Although you've made your decision and it sounds like it may have been the right one for you anyway, I still feel obligated to defend LA; at least I'm not the only bastion of support this time.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by willravel
LA doesn't have forests
|
And the
Angeles NATIONAL FOREST (among others) doesn't count why? LA really shouldn't have this reputation as a concrete jungle because thanks to the mountains, there are huge open spaces where there is indeed plenty of nature. I wish I had pictures from my hikes in the San Gabriel Mountains. You really have no idea you are so close to a huge city except maybe for some views. This illustrates one of my favorite things about LA, that there's practically nothing you can't do there. Want concrete jungle? Sure, there
is plenty of that. But camping, yes, in a forest? Skiing? In fact it's all very doable in a day's work. As with any large city LA does have its problems, but I think a lot of them are overblown.
It sounds like your question is, or was, really not this particular area vs. this area, it's huge urban area vs less urban area. I've always wanted to live in or near a big city and in California, and I liked LA from the first time I went there, so I have a bit of a different perspective and you know what they say it's diffrent strokes for diffrent folks, so I won't second-guess your decision and tell you you should move to LA anyway (likewise I wouldn't tell you to move to NY or Chicago) because it sounds like you're in the market for something different.