Areas of your city that would shock outsiders/visitors w/ preconceived notions

[CaliNative]

In the L.A. basin, the San Gabriel Valley in the more affluent towns has tons of neighborhoods with impressive tree canopies that almost look Eastern or Midwestern. Native oaks, conifers and some eastern deciduous trees. The trees form shady canyons. South Pasadena, good parts of Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, Altadena, Claremont near the colleges etc. Not as many palm trees as you would see in Bev. Hills. Palm trees are NOT native to L.A. basin.

Similarly, the palm trees lining the Embarcadero in San Fran. are stately but look more like SoCal. The nearest native palms are probably 400 miles away in the Colorado desert near Palm Springs.

[aufbau]

Originally Posted by proghousehead

This is Manhattan

https://goo.gl/maps/Ksdijk8JkEr2SPhe7

https://goo.gl/maps/JJ3buHUEWUoNYjJd9

https://goo.gl/maps/tifLD1WbbRbVneBq9

First one is Red Bank, NJ. It was shocking because I live a few blocks away

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by Obadno

I don’t know why people that don’t know any better insist on saying there are water issues where there are not water issues. Hell water in Arizona is actually not very expensive. There is not a water issue here. We have plenty for what we need.

I know it’s tempting to assume that there is some major lack of water For
Phoenix but there is not.

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Having water for current needs isn't the same thing as having enough water to substantially grow.

I've long been frustrated by the common narrative that the only consideration when it comes to conserving natural resources is to have enough for human use. It's that attitude that has led to most of our environmental problems to begin with. Land, water, and other resources aren't just sitting idly waiting for someone to come along and find a productive use for them. They're being used already by an entire system of other life and natural processes that can be severely damaged or destroyed by disruption. If you siphon large amounts of water away from rivers, lakes and aquifers, there are plenty of long and short term effects that are independent (at least initially) of desired human consumption.

For instance, rivers with lower water levels cannot carry sediment as far and can rob the regions downstream of nutrients. They also cannot hydrate wetlands down stream as effectively which can threaten countless species. This can cause the desertification and erosion of large areas of ecosystem. The lakes/rivers also may not have enough extra water to recharge the water table which can deplete the reserves for times drought. I don't know the situation in Arizona, but the question of "How much can we use before it runs out" is always just one of many aspects to consider when it comes to consuming natural resources.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by aufbau

First one is Red Bank, NJ. It was shocking because I live a few blocks away

I'm confused... his first link shows up as Chicago for me, a few blocks from me...

[Centropolis]

well, the dead don’t die. but the devil still be walking around.

we killed god i guess.

[proghousehead]

Originally Posted by SIGSEGV

I'm confused... his first link shows up as Chicago for me, a few blocks from me...

I screwed up linking. All 3 are from northern manhattan. Not sure what happened. Will try finding the correct links.

[Nouvellecosse]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

True, but the older (pre 1970s & mostly pre 1930s) skyscrapers in Toronto are all under 500' so they are dwarfed and hidden by the modern giants for the most part, at least from a distance. Same in L.A. where most buildings were restricted to 150' before the late 1950s. But the concentration of these older gems is great on the east side of DTLA.

That's probably why it seems to shock people's preconceived notions. i don't know about the general public, but many people on here seem to base their entire view of cities based on a few skyline photos. I've literally heard people suggest that Toronto is a northern analogue to Miami because they've both been building residential highrises. Yet on the ground, they look totally, jarringly different other than a few limited areas.

[eschaton]

The only detached bsingle-family homes in Manhattan are around here, BTW.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Handro

Probably Oak Street Beach:



But really any beach along the lakefront. I've talked to people at conferences on the East and West coasts who are adamant that Chicago does not have any beaches.

That's gone. I just rode my bike along the lakefront to downtown. The beaches are gone and whole areas are fenced off. Even that cement area not of the Hancock tower is all water and fenced off. Lake Michigan has risen a lot overtaking the beaches. Around the boathouse at North Ave area there is a little bit of beach left. Wish I had my cell phone with me to take pics. I was shocked.

[pip]

Originally Posted by Handro

Probably Oak Street Beach:



But really any beach along the lakefront. I've talked to people at conferences on the East and West coasts who are adamant that Chicago does not have any beaches.

That's gone. I just rode my bike along the lakefront to downtown. The beaches are gone and whole areas are fenced off because it's all water. Even that cement area north of the Hancock tower is all water and fenced off. Lake Michigan has risen a lot overtaking the beaches. Around the boathouse at North Ave area there is a little bit of beach left. Wish I had my cell phone with me to take pics. I was shocked.

