Best located city in the American west

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

This was a conversation about the American West you made the statement that LA has the best proximity to all of this in the world. That's quite a statement.

Anyways. I disagree.

This is what I said: LA’s the only metro area that contains decent coastal beaches, snow-capped mountains, sprawling deserts, and semi-remote islands (note the plural). I think that’s pretty straight-forward.* As such, one could reasonably make the case that it has the best geographic location based on how the question was framed.

How much more weight one assigns to what (e.g. proximity to vast mountain ranges over sprawling deserts) has no bearing on the overall premise of my argument.

* If you don’t think so, what other populated place of 3+ million has those things within a 50-60-mile radius of the city center? This is strictly quantitative. It has nothing to do with individual preferences.

[Quixote]

For proximity to “real” mountains and “impressive” volcanoes while simply not being too far from the ocean or desert landscape, then I suppose it’s a city in the Central Valley or Salt Lake City or Las Vegas.

Even then, LA isn’t far off. Driving from SF to Mammoth takes about 90 minutes longer than driving from LA, but vice versa if going to Yosemite.

[badrunner]

I didn't realize being close to a volcano was such a big selling point to some people.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Quixote

For proximity to “real” mountains and “impressive” volcanoes while simply not being too far from the ocean or desert landscape, then I suppose it’s a city in the Central Valley or Salt Lake City or Las Vegas.

Even then, LA isn’t far off. Driving from SF to Mammoth takes about 90 minutes longer than driving from LA, but vice versa if going to Yosemite.

LA claims Mammoth and the High Sierra, actually the entire Eastern Sierra/395 corridor - California's hidden gem. SF and Vegas might be closer to some of those locations, as the crow flies, but it's a lot easier and faster to get to from SoCal.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I didn't realize being close to a volcano was such a big selling point to some people.

Hehe. Can't help but think of the 1997 film "Dante's Peak" in which the eponymous fictional town is named by Money Magazine as the "second-most-desirable place to live" in the country before the place is reduced to rubble covered in ash.

[Steely Dan]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I didn't realize being close to a volcano was such a big selling point to some people.

Who wouldn't want to live close to a volcano?

There ain't no rush like a pyroclastic flow!!!

Just ask the good people of Pompeii.





Too soon?

[Nomayoplease]

Originally Posted by badrunner

I didn't realize being close to a volcano was such a big selling point to some people.

I love it, i guess because i like mountains so much volcanos are quite beautiful...much more than some beach in socal at least for me. Sorry but some of you guys are focusing too much on ocean temperature and what not. I coudn't careless about the beach when i lived in L.A . I did enjoy playing volleyball but as far as swimming...nah

[badrunner]

lol that's fine. I agree about volcanoes, especially perfect cone volcanoes like Mt. Fuji and Mt. Shasta. They are some of the most beautiful mountains in the world. And not everyone takes advantage of the great oceanic environment we have here in SoCal, just like some people live here their whole lives and never venture into the local mountains. But I got salt water in my veins and I could never be too far from the ocean.

[citywatch]

Originally Posted by Nomayoplease

I coudn't careless about the beach when i lived in L.A .

I know you're referring to the actual location, but due to the coast's affect on inland temperatures, I've always been aware of the pacific ocean....or coastline. I used to live near redondo bch & it was very rarely too hot or too cold. That's true of other areas further north...up towards Malibu....& further south. However, because Long Beach juts inward & is affected by the Palos Verdes hills, the harbor area tends to be warmer.

Only downside to coastal LA is since it tends to not ever get so hot, a backyard swimming pool is less ideal. Pools in the inland valleys....both SF & SG....however, are a different matter.

https://youtu.be/TMqrgJ4cnsQ?t=137

[pj3000]

Rocky Mountains with their snow-capped or dry brown peaks and deserts make nice background scenery. But they’re otherwise useless for 99% of the population.

If you’re not on the coast in the west, I don’t get it. Salt Lake City? Really? Great backdrop, no question. But what are you going to do with it?

Maybe if I wore more Patagonia I’d understand

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by pj3000

There’s not a helluva lot that’s appealing (at least to me) about deserts and prairies.

So proximity to those isn’t an attribute that I would consider to tout as a reason for the “best” location.

I’d have to go with the two best cities of the west, LA (SoCal incl. SD) and SF.

