City Hiking Section

Travis · Post by **Travis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 6:43 am

I took the advice and started a section for all LA City Hiking. Let me know what you think,

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:51 am

OK, this is a really minor minor point, but would it be better to call it "LA Urban Hiking?" The current title, "LA City Hiking," could be mistakenly construed to mean "only hikes within the City of Los Angeles."

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 9:59 am

Jim has a good point. For example, the Verdugo Mountains overlap the cities of Glendale, Burbank, and Los Angeles but the entire range fits into the "LA Urban Hiking" category.

Maxwell's Demon · Post by **Maxwell's Demon** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:35 pm

Awesome! I love the Verdugos and Griffith Park and Venice/Santa Monica beaches. There's tons of others I have not done yet.

Janice · Post by **Janice** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 3:45 pm

I beg to differ. The word "Urban" usually refers to the inner city where there are mostly paved streets, as opposed to "Suburban" or the "Suburbs" which refers to the areas you guys are talking about.

None of the areas you mentioned are considered to be in "Urban Los Angeles"

All the areas you mentioned would be considered to be "LA Suburban Hiking" or "LA Suburbs Hiking" - to refer to them as being "LA Urban Hiking" areas would be laughable - but I don't expect you to make any changes based on my input.

Post by **HikeUp** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:09 pm

I just picked up some new gear from REI's Urban Hiking store. Can't wait to try it out!

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 4:54 pm

But does it get good mpg?

Travis · Post by **Travis** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:18 pm

Janice wrote:I beg to differ. The word "Urban" usually refers to the inner city where there are mostly paved streets, as opposed to "Suburban" or the "Suburbs" which refers to the areas you guys are talking about.

None of the areas you mentioned are considered to be in "Urban Los Angeles"

All the areas you mentioned would be considered to be "LA Suburban Hiking" or "LA Suburbs Hiking" - to refer to them as being "LA Urban Hiking" areas would be laughable - but I don't expect you to make any changes based on my input.

You bring up a valid point, but the definition of Urban is: relating to or belonging to a city. And since these hikes are within city limits, they "belong" to the city so I think the title is valid, but I am open to change it if others think so as well. Surburan would also work, but would not fit well for parks directly within the city such as Griffith Park.

Post by **Hikin_Jim** » Mon Oct 29, 2007 7:58 pm

I think I'm with Travis here. If you're referring to the built up area in and around the LA basin, I think LA Urban Area is pretty descriptive. I don't see a need to start splitting hairs between suburban and urban. Urban in the general sense used here is appropriate. I think urban vs. mountain is a useful distinction. Trying to cut it finer seems like a hassle and of little benefit.

AlanK · Post by **AlanK** » Tue Oct 30, 2007 8:16 am

I'm with Jim. The San Gabriels are a significant regional range surrounded by cities, suburbs, and rural areas. The Verdugos are a small range completely contained within the city limits of LA, Glendale, and Burbank, all urban areas with populations in excess of 100,000. Griffith Park is an even smaller oasis i nthe middle of a huge urban area.

If we want to split hairs, it is fun to remember that 5000' Mt. Lukens (in the San Gabriels) is within the LA city limits. 8)