How come there are no big cities in north california like there are in central and south california?

How come there are no big cities in north california like there are in central and south california?

Attached: 1.png (830x859, 236.83K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka,_California#Climate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climate
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

there are no good ports

Why di you ask stupid questions ?

Americans like hot weather and the coast is pretty lukewarm there

Sacramento is big. Also
San fran
San jose

this is norcal. nobody says "midcal"

Attached: Northern_California_counties_in_red.png (596x676, 24.4K)

He has a point THOUGH
the reason why ya'll aren't in Eureka is because it's not hot enough

Up north is forested and ports are practically non-existent due to rough terrain.

i wonder why the only big cities north of SF are Seattle and Portland... Hmmmm

They are inland-oriented cities so they get the bare minimum of heat that Americans need in the summer.

What point is OP trying to make?
That's like if I said, "why are there so few Finns between Kokkola and Jyvaskia?"

Why would you build a city there? It's pretty obvious just looking at the map.

>inland oriented
they are PORT oriented. please stop Simo, you are being very CRINGE

What the fuck? Seattle doesn't get any heat lmao. It's not inland it's literally surrounded by water.

thats actually good point, theres no any major cities between kokkola and jyväskylä.

Attached: nemonen-mankeli.jpg (620x400, 51.44K)

Seattle gets plenty of heat compared to the coast.

w-what's in that empty space between k-kokkola and jyvaskyla?

Attached: 1620500928767.png (1200x1261, 1.29M)

A lot of it is steep, rocky coastline bordered by dense forest like Big Sur or the Lost Coast (pic related). It's a pain in the ass to build cities in areas like that. Hell, the only really big city on the coast between San Francisco and Los Angeles is Monterey, and it's pretty small even if you include the surrounding areas like Seaside or Carmel.

Attached: lost-coast-trail-1.jpg (800x532, 62.9K)

It's on the coast. It's colder than my city. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.

Because dense urbanism is communism, the only way to be free is to pave half the city and have half the population living in the suburbs ie towns not counted in the population

Attached: abc.jpg (780x439, 159.15K)

That's true, I've been to both cities and the weather was excellent.
Says the temp in Eureka stays mostly within 10-20C all year. Seems comfy to me, though I'm accustomed to more sun than they get.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka,_California#Climate
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seattle#Climate
8 degree difference between average highs in July and August

>PORTland
>inland-oriented

Attached: 1632821733510.jpg (576x438, 50.99K)

I'm talking about the climate. It's an inland port city yes, but Seattle technically isn't so "inland-oriented" it is.

And hopefully it stays so. Unaltered. Bless the Coastal Commission.

fun fact, portland was almost called boston, but the coin flipped the other way

>comparing to California
Are you trolling? I can't tell.

The stretch from San Francisco to about Roseburg, Oregon (the southern third of the state) is basically the same from a climate perspective. Any further north and you start getting into the Willamette Valley which is where you start seeing the cloudy/rainy weather the PNW is known for.

That's kind of the point. The hotter weather in Seattle is why there are people there, but not in Eureka.

Attached: 1642153503746.png (868x1056, 223K)

I always use to wonder that to, however the costal and Sierra Nevada range makes California alot smaller and portioned ...honestly getting tired of Sacramento though just want to live up in the forests away from people everyone is so terrible here.