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.
So for the first round of our second tier of scenery battles, we're pitting two gorgeous Californian cities against each other: the diverse giant that is the Los Angeles metro vs. the pristine coastal views of San Luis Obispo.
So for the first round of our second tier of scenery battles, we're pitting two gorgeous Californian cities against each other: the diverse giant that is the Los Angeles metro vs. the pristine coastal views of San Luis Obispo.
I assume you're talking about natural scenery only, right?
If we're talking about the built environment, then it's a draw. SLO is a nice quiet area with little of the urban blight found in LA, and has less smog. But LA has the larger skyline.
Every time you have one of these natural scenery polls, you have to predicate it with this: If you could travel back in time to 1600, before there was any significant building in LA and SLO, which area would look more scenic?
Because people will say how a city like San Francisco has such great natural scenery and then go on to mention how marvelous the Golden Gate Bridge, the skyline, et cetera are, as if the Golden Gate Bridge and the skyline are natural features.
I assume you're talking about natural scenery only, right?
If we're talking about the built environment, then it's a draw. SLO is a nice quiet area with little of the urban blight found in LA, and has less smog. But LA has the larger skyline.
Every time you have one of these natural scenery polls, you have to predicate it with this: If you could travel back in time to 1600, before there was any significant building in LA and SLO, which area would look more scenic?
Because people will say how a city like San Francisco has such great natural scenery and then go on to mention how marvelous the Golden Gate Bridge, the skyline, et cetera are, as if the Golden Gate Bridge and the skyline are natural features.
Yeah, this is a decent point. I try to drive in the point that the polls are about "natural scenery," but if people want to vote based off architectural/man-made features, then I guess that's on them.
I assume you're talking about natural scenery only, right?
If we're talking about the built environment, then it's a draw. SLO is a nice quiet area with little of the urban blight found in LA, and has less smog. But LA has the larger skyline.
Every time you have one of these natural scenery polls, you have to predicate it with this: If you could travel back in time to 1600, before there was any significant building in LA and SLO, which area would look more scenic?
Because people will say how a city like San Francisco has such great natural scenery and then go on to mention how marvelous the Golden Gate Bridge, the skyline, et cetera are, as if the Golden Gate Bridge and the skyline are natural features.
The biggest difference between Los Angeles County (LA) and San Luis Obispo County (SLO) is that, in 1600 or 1700, the countryside of SLO County did not look appreciably different than it does today. Unfortunately, the same cannot be said of LA. In my opinion, the countryside of SLO is more scenic than that of LA due to more grasslands, vineyards and woods. For the most part, LA does not have any areas that look like this:
Downtown LA looks amazing. Skyline is so rapidly changing it looks unrecognizable from what it was two years ago. Unfortunately, with California's left wing policies, defund the police, proposed income tax height and wealth tax, you bet that crime is going to spike in inner city LA, businesses and wealthy residents will leave, and Downtown LA will deteriorate into blight once again. With such blight, people who are affluent enough to live in high rise condos will move out of the inner city, and developers will stop building high rise condos. Companies will follow the wealthy and well educated talent to the suburbs, so there will also be reduced demand for office space. I just don't see this Downtown building boom continuing beyond completing already under construction towers.
IMO, it's the skyscrapers and the beautiful mansions that really steal the show and are the best part of scenery in California. Neither LA nor SLO are really that naturally scenic compared to Atlanta, Chattanooga, New Orleans, or even Toronto and DC.
^^^I would say LA is way more scenic than those cities.
I think it greatly depends on the time of year. In my opinion, there is nothing scenic about Los Angeles in August or September when the air is smoggy and the vegetation is brown and dormant. Now, if we're talking about March or April after a moderately wet winter, then I concede that Los Angeles is definitely scenic, especially at the Palos Verdes Peninsula.
Mr Jester you're right but I've been to all those cities and lived in DC for many years. Winter time in DC was not pretty. Summers either. Same for Toronto. No green. No flowers. Just brown and gray. For Los Angeles I can say from October through late July I'll take LA over any of those cities most of the year.
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.
