Where does Northern California end and Southern California begin? (Los Angeles: costs, bus)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by BodegaHead

For sure. I know the "central coast" is a region but I feel like its funny it's called "nor cal" when its in the center of the state & is geographically different from nor & so cal. I guess we could all go on & on about these ideas haha

Dang, didn't know it needed to be so complicated, lol.

First and foremost, the region should be self-identified and historically based. So if the folks in Santa Cruz insist that they are in "NorCal" and prefer that over the "Central Coast" so be it. Pretty sure Santa Cruz would say "NorCal", but someone in Carmel would mostly likely say the "Central Coast" over NorCal.

[Chimérique]

Sacramentans have always thought of themselves as Northern Californias just as much as Bay Areans or people in Redding, Mt. Shasta, Ft. Bragg or Humboldt State.

Our news stations say "Where Northern California comes first" something like that. That doesn't mean we don't know we are "central" in more ways than one. We simply have always called ourselves Northern Californias as opposed to Central Californians.

Think of it like this: 90% of the population is SOUTH of us. There is no major metro north of us until you get to Portland, Oregon which is on the northern end of Oregon.

[Chimérique]

Ponder this:

Sacramento is closer to Redding and Mt. Shasta, than either Fresno or Bakersfield, hence the strong identification as NorCal as opposed to central.

Downtown SAC is 1hr 15mins to Downtown SF on a light traffic day, hence the strong of identification as Norcal as opposed to central.

Southern Californians don't get this, apparently the extreme North doesn't either.

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by BodegaHead

For sure. I know the "central coast" is a region but I feel like its funny it's called "nor cal" when its in the center of the state & is geographically different from nor & so cal. I guess we could all go on & on about these ideas haha

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Dang, didn't know it needed to be so complicated, lol.

First and foremost, the region should be self-identified and historically based. So if the folks in Santa Cruz insist that they are in "NorCal" and prefer that over the "Central Coast" so be it. Pretty sure Santa Cruz would say "NorCal", but someone in Carmel would mostly likely say the "Central Coast" over NorCal.

Yes, I grew up in Santa Cruz, and we all just considered ourselves part of Northern California or NorCal(with pride). People would go south to SLO and remark how it felt "different" or people from SoCal at UCSC would remark about how it was different up there. You root for Bay Area teams never LA teams and drive over the hill to San Jose and San Francisco a lot from Santa Cruz, so you feel fairly tied into the Bay despite not being a part of it.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Sacramentans have always thought of themselves as Northern Californias just as much as Bay Areans or people in Redding, Mt. Shasta, Ft. Bragg or Humboldt State.

Our news stations say "Where Northern California comes first" something like that. That doesn't mean we don't know we are "central" in more ways than one. We simply have always called ourselves Northern Californias as opposed to Central Californians.

Think of it like this: 90% of the population is SOUTH of us. There is no major metro north of us until you get to Portland, Oregon which is on the northern end of Oregon.

And I wouldn't even call Portland a major metro. Southern Californians understand little beyond Socal. My ex's sister considered San Francisco to be Socal because it has an In-N-Out

[BodegaHead]

So i guess the old line stands haha .north of santa barabara is nor cal & santa barbara south is so cal. Or I guess monterey/Santa Cruz to oregon is nor cal & slo county south is so cal. I'm still making cen*cal t-shirts though, $25 each if anyone is interested

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

And I wouldn't even call Portland a major metro.

So then Sacramento wouldn't be considered a major metro either. Though I'd say that the 24th and 27th largest metros in the country should qualify as major or mid-major metros considering their population is larger than metros like Kansas City or Cleveland and close to metros like Denver or Charlotte.

Originally Posted by BodegaHead

So i guess the old line stands haha .north of santa barabara is nor cal & santa barbara south is so cal. Or I guess monterey/Santa Cruz to oregon is nor cal & slo county south is so cal. I'm still making cen*cal t-shirts though, $25 each if anyone is interested

The problem with "Central California" is that there's not a lot of connection in some places between the coast and Central Valley in some ways. From the Central Coast places like Fresno are often forgotten, people orient themselves more so to the north or south with big coastal cities for the most part. Despite places like Madera and Fresno being a straight shot inland from Santa Cruz and Monterey, it's quicker to drive to the Bay Area. That's why you might have people talk about the "Central Coast", but rarely "Central California".