[SIGSEGV]

Originally Posted by pip

That's gone. I just rode my bike along the lakefront to downtown. The beaches are gone and whole areas are fenced off because it's all water. Even that cement area north of the Hancock tower is all water and fenced off. Lake Michigan has risen a lot overtaking the beaches. Around the boathouse at North Ave area there is a little bit of beach left. Wish I had my cell phone with me to take pics. I was shocked.

Wow crazy. Does anyone know if there's a prediction for when the lake level might peak? It's pretty surprising how uncontrolled the lake level is.

Edit: here is a story of the beach
https://storage.googleapis.com/plane...n7Gg/movie.mp4

[pip]

I can't answer your questions but I am going back either tomorrow or the next day to take pics to post

[Fresh]

Originally Posted by edale

Ok, yes, but green grass is not a natural feature of the Phoenix landscape. Same with Los Angeles. All the grass we have here requires irrigation for the vast majority of the year. That's definitely not the case in the Midwest and East Coast, where rain falls year round and grass and trees don't require artificial irrigation.

I encounter this in LA all the time, actually. I've worked with some tree advocates...people who push for the development of an urban forest. Many of these people are shocked to learn that the LA area really only has about 5 species of native trees. They grew in canyons and valleys around natural water sources, but the rest of the landscape is chapparal. Large bushes and the occasional tree surrounded by grasses that are green in the winter and golden the rest of the year.

So people pushing for all of Los Angeles to look like this are wanting LA to look like somewhere else. It's no surprise many of these people leading this push moved to LA from NY or Chicago. I think the movement toward more natural landscapes is a welcomed one here. I also think the native species can be much more beautiful than just a plain grass lawn. Embrace where you are!

https://www.google.com/maps/@34.0635...4!8i8192?hl=en

What a beautiful streetscape - I agree with your point that it's unnatural and maybe a bit wasteful but hell, all of Los Angeles wouldn't exist unless water was being 'wasted' and i'm glad humans have built something very beautiful in such a place.

[Obadno]

Originally Posted by iheartthed

Having water for current needs isn't the same thing as having enough water to substantially grow.

It has enough to sustainably grow that’s what I’m saying. The current water plan for the city can handle this rate of growth for another hundred years at least. There is plenty of water. Most cities that don’t exist in arid climates let the vast majority of their water run off into the ocean, deserts get less rain but you can manage that water and have more than you need which is the case.

Just because it’s an arid climate does not mean it’s unsustainable, again the oldest human cities and civilizations are from the same kind of arid climates

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by CaliNative

In the L.A. basin, the San Gabriel Valley in the more affluent towns has tons of neighborhoods with impressive tree canopies that almost look Eastern or Midwestern. Native oaks, conifers and some eastern deciduous trees. The trees form shady canyons. South Pasadena, good parts of Pasadena, San Marino, Sierra Madre, Altadena, Claremont near the colleges etc. Not as many palm trees as you would see in Bev. Hills. Palm trees are NOT native to L.A. basin.

Similarly, the palm trees lining the Embarcadero in San Fran. are stately but look more like SoCal. The nearest native palms are probably 400 miles away in the Colorado desert near Palm Springs.

Those footfill communities probably have the most naturalistic landscaping in the area. The basin and coast is a little more exotic and subtropical in comparison. It looks nothing like an east coast or midwest city. It's one of the first things people notice when they come here. From those foothills though, it's only a mile into the mountains before you start seeing mosses and ferns (most people don't even know that you can find those in arid SoCal) and another few miles before you reach alpine high country, a few miles more and you're in high desert. The LA area probably has the most climatic and ecological diversity of any urban area, definitely in the US, maybe even globally.

[badrunner]

Originally Posted by Obadno

It has enough to sustainably grow that’s what I’m saying. The current water plan for the city can handle this rate of growth for another hundred years at least. There is plenty of water. Most cities that don’t exist in arid climates let the vast majority of their water run off into the ocean, deserts get less rain but you can manage that water and have more than you need which is the case.

Just because it’s an arid climate does not mean it’s unsustainable, again the oldest human cities and civilizations are from the same kind of arid climates

Yeah even in dry SoCal the vast majority of local rainfall goes straight out to sea, our reservoirs only take water from mountain sources hundreds of miles away

• Video Link

[eschaton]

I'd like to participate in this thread, but I'm not sure what peoples' preconceived notions of Pittsburgh would be.

I mean, should I show intact Victorian rowhouse neighborhoods? Or upper-middle-class urban enclaves? So many possibilities.

[dc_denizen]

^ parts of the city that are flat