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.
Hobart has summers comparable to where I live which is more than good enough for me. Hobart can also grow a huge range of subtropical plants that Boston can only dream of.
With a record low of 27F, it can probably grow more than everywhere in the South except southern half of FL and lower Texas. Would be far more green in winter than somewhere like Jackson, MS or Columbia, SC.
With a record low of 27F, it can probably grow more than everywhere in the South except southern half of FL and lower Texas. Would be far more green in winter than somewhere like Jackson, MS or Columbia, SC.
Similar to San Francisco, being virtually frost proof, Hobart fails in the art of delivering proper summer warmth. I vote for neither.
Similar to San Francisco, being virtually frost proof, Hobart fails in the art of delivering proper summer warmth. I vote for neither.
I don't think this is correct. Hobart has eight months which have seen lows at freezing or colder. There would also be suburbs with colder minimums than the stats for Hobart show.
Similar to San Francisco, being virtually frost proof, Hobart fails in the art of delivering proper summer warmth. I vote for neither.
Why do you vote for "neither" in every single thread? What is the point? This is especially hypocritical considering you create like 500 million threads on boring ass climates.
With a record low of 27F, it can probably grow more than everywhere in the South except southern half of FL and lower Texas. Would be far more green in winter than somewhere like Jackson, MS or Columbia, SC.
Record low is only one (very small) portion that determines what kind of plants one can and cannot grow.
Yep: and the fact that both San Francisco and Miami have the exact same all time record low and share the 10B hardiness zone proves it.
But San Francisco and Hobart can still grow an impressive range of subtropical palms like Archontophoenix cunninghamiana and Howea Forsteriana. Where can you grow these palms in the Eastern US?
Yep: and the fact that both San Francisco and Miami have the exact same all time record low and share the 10B hardiness zone proves it.
An example can be our (Miami's) winter of 2014/2015 versus 2015/2016. The 2014/2015 winter saw the coldest low (42F) versus this winter (46F) however this winter did more tropical plant damage because cool weather stuck around longer. Even a low of 55F will cause severe damage on our tropical plants if it's a week or more in a row and accompanied by coolish/cloudy days.
But San Francisco and Hobart can still grow an impressive range of subtropical palms like Archontophoenix cunninghamiana and Howea Forsteriana. Where can you grow these palms in the Eastern US?
They can, however, other popular species like Cocos nucifera and Bismarckia nobilis would die out.
But San Francisco and Hobart can still grow an impressive range of subtropical palms like Archontophoenix cunninghamiana and Howea Forsteriana. Where can you grow these palms in the Eastern US?
Do those plants thrive in nature? Because I don't remember ever seeing them in San Francisco. In SoCal, I'd see them around some homes, but not really in the wild.
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.