The only area that really uses the term "Central California" is Fresno and the surrounding area. And actually if you look at the maps of sports team fans, Fresno is basically right on the dividing line between Bay Area and LA teams--it's sort of a DMZ in between Dodgers/Lakers/Kings fans and Giants/As/Warriors/Sharks fan.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by BodegaHead

So i guess the old line stands haha .north of santa barabara is nor cal & santa barbara south is so cal. Or I guess monterey/Santa Cruz to oregon is nor cal & slo county south is so cal. I'm still making cen*cal t-shirts though, $25 each if anyone is interested

That sounds about right, basically what I've been saying all along, and we know there is a Central Coast and the Central Valley.

Southern Californians and extreme NorCaler's tend to lack understanding of the differences within the Central Coast like how SF and Santa Cruz are NorCal and Monterey and SLO are Central Coast, and how Santa Barbara and San Diego are SoCal.

And the differences within "The Great Central Valley"... between the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The differences between Sacramento and Bakersfield, Chico and Visalia, Redding and Fresno, and how they relate or not relate to either the Coast or the Sierras/Cascades.

Now I'm truely ignorant about the Eastern Sierra, is Bishop NorCal, and Lone Pine SoCal, neither?

[Deezus]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

And the differences within "The Great Central Valley"... between the Sacramento Valley and the San Joaquin Valley. The differences between Sacramento and Bakersfield, Chico and Visalia, Redding and Fresno, and how they relate or not relate to either the Coast or the Sierras/Cascades.

Now I'm truely ignorant about the Eastern Sierra, is Bishop NorCal, and Lone Pine SoCal, neither?

The Eastern Sierra is sort of it's own deal. The thing about Bishop is that while it's at about the same lattitude as San Jose, it's fairly inaccesible from the west for much of the year since Tioga Pass is closed to the north(along with every pass until Carson Pass) and there's no other passes over the Sierra going south until Walker Pass(and most traffic just goes over the Tehachapis).

So basically the Owens Valley and Mammoth Lakes and much of area from Bridgeport to Lone Pine seems more connected to Southern California sometimes(though maybe Bridgeport and Lee Vining start to feel a little closer to Northern California). But Mammoth Lakes is full of LA skiers all winter, and most of the area is accessed quicker from Southern California for a good portion of the year. Bakersfield is actually the closest city to Bishop and cities just to the west of it across the Sierra in the Central Valley actually take longer to get to then Los Angeles until the passes open up for the spring and summer.

Though the region overall doesn't really seem to associate with either Southern California or Northern California in some ways. It feels like Nevada actually in some ways(Vegas and Reno aren't that far away). My brother lived out there on the edge of the mountains in an old mining village, and there's not a love for Los Angeles historically in the Owens Valley due to the water issues, but there's not a big connection to the Central Valley or anything to the west in general either.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Deezus

But Mammoth Lakes is full of LA skiers all winter, and most of the area is accessed quicker from Southern California for a good portion of the year.

My experience with those areas is traveling 395 to Mammoth.

Interestingly, Sacramento(243 miles) is closer to Mammoth than LA(310 miles), or SD(400 miles) are. But much of SAC is only 1 1/4 to 2hrs from Tahoe(70-100 miles from SAC) so we rarely ski Mammoth because it requires a night-over; whereas, Tahoe is day trip.

But to change it up, Mammoth is a fun alternative, and LA skiers find it hard to believe Sacramento is actually closer to Mammoth than they are. Another alternative to Tahoe for Sacramentans, is Mt. Shasta(228 miles). I think Sacramento's connection with the mountains is another reason we think of ourselves as Northern Californians as opposed to "central", we grow up sking/boarding.

From Sacramento to get to Mammoth, we actually drive the opposite direction for about 85 miles, northeast up to Tahoe, to get to 395 which is basically a straight shot down to Mammoth.