers were "beautiful" or anything. But they don't detract from scenery the way LA's waterways do was more my point.
I can agree with that. But still, sometimes I wish SoCal had something spectacular like the mighty Mississippi instead of some mostly dried up creek beds.
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.
