Best located city in the American west

[jmecklenborg]

Originally Posted by Obadno

What? You can gointo the mountains you know:

But almost nobody does.

How many people are hiking or biking in the Santa Monica Mountains at any given time, despite several million people living within walking/biking distance of them?

[homebucket]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

But almost nobody does.

How many people are hiking or biking in the Santa Monica Mountains at any given time, despite several million people living within walking/biking distance of them?

Not sure about the Santa Monica mountains. But up here tons of people do. The trails and trailheads are always packed. Gotta get there real early in the morning. And they’re constantly opening up new open space preserves. Marin County’s amount Tamalpais was the birthplace of modern mountain biking. Santa Cruz Bicycles was founded in a small garage on Bronson St in Santa Cruz, and other well known brands like Specialized, Fox, Giro, Ibis, etc were started/based here and conduct their R&D and testing in the forests up and down the Santa Cruz mountains.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

But almost nobody does.

How many people are hiking or biking in the Santa Monica Mountains at any given time, despite several million people living within walking/biking distance of them?

You can't be serious. Have you never seen Runyon Canyon? I doubt there's a busier hiking trail in the country. Hell, it's probably one of the busier city parks in the country, period.

Then there's the many Griffifth Park trails, Fryman Canyon, Temescal etc etc.

That's all in the Santa Monica mountains WITHIN the city of LA. Then Malibu has a bunch of popular trails in the Santa Monica moutains.

Hiking/being outdoors is part of LA's culture. You're clueless as hell. Everyone I've met in LA hikes or has at some level. EVERYONE. As someone who just hiked in Rock Creek Park in DC last year, I was stunned how quiet it
was compared to LA's urban trails. It's not even close.

I have no idea why you continue trying to pretend you know what life here is like.

[LA21st]

Originally Posted by Quixote

Here's the thing... most people in LA don't actually go to the beach in the hottest of summer days to go swimming. Rather, it's to escape the heat, maybe get knee-deep in water, and just enjoy the sounds of the oceanic tides.

LA has beaches and is famous for them, but it's not a "beach city" like Miami or San Diego are because LA County isn't really oriented on a north-south axis culturally, but OC is and has better beaches and more of a beach culture overall.

I think people go for the beach neighborhood vibes more than anything.

[Nomayoplease]

When i lived in L.A i did explore its surroundings a lot. Mainly because i ride motorcycles and had the time to do it as well. As for why i moved to SLC , because of my company and i do enjoy the city. Perfect size for me. it was not worth paying the price to live at or close to the bay area , i've driven from SLC to Vancouver Canada....one of the most beautiful rides.

[SFBruin]

On an unrelated note: In Northern California, the snow was always about a four-hour drive away.

So anytime anyone ever goes to the snow (regardless of where they are), I always have it it my head that they are going to drive for about four hours.

[urbanadvocate]

I would have to go with Sacramento--I think it has the most diverse easy access to a lot. Yes SF has direct ocean front but it is a pretty easy drive from Sac to the coast and many things that SF has access to are actually easier to get to from Sac than SF (i.e Napa wine county, northern coast, snow packed mountains, etc). Not to mention easy drives to 3 different mountain ranges (4 if you count the Sutter Buttes).

[TWAK]

Originally Posted by urbanadvocate

I would have to go with Sacramento--I think it has the most diverse easy access to a lot. Yes SF has direct ocean front but it is a pretty easy drive from Sac to the coast and many things that SF has access to are actually easier to get to from Sac than SF (i.e Napa wine county, northern coast, snow packed mountains, etc). Not to mention easy drives to 3 different mountain ranges (4 if you count the Sutter Buttes).

Smallest mountain range in the world! A shame that most of it is private property and hopefully the owners have it set up to when they pass, the land is given to the state or county.

Originally Posted by craigs

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.

Lake County is on top of a volcanic field and we have The Geysers, but the eruptions here aren't as recent as Lassen.

[lio45]

The greatest locations when the metric is “access to a variety of landscapes” are all in California, for sure.

But all things considered, maybe NV/UT/AZ is more desirable. (Outside of California taxes.)

[citywatch]

I've zipped through portions of this vid shot by a youtuber strolling through parts of SF & I realize how sections of it remind me of parts of LA & visa versa. The SF Bay area would be one choice for best located city in the American west. The vid also reminds me of how a good location to one person is not so good to someone else.

https://www.youtube.com/live/A32XkfsyKHs?feature=share&t=1833

It also makes me think of the recent...& now deleted....thread on which city is the US's cultural capital & how much of everyone's opinion, including my own, is filtered through familiarity, tradition, normalcy bias & publicity & media hype.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by Quixote

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.

