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.
Hate to say this, but by the time California food gets to the East Coast, it tastes terrible. It's harvested before it's even ripe, and it has no flavor. For example, a California "strawberry": it's got about 1mm of red strawberry covering over nothing but tasteless white core. California agriculture is way overrated. "Biggest" and "most" isn't necessarily "best." Also, you have to pipe your water in from everywhere.
And this will be a minority opinion, but western scenery I don't find very appealing after a while. It's all about the expansive views of barren, inaccessible territory. Nice, but I like to feel like I can actually go to the places I'm seeing; and snowcapped peaks can be monotonous (mountainotonous?) after a while.
There are tons of rural communities in the East, just like there are many great cities in the West. C'mon.
Well, of course a California strawberry won't taste nearly as delicious after having been trucked 3,000 miles across the country to a Food Emporium or Pathmark near you. The same would be true if you were to transport a tasty ear of Hadley, Massachusetts corn to a Safeway in San Francisco. You'd be better off buying relatively local Sloughhouse corn. Produce needs to be judged on the basis of how it tastes when fresh - one of the reasons I have a great deal of sympathy for the locavore movement. California agriculture is in no way "overrated" - California produces the most and, I think, finest, produce of any state in the country, thanks to its salubrious climate and, on a more minor scale, the efforts of many smaller growers whose products can be found at farmers' markets (there are 24 farmers' markets in San Francisco alone). You won't find this "boutique" produce under a lamp at your local Northeastern supermarket.
Your claim that California has to "pipe [its] water in from everywhere" is an erroneous one. California gets most of its water from snow runoff from the Sierras and Siskiyous, as well as from the Colorado River, which runs along the state's border with Arizona. It is true that the more heavily populated portions of Southern California do have to pipe most of their water in from elsewhere (the Owens Valley Aqueduct, for example, made famous by Roman Polanski's Chinatown, is one of these pipelines), but their sources are overwhelmingly other places in California. Hence the "water wars" of the early 1980s involving the proposed Peripheral Canal, and the many battles between Central Valley agricultural behemoths and environmental interests that have taken place over the years. The state itself is largely self-sufficient when it comes to water - it's between the northern and southern parts that you have a water supply imbalance.
For one thing, the weather is far too diverse to characterize the west as having a single type of weather. Albuquerque has different weather from Santa Fe and they are only an hour apart much less L.A., Salt Lake City, Bozeman, or Seattle.
As for beauty, that is entirely subjective. I have had people tell me that what I consider to be the most godforsaken stretch of desert I know is the most beautiful piece of country they have ever laid eyes on. Takes all kinds, I guess.
I agree with you as well. I've heard a few people say the east has "4 distinct seasons". Well so do the western states. If anything the diversity in weather out west is greater than back east.
I think one major difference between east and west is the size of the states. There are whole states back east that can fit into the National Parks out west. The west has more topographical diversity, and wide open spaces.
I agree with you as well. I've heard a few people say the east has "4 distinct seasons". Well so do the western states. If anything the diversity in weather out west is greater than back east.
I think what that comment means is that as you go from place to place within the west, the weather patterns can be drastically different. I'm in Seattle, which definitely doesn't have the variety of weather patterns as eastern areas, but drive a few hours and you end up in Spokane, which does have four distinct seasons. The western states have the ocean coast, mountains, desert, etc. Each region has very distinct weather patterns, and you don't have to go very far to find changes.
I'm from the Midwest, so I certainly understand the diversity of seasons back east (and I miss them desperately), but you certainly can find a lot of different weather patterns out here.
I agree with you as well. I've heard a few people say the east has "4 distinct seasons". Well so do the western states. If anything the diversity in weather out west is greater than back east.
I think one major difference between east and west is the size of the states. There are whole states back east that can fit into the National Parks out west. The west has more topographical diversity, and wide open spaces.
Really? So what is "the west"? Phoenix? Seattle? LA? Salt Lake? Santa Fe? Across its wide geography, the west is certainly diverse in climate, topography, scenic beauty, politics, history, diversity, economy, etc. But it is not cohesive in these aspects, so broad generalizations such as what's stated above can rarely be made about "the west." On the other hand, the northeast - from NOVA to New England, share similar culture, history, climate, topography, demographics, etc. As for the size of the northeastern states, if that's a negative to you, so be it. For me that's one of the best aspects of the northeast: One can travel from DC to Bar Harbor in 13 hours. Within that short distance, one finds several of the most cosmopolitan and vibrant cities in the US interrupted by bucolic countryside, rolling piedmont, lush forested mountains, beautiful beaches, history around every corner, rustic islands, quaint small towns, working harbors (great and small), the Chesapeake, Delaware and Narragansett Bays, and yes, four distinct seasons, to mention a few features.
Having so much at my ready disposal is one of the key reasons I choose to call the east home. Still, I love to visit the west, having been in every state west of the Mississippi except for Montana and Hawaii. In the end, I can understand why many would be happier out west in those wide open spaces with outstanding natural beauty. Of course, many of us are just as happy back east. I simply take issue with those who paint with a broad brush when claiming "the west" has this or has that. Yes it does, but in an area stretching from El Paso to Puget Sound. That's neither good nor bad, but a fact that will appeal to some, while not so much to others.
I think its fair to say the western states begin at the front range of the Rockies. Everything east of states like Colorado, Wyoming etc... are eastern.
I've always thought that Interstate 35 was a better divider of east and west than the Mississippi River.
I live between Interstate 35-E and Interstate 35-W, so where am I, in no-man's land?
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.
