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.
I voted for western coniferous forest. As a kid I found it annoying that the landscape in the PNW is dominated by coniferous forests, and always preferred deciduous trees. But lately I've grown to appreciate coniferous trees. Also looking at the street views provided I found the ones in the PNW most to my liking. I like how tall and large the trees are and how that it looks a bit wild too. I don't like it when it's just trees and grass like the ones from the eastern US. Don't get me wrong I like it when things are neat and I actually found the Lake Oswego picture quite dull and ugly, which probably has something to do with the fact that it's in winter. But I really liked the mill creek one and especially the Spokane one. The second group I like the most is the desert one, I don't really know why, but it has something to do with the minimalism. Then would come the Mediterranean and tropical trailing behind.
Maybe if different photos were shown then I would've voted differently but from the ones shown, that is my opinion.
That's not actually true. South Florida isn't even in the tropics, since it is north of the Tropic of Cancer. This map here shows US vegetation types, and south Florida is classified as "Subtropical broadleaf evergreen forest."
And anyway, this is vegetation types, not climate or hardiness zones.
Nope, it's true. Even though the region lies outside the tropical latitudes, the peninsular location surrounded by warm water currents allows South Florida to have a tropical climate. Therefore, the landscape types in the region would also be tropical.
In the same way, much of the South falls under a humid subtropical climate, so all the landscape types of the region, such as the "Mixed Forest", are subtropical.
That map is not very good if you are looking for a true understanding of vegetation types in the US. Way too general.
Nope, it's true. Even though the region lies outside the tropical latitudes, the peninsular location surrounded by warm water currents allows South Florida to have a tropical climate. Therefore, the landscape types in the region would also be tropical.
In the same way, much of the South falls under a humid subtropical climate, so all the landscape types of the region, such as the "Mixed Forest", are subtropical.
That map is not very good if you are looking for a true understanding of vegetation types in the US. Way too general.
As I said, I was talking about vegetation types, not climate types or hardiness zones. They're not the same thing. A category like "subtropics" can include wet forests, scrub-shrub, desert, and a whole other variety of vegetation types. That's not what I was interested in. And if that map was generalized, that's because my selections were, for practical reasons, generalized. It's not like I'm going to list oak-hickory forests, and birch-beech-maple forests, and ponderosa pine forests, and oak-pine forests, etc., all separately.
If you think south Florida is in the tropics, go ahead. That's why the "sub" is in parentheses anyway.
As I said, I was talking about vegetation types, not climate types or hardiness zones. They're not the same thing.
A category like "subtropics" can include wet forests, scrub-shrub, desert, and a whole other variety of vegetation types. That's not what I was interested in.
I didn't say that they were the same, I simply was describing the vegetation as it corresponds to climate. For example, vegetation that grows in a tropical climate would be "tropical vegetation;" it's just as you've done by describing one of your vegetation categories as "Mediterranean," which corresponds to the climate type of the same name. That type of description takes into account the wide variety of vegetation that grows in a climate (as you allude to with your "subtropics" example).
Quote:
And if that map was generalized, that's because my selections were, for practical reasons, generalized. It's not like I'm going to list oak-hickory forests, and birch-beech-maple forests, and ponderosa pine forests, and oak-pine forests, etc., all separately.
Of course you don't need to be overly detailed. But at the same time, that map is simply way too generalized in its domain, to the point of glaring omissions:
-No "Mediterranean vegetation" listed
-No discrimination between the "Mixed Forests" of the North and the South.
Not to mention some inaccuracies:
-San Diego isn't "desert."
-Not all of Hawaii is "tropical rainforest."
-Since South Florida is tropical, it should not be shaded as "subtropical broadleaf evergreen".
Plus, your thread focuses on residential vegetation, which may not always match the natural vegetation cover of the region, but almost always features the vegetation expected for the climate.
Therefore, it's yet another reason why it is better to list vegetation types for this thread in accordance to their climate (i.e. as I mentioned above with tropical vegetation, Med vegetation, etc), rather than in the form of natural vegetation cover (as you listed).
Quote:
If you think south Florida is in the tropics, go ahead. That's why the "sub" is in parentheses anyway.
Plus, your thread focuses on residential vegetation, which may not always match the natural vegetation cover of the region, but almost always features the vegetation expected for the climate.
Perhaps I should have clarified that: I was interested in which more-or-less natural setting a given residential area looks better in (according to one's opinion, of course). That's why I focused on residential areas with larger lots. Or, put another way, what kind of vegetation would you prefer to be surrounded by in your residence, at least aesthetically? It's a bit of a fuzzy question but that's the best way to put it.
Let's stick to the poll and skip the botanical and climatic debate. I think people know what I'm talking about when they see the poll options.
Sure, but I certainly won't be the last to provide critique on some of your labels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by James Bond 007
Perhaps I should have clarified that: I was interested in which more-or-less natural setting a given residential area looks better in (according to one's opinion, of course). That's why I focused on residential areas with larger lots. Or, put another way, what kind of vegetation would you prefer to be surrounded by in your residence, at least aesthetically? It's a bit of a fuzzy question but that's the best way to put it.
Or why not just ask "what type of vegetation aesthetic do you prefer?"
I voted for the Southern Mixed Forest. Nothing can beat the variety and visual appeal of the lushness of some of the scenery. I especially loved the Metairie scene. Give me crepe myrtles blooming in the summer, magnolia blossoms blooming in spring, honeysuckles, moss draped oak trees, and those long tall loblolly pines.
I like em all except Desert.. it just doesn't suit my personal taste. I tend to love the vegetation in the urban areas of the Southeast such as Atlanta and Savannah.
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.
