U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-24-2009, 01:35 PM
 
Location: In them thar hills
8,054 posts, read 10,079,010 times
Reputation: 4176

Advertisements

Let me put it this way. The closest real mountains (e.g. over 5 or 6K feet) to the Bay Area are 2.5 hrs away with no traffic. LA's got real mountains much closer.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-24-2009, 04:01 PM
 
Location: Palm Springs, CA
25,272 posts, read 15,484,768 times
Reputation: 6498
Quote:
Originally Posted by PolyAnalyst View Post
I love the outdoors. If I could live anywhere, it would probably be Boulder,CO. Unfortunately, not a lot of business there... I think LA or SF are the two next best options out of the major business cities (Boston's freezing 2/3rds of the year, Chicago and Dallas are flat, and New York is hard to escape).
I would argue that Minneapolis, Denver, Seattle, Portland, and San Diego are all better cities for the outdoors than Los Angeles or San Francisco. It depends on what kinds of outdoor situations you want, of course.

Go to Travel + Leisure and click "Categories", then "Quality of life", and then "Public parks and access to the outdoors". Los Angeles ranks #23 out of 25 cities. (Portland is #1.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-24-2009, 05:14 PM
 
6 posts, read 12,841 times
Reputation: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly View Post
Let me put it this way. The closest real mountains (e.g. over 5 or 6K feet) to the Bay Area are 2.5 hrs away with no traffic. LA's got real mountains much closer.
Ahhh! See, this is exactly what I was wondering about! The wikipedia image of Los Angeles looks gorgeous with those mountains in the background... almost reminds me of Denver.

But the rest of the posts in this thread seemed to indicate that SF was better for "accessible" outdoors. Any other opinions out there?

-edit-

to AnUnidentifiedMale: I completely agree! Unfortunately, the type of firm I work for doesn't have offices in those cities. The places I can work correlate pretty well with the top 25 on this list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_cities_by_GDP. So, in North America, that's

#2) NYC
#3) Los Angeles
#4) Chicago
#9) Philadelphia
#10) Washington DC
#11) Boston
#12) Dallas
#15) San Francisco
#16) Atlanta
#17) Houston
#18) Miami
#21) Toronto
#22) Detroit
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $84,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > Los Angeles

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top