I guess you haven't seen the deserts of southern Utah and northern Arizona. Most beautiful landscapes on the planet, especially southern Utah.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by Quixote

For proximity to “real” mountains and “impressive” volcanoes while simply not being too far from the ocean or desert landscape, then I suppose it’s a city in the Central Valley or Salt Lake City or Las Vegas.

Even then, LA isn’t far off. Driving from SF to Mammoth takes about 90 minutes longer than driving from LA, but vice versa if going to Yosemite.

you know what's closer to Mammoth?

Reno

The beaches at Tahoe are pretty cold though... https://www.google.com/maps/@39.1961...7i13312!8i6656 (obviously you wouldn't go in November, but the water stays pretty cold throughout the year...)

[AviationGuy]

Originally Posted by badrunner

St. George is the best located city - on the edge of the Colorado Plateau, gorgeous desert scenery, good weather, within a days drive to dozens of national and state parks, and easy interstate access to LA, Vegas and SLC.

St. George is also a stone's throw from Zion National Park. Driving into St. George, I thought it was like being on another planet. The scenery is spectacular. Can't say much for the inhabitants. It rivals The Villages (no explanation needed).

[Buckeye Native 001]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I guess you haven't seen the deserts of southern Utah and northern Arizona. Most beautiful landscapes on the planet, especially southern Utah.

Quiet, you. The less people moving here, the better.

However, the San Francisco Peaks are a string of dormant volcanoes because apparently that's a thing people want?

Sunset Crater last blew its top around 1066 AD/CE and if there's ever an uptick in earthquakes we'll know what's coming. We had a two pointer in 2014 that amused the ever loving hell out of me because, having lived in Southern California, I knew who else at my apartment complex used to live in California because we were all outside after it happened trying to find/smell any gas line ruptures.

If we get another winter like this year (Flagstaff got about 163 inches) Lakes Powell and Mead will be back to full in no time...

[craigs]

Originally Posted by Steely Dan

Who wouldn't want to live close to a volcano?

There ain't no rush like a pyroclastic flow!!!

Just ask the good people of Pompeii.

Too soon?

LOL.

I am one of the few forumers who has lived dangerously close to volcanoes--after SF and before LA, I briefly lived where I could see two of them from the foot of my driveway in winter. There was Lassen Peak to the east and Mt. Shasta to the north. Only Lassen was close enough to kill me at home, though, and as far as these things go it is still active. It last erupted in 1917.

[pj3000]

Originally Posted by AviationGuy

I guess you haven't seen the deserts of southern Utah and northern Arizona. Most beautiful landscapes on the planet, especially southern Utah.

Well, your guess is wrong. I've been throughout that area -- likely WAY more than the vast majority of people who live in the two states.

In an earlier life, I drove fiber optic pipeline routes back and forth in the remote areas of both states, conducting ecological and natural and cultural resource assessments along the entire routes, which emanated from Texas and split off in 3 routes to the Pacific coast in CA. I've literally spent YEARS in the exact area you're talking about.

And there's no argument that it's beautiful terrain. Not sure I'd agree that they're the "most beautiful on the planet"... especially since they are Mars-like... but that's all in the eye of the beholder.

My thing is just that, as far as cities are concerned (pertaining to the topic of this thread), there's just not much value in the area aside from their desolate beauty.

[mrnyc]

not out west, but westside —

at the airport 1962

cei in cleveland used this moniker for decades

[IluvATX]

West Jacksonville…

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by pj3000

Rocky Mountains with their snow-capped or dry brown peaks and deserts make nice background scenery. But they’re otherwise useless for 99% of the population.

If you’re not on the coast in the west, I don’t get it. Salt Lake City? Really? Great backdrop, no question. But what are you going to do with it?

What? You can gointo the mountains you know:



Sometimes the things you claim Lmao. Sure you've been to northern Arizona more than people that live there. I bet you have.

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by mrnyc

not out west, but westside —

at the airport 1962

cei in cleveland used this moniker for decades

Almost 77% of the U.S. population lives in the Eastern and Central time zones. That means anywhere toward the western edge of the Eastern time zone or the eastern edge of the Central time zone is a very short flight from everybody else, and usually a relatively short drive.

Chattanooga, TN is now claiming to be "The Next Austin" and "The Hub of the Battery Belt".