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.
IMO, the San Francisco CSA has more natural splendor than the Los Angeles CSA, mostly due to a longer, more interesting coastline and a wetter climate, which spawns more trees and other greenery. TBH, the Los Angeles CSA does not have an answer to Marin County. Of course, the PV Peninsula is lovely, but it is quite brown for most of the year.
IMO, the San Francisco CSA has more natural splendor than the Los Angeles CSA, mostly due to a longer, more interesting coastline and a wetter climate, which spawns more trees and other greenery. TBH, the Los Angeles CSA does not have an answer to Marin County. Of course, the PV Peninsula is lovely, but it is quite brown for most of the year.
LA/SoCal (like Nevada/Arizona) is drier than SF and SF does have more greenery. Driving in NorCal/SF Bay Area at times feels like driving in an East Coast City(like driving on the I95 in Upstate New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in a way).
SF is perhaps the most “East Coast style” city on the west coast in terms of layout and density.
Last edited by SnobbishDude; 06-16-2020 at 01:47 AM..
San Francisco. You have mountains and the bay/ocean together. Los Angeles is located in a basin, so the mountains and the ocean aren't together unless you go up or down the coast.
LA/SoCal (like Nevada/Arizona) is drier than SF and SF does have more greenery. Driving in NorCal/SF Bay Area at times feels like driving in an East Coast City(like driving on the I95 in Upstate New York, New Jersey and Pennsylvania in a way).
SF is perhaps the most “East Coast style” city on the west coast in terms of layout and density.
True, but we're talking about natural scenery, not the built environment.
And I certainly respect your opinion. I can see why--the redwoods, the enormous Bay right in the middle, the very hilly peninsula vs. the mostly flat LA Basin.
I'd actually say LA, because LA has striking desert landscapes, bigger Mountains with snow, and South Orange County, with sandier, finer beaches than SF CSA. And you do get plenty of dramatic hills in South Orange County. Not as steep as SF hills, but I actually think the gentler hills of South OC are easier and more pleasing to the eyes, especially against the rugged backdrop of the Santa Ana mountains.
LA would have even less trees and no palm trees except in the deserts in 1750. I think the palm trees add a lot to SoCal's scenery.
LA would have even less trees and no palm trees except in the deserts in 1750. I think the palm trees add a lot to SoCal's scenery.
Well DC had no Japanese cherry trees back in 1750. I think we can all agree, though, that those cherry trees, not being native to the region, are essentially not part of the natural scenery.
Same goes with palms, olive trees, and eucalyptus. Nice trees, but non native. Gardens, irrigation, and landscaping is nice but isn't exactly natural.
Born and raised in LA but have been to SF enough times, I think this is really like comparing apples to oranges
LA has Griffith Park, SF has Golden Gate Park
LA has Griffith Park Observatory, SF has Twin Peaks
LA has SGV Mountains, SF (Marin County) has Muir Woods National Monument
LA has Venice Beach, SF has Golden Gate Bridge
LA has Hollywood Blvd, SF has Lombard Street(even though both are heavily touristy areas)
LA has Malibu/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica, SF has Presidio/Sausalito/North Beach
LA is big and humongous, SF is delicate and pristine
The SF area is humongous and one of the largest in the world. Just because its smaller than LA since 1920 doesnt mean its small. Also it's not comparing apples to oranges because they are both coastal CA metros and SF metro is the most beautiful in US IMO
It is all preference isnt it. I really appreciate mountain scenery, coastal and desert scenery. The bay area does have more dramatic coastal scenery, but Greater LA has better mountain and desert.
The bay area's tallest mountain is under 5000 feet. While the tallest in Greater LA is over 11,000 ft in San Bernardino, and even Orange county with the tallest at near 6000 ft. The lower elevations, the eastern bay areas are as equally as brown as LA's area but the bay's coastal areas are very lush while LA's area is still brown.
The desert areas make up most of Greater LA and mostly undeveloped. joshua tree is amazing but I get it most people dont like deserts.
So LA has taller mountains correct. I thought a mountain was a mountain but I agree, when a mountain is twice as tall as another, it does seem more dramatic but theres still MANY more variables on natural beauty. LA mountains aren't as pretty as Bay mountains or hills because they are so barren
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.