No.

This is what you said:

Originally Posted by Quixote

Greater LA is the only metropolitan area in the world

[craigs]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

But almost nobody does.

How many people are hiking or biking in the Santa Monica Mountains at any given time, despite several million people living within walking/biking distance of them?

What is your point?

[lio45]

Originally Posted by craigs

What is your point?

It's exactly like pointing out that most Parisians have never bothered to get up the Eiffel Tower -- it doesn't mean they'd be fine with it getting demolished. Even if you don't "use it", it's still nice that it's there.

I'm an outdoorsy guy, spent six months living in Vancouver not that long ago, appealing mountains are all around the city and very visible from it, you see them all the time, I kept thinking I'd take at least a day off and go hiking, in the end I never did and left the West Coast without having taken advantage of the mountains, but it was still nice that they were there.

[3rd&Brown]

Originally Posted by lio45

It's exactly like pointing out that most Parisians have never bothered to get up the Eiffel Tower -- it doesn't mean they'd be fine with it getting demolished. Even if you don't "use it", it's still nice that it's there.

I'm an outdoorsy guy, spent six months living in Vancouver not that long ago, appealing mountains are all around the city and very visible from it, you see them all the time, I kept thinking I'd take at least a day off and go hiking, in the end I never did and left the West Coast without having taken advantage of the mountains, but it was still nice that they were there.

Also, the competition for your time is much more competitive in a major city like LA or Vancouver compared to a Salt Lake or Boise or Bend or Boulder. I mean, every time you devote time to an activity, the opportunity cost is the experience of what you didn't do in order to do what you chose do. So, in LA, well yeah you can go hiking because the mountains are right there, but you can also go to the beach, to the theater, to that hot new restaurant, to the Getty, and on and on and on and on. Arguably, the options are slimmer in the smaller West Coast metros so of course people devote more time explicitly to the outdoors.

[Nomayoplease]

This is true, depending on how busy and demanding your job is , you are just too tired or can't be bother to drive to enjoy whatever it has to offer. For me the beach is a hassle , i hate sand and crowded places ....so being close to it , never really did anything for me

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Also, the competition for your time is much more competitive in a major city like LA or Vancouver compared to a Salt Lake or Boise or Bend or Boulder. I mean, every time you devote time to an activity, the opportunity cost is the experience of what you didn't do in order to do what you chose do. So, in LA, well yeah you can go hiking because the mountains are right there, but you can also go to the beach, to the theater, to that hot new restaurant, to the Getty, and on and on and on and on. Arguably, the options are slimmer in the smaller West Coast metros so of course people devote more time explicitly to the outdoors.

[craigs]

Double Post

[craigs]

Originally Posted by 3rd&Brown

Also, the competition for your time is much more competitive in a major city like LA or Vancouver compared to a Salt Lake or Boise or Bend or Boulder. I mean, every time you devote time to an activity, the opportunity cost is the experience of what you didn't do in order to do what you chose do. So, in LA, well yeah you can go hiking because the mountains are right there, but you can also go to the beach, to the theater, to that hot new restaurant, to the Getty, and on and on and on and on. Arguably, the options are slimmer in the smaller West Coast metros so of course people devote more time explicitly to the outdoors.

I can't speak to Vancouver, but Los Angeles is populous enough to support a critical mass of, among other things, hikers--especially on weekends and after work hours.

[LA21st]

I thought people knew that hiking was popular in LA?

Like many residents in LA look for trails in the suburbs because the city ones are too popular/crowded for them.

Yea, during work hours there's less people. But like Craigs said, wait til 5 or 6 pm and on weekends lol

[LosAngelesSportsFan]

Originally Posted by jmecklenborg

But almost nobody does.

How many people are hiking or biking in the Santa Monica Mountains at any given time, despite several million people living within walking/biking distance of them?

A lot. Between the Santa Monica Mountains, the Verdugos, San Gabriel's, San Bernardino and Hollywood hills, there must be 10,000s of thousands hiking, biking, camping and recreating on any given day

[homebucket]

My kinda trail!

Miles and miles of singletrack flowing through rolling woodlands, dense canopies of mixed evergreen forests (coastal redwoods, douglas fir, and live oak) and cool, misty, sheltered ferny canyons with moist creekbanks and river bottoms. Feels like I'm zipping through Endor. All less than 30 min away from SF proper.











PC: homebucket