U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Do you prefer New York City or the Los Angeles area?
New York City 129 70.49%
Los Angeles 54 29.51%
Voters: 183. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread Start New Thread
 
Old 01-19-2008, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Twilight Zone
875 posts, read 954,558 times
Reputation: 69

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
That's good then.

In LA, you can be in a real dense/urban setting and see the mountains above. If you really want to get away, they are parks in the mountains where you won't even know that an area of 19 million is just down in the Valley. In the winter, they have skiing options up there. LA has it all (in terms of scenery) in one area.
Let's not forget the desert.....it can be breath-takingly beautiful!
Rate this post positively

 
Old 01-19-2008, 06:09 PM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,019,975 times
Reputation: 206
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beliy Plashik View Post
Including those outrageous fires that happen every year So a lot of the natural setting is being lost towards the major fires. Do not forget that.

The mountains are great, but on the East Coast there are rivers, creeks, berries growing.

Southern Cali landscape is dry and has the kind of shrubs and barely any creeks that flow 365 days a year.

Now when you go further to Sacramento, San Francisco area it is totally different!! in the mountains,
Really?

Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-19-2008, 08:45 PM
 
Location: Arizona
307 posts, read 1,352,199 times
Reputation: 134
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
Really?

Exactly what I was talking about short "shrub" trees!! Like in that pix Lol. (Sacramento area totally different though closer to NY state gorgeous natural setting) like the tall-pines or oaks in the Catskill Mountains (NY state)
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-19-2008, 10:42 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
23,735 posts, read 30,526,907 times
Reputation: 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beliy Plashik View Post
Including those outrageous fires that happen every year So a lot of the natural setting is being lost towards the major fires. Do not forget that.
The forest regrows after fires. And California is hardly the only state that has them... remember that giant one in Colorado or New Mexico (I forgot what state it was). And the large one in Yellowstone in the '90s?

Quote:
Southern Cali landscape is dry and has the kind of shrubs and barely any creeks that flow 365 days a year.
There are quite a few year-'round creeks if you know where to look for them. The creek less than 1/2 mile from my house (Limekiln Canyon) is a year-'round creek.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-19-2008, 10:44 PM
 
Location: Northridge/Porter Ranch, Calif.
23,735 posts, read 30,526,907 times
Reputation: 7245
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beliy Plashik View Post
Exactly what I was talking about short "shrub" trees!! Like in that pix Lol. (Sacramento area totally different though closer to NY state gorgeous natural setting) like the tall-pines or oaks in the Catskill Mountains (NY state)
Have you heard of the Angeles National Forest (much of which is in L.A. county)? Plenty of tall pines there! I've seen them myself.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-20-2008, 03:15 AM
 
Location: Henderson NV
1,135 posts, read 1,064,876 times
Reputation: 82
Well, looks like the sun has set on yet another fascinating thread! Adios, amigos! from Flickr, nikoriana
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-20-2008, 08:24 AM
 
Location: Twilight Zone
875 posts, read 954,558 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
Really?

That is hardly a fair assessment of the trees in and around Los Angeles.....sheesh.......lol Those aren't trees at all...they're shrubs. That picture isn't the forest, it's a foothill - big difference.

Los Angeles has the Angeles Forest. Besides, if you're talking about trees.......I didn't notice many "in" NYC, unlike Los Angeles that has tons of them.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:01 AM
 
Location: Texas
2,703 posts, read 3,019,975 times
Reputation: 206
^^That is the Angeles Forest.
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:17 AM
 
4,834 posts, read 5,837,343 times
Reputation: 2428
NooYawk ...no contest!
Rate this post positively
 
Old 01-20-2008, 09:33 AM
 
Location: Twilight Zone
875 posts, read 954,558 times
Reputation: 69
Quote:
Originally Posted by Guerilla View Post
^^That is the Angeles Forest.
It's a part of the forest that has been burned it looks like, and still in the foothills. There are tons of tall pine trees up in the actual mountains.

What you're showing in the picture is still higher than the "piney forests" in southern Texas. lol
Rate this post positively
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.


Closed Thread

Over $104,000 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 > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:45 PM.

© 2005-2022, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top