Quote:
Originally Posted by sopas ej
It's wrong to say that trees are not native to LA. There are of course many trees that have been imported to LA, but there are many that are native to southern California, the oak being one of them. "Encino" and "Los Robles" have to do with oaks after all. In Pasadena/South Pasadena, some neighborhoods were built around already existing oaks.
This is interesting: https://www.kcet.org/shows/lost-la/t...-brief-history
Olive trees also grow well in southern California's climate; they don't need a lot of water and can grow to provide a lot of shade. They somehow look native to the area, too, even though they are not. |
Oh yes, I know there are native tree species in Southern California. Several types of Oak, Laurel Bay, Black Walnut, Western Sycamore are all native. I meant to say that these trees never created wide spread forests throughout the LA basin and valleys, but rather were just concentrated around stream beds, usually in and around the canyons. The notion that the whole LA basin should be a forest (which is what quite a few people advocate for) just isn't rooted in history or the native ecology of this region.
6th Street in Hancock Park has some of the best tree coverage in LA that I've seen, and it really does create a pleasant environment:
https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0635...7i16384!8i8192.
But it's not natural, and those trees (plus all the lawns in Hancock Park) rely on extensive irrigation. It just doesn't seem very sustainable to plant trees like that all throughout the city and region. If people want to live in a forested city, they should move east of the Mississippi or the PNW.