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.
It does. I think what it means is that the PNW coastline offers a rather different experience than coastal areas to the south and east. You're generally not going to go there for the typical beach vacation. Hiking and camping would be more the norm.
Not really, places like Seaside and Lincoln City are are full of beachfront hotels and condos and corny tourist attractions common to seaside towns around the world. There's even big Indian casinos right on the coast that book fairly big names as far as entertainment playing Indian casinos go. Astoria and Newport are older historic fishing port towns that draw tourists also. It might be colder, but people go to the coast to go play on the beach, go surfing, fishing and so on. Hotels get booked up all summer weekends(and in part of the spring and fall), and the bigger destinations can feel fairly crowded closer on the northern part of the coast. People do go hiking and camping, but most people probably don't. The experience is fairly close to the Northern California coast with the weather being colder, but the water temps about equally chilly.
Most of the people commenting on the Oregon Coast as being some primitive or wilderness experience are drawing on some imagery that they imagine it to be, but it's a fairly busy touristy place these days. The coastline of Olympic National Park seems to be what people are thinking the Oregon Coast is like.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland
Not really, places like Seaside and Lincoln City are are full of beachfront hotels and condos and corny tourist attractions common to seaside towns around the world. There's even big Indian casinos right on the coast that book fairly big names as far as entertainment playing Indian casinos go. Astoria and Newport are older historic fishing port towns that draw tourists also. It might be colder, but people go to the coast to go play on the beach, go surfing, fishing and so on. Hotels get booked up all summer weekends(and in part of the spring and fall), and the bigger destinations can feel fairly crowded closer on the northern part of the coast. People do go hiking and camping, but most people probably don't. The experience is fairly close to the Northern California coast with the weather being colder, but the water temps about equally chilly.
Most of the people commenting on the Oregon Coast as being some primitive or wilderness experience are drawing on some imagery that they imagine it to be, but it's a fairly busy touristy place these days. The coastline of Olympic National Park seems to be what people are thinking the Oregon Coast is like.
Most anyone can pick up a map and see how much of the Oregon and Washington coastline is dedicated to state parkland and wildlife refuges. As far as being 'touristy', it is in no way comparable to tourist-saturated coastlines like Florida, New Jersey or southern California.
Most anyone can pick up a map and see how much of the Oregon and Washington coastline is dedicated to state parkland and wildlife refuges. As far as being 'touristy', it is in no way comparable to tourist-saturated coastlines like Florida, New Jersey or southern California.
So are the most touristy and most developed shorelines are the only benchmark we're comparing this too? Northern California north of San Francisco feels much different than Southern California but it still has a coastal feel. Does North Carolina not feel coastal because Cape Hatteras isn't like Myrtle Beach?
Seaside and Cannon Beach and Lincoln City are packed with thousands of tourists every summer weekend(every hotel and rental sold out), I know this from experience... I didn't say it was the equivalent of Florida or Southern California.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by CanuckInPortland
So are the most touristy and most developed shorelines are the only benchmark we're comparing this too? Northern California north of San Francisco feels much different than Southern California but it still has a coastal feel. Does North Carolina not feel coastal because Cape Hatteras isn't like Myrtle Beach?
Seaside and Cannon Beach and Lincoln City are packed with thousands of tourists every summer weekend(every hotel and rental sold out), I know this from experience... I didn't say it was the equivalent of Florida or Southern California.
Nor should you. I was responding to a comment by the OP that unlike some other states, Oregon's coastline isn't its primary identifier. Made sense to me. How it turned into this Donnybrook I really don't know.
PS others on this thread have 'experience', so spare me the condescension.
Nor should you. I was responding to a comment by the OP that unlike some other states, Oregon's coastline isn't its primary identifier. Made sense to me. How it turned into this Donnybrook I really don't know.
PS others on this thread have 'experience', so spare me the condescension.
No one is being condescending. I don't know though, how much time have you spent on the Oregon Coast? It's where every yokel in the Willamette Valley goes for the weekend all summer. I avoid it because unless you have time to get to the southern half of the coast, it's almost too crowded and touristy. I just think it seems it's as much a part of NW Oregon's regional identity as much as the Cascades or anywhere else. People who grow up here never shut up about the Coast(I prefer to go east though).
States are pretty ecologically and geographically diverse as places in the West to the point that it's hard to say just one element is the primary identifier. This thread is more about stereotypes of the nation at large vs actual geography, though. I mean I think of Savannah and the Sea Islands when Georgia comes up(but that's where I'd prefer to visit when I go through Georgia)--maybe other people don't think of those places, whatever.
Last edited by CanuckInPortland; 11-16-2015 at 02:38 PM..
Not really, places like Seaside and Lincoln City are are full of beachfront hotels and condos and corny tourist attractions common to seaside towns around the world. There's even big Indian casinos right on the coast that book fairly big names as far as entertainment playing Indian casinos go. Astoria and Newport are older historic fishing port towns that draw tourists also. It might be colder, but people go to the coast to go play on the beach, go surfing, fishing and so on. Hotels get booked up all summer weekends(and in part of the spring and fall), and the bigger destinations can feel fairly crowded closer on the northern part of the coast. People do go hiking and camping, but most people probably don't. The experience is fairly close to the Northern California coast with the weather being colder, but the water temps about equally chilly.
Most of the people commenting on the Oregon Coast as being some primitive or wilderness experience are drawing on some imagery that they imagine it to be, but it's a fairly busy touristy place these days. The coastline of Olympic National Park seems to be what people are thinking the Oregon Coast is like.
True, it's very developed. But nonetheless, I think the Oregon Coast is separate from the rest of the state. Its population is mostly tourists and retirees, people in the Willamette Valley have little to do with the coast aside from as a weekend getaway maybe once or twice a year at most. Only about 6 percent of Oregonians live near the coast, compared to over half of Californians and Washingtonians.
Status:
"Pickleball-Free American"
(set 3 days ago)
Location: St Simons Island, GA
23,462 posts, read 44,090,617 times
Reputation: 16856
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mini-apple-less
True, it's very developed. But nonetheless, I think the Oregon Coast is separate from the rest of the state. Its population is mostly tourists and retirees, people in the Willamette Valley have little to do with the coast aside from as a weekend getaway maybe once or twice a year at most. Only about 6 percent of Oregonians live near the coast, compared to over half of Californians and Washingtonians.
You are correct. Others are simply arguing for argument's sake, as is their pattern.
True, it's very developed. But nonetheless, I think the Oregon Coast is separate from the rest of the state. Its population is mostly tourists and retirees, people in the Willamette Valley have little to do with the coast aside from as a weekend getaway maybe once or twice a year at most. Only about 6 percent of Oregonians live near the coast, compared to over half of Californians and Washingtonians.
You could say the same thing about the Cascades though (even more so since almost no one really lives right in the Cascades). Does Oregon feel like a "mountain" state?
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.
