What's the stereotype of a New Jersey Girl? - Page 8

No, no, no, no, and no. But the Cali pinko commie has already brought up the pine barrens and the water gap and sandy hook and high point...OK, not by name, but he mentioned that NJ has some spectacular beauty. Very little of it falls within spitting distance of NYC. NJ owes its wealth to some of the friendliest business tax laws in the country, with AT&T, Merck, and others all placing international headquarters there. Many many jobs have stayed in Jersey after employers realized that no one really likes that commute into the city.




Hey man, let me know next time you're coming by.

I went to school with a lot of Jerseyites--probably not as many as OE, but a lot. And there were a lot of outsiders mixed in, of course. Every single one of us defended Jersey to the hilt: "if you don't like it, go to that #1 USN&WR school in your state, asshat."

May well have been me, and I stand by it. If I've never seen a mountain, then you've never tried to hike Mt Marcy. Tougher hike than Whitney, and it's not really close. Whitney is a long walk; Marcy is a short walk without switchbacks.

Tom

California's cities are quite bland and architecturally they are pathetic. London is a great city, and makes NY look like San Jose in my mind.

I don't imagine that many people with eyes would argue that the California coast from Muir Woods to Santa Barbara was not the most naturally beautiful part of the US. In fact, it is probably the only US area that compares at all (at at parts very favorably) with the most naturally beautiful parts of Europe.

Parts of Colorado blow me away... I'd say there are plenty of beautiful areas in the US, even outside of CA. However, many of them aren't necessarily in proximity to a city of SF's caliber.

This is unfair. There is a lot great architecture in CA. In many places, to be sure, it has been overwhelmed by boxy nothingness, but much of it is still there.

Colorado is quite beautiful, and the mountains are more beautiful than those in California. However, it is not the proximity to SF that makes the natural beauty of California different, it is the proximity of the various different types of beauty. In a relatively contained area you have Lake Tahoe, the Sierras, the Sequoias, the Carmel Coast, The SF Bay etc. I can't think of anywhere else in the US that has so much, so great, so close.

As I've often thought the same thing, I can't argue with that. Are there places in Europe that can match that? Are any Frenchmen on line whom we can bait?

I deeply and wholeheartedly disagree with this statement. Having lived years in both cities, I cannot imagine how anyone (not blind) could think that London is a more attractive city than NYC. Are you generally contained to Mayfair and Holland Park when you go to London Matt?

I remember driving down the coast of CA and through a lot of the western beauty for 5 weeks years ago and loved it. I think in terms of coastal beauty, some parts of the French Riviera are a good match (Esterel, Eze, Menton...), the Etretat cliffs and the Cinqueterre area in Italy are not half bad. For the rest (deserts and natural parks), there is no real match in EUrope that I'm aware of. There are other types of natural beauties there

I have always thought so, but:


Add Knightsbridge, Marleybone, Belgravia, Kensington, Chelsea and the answer would be ... yes.

Attachment 5519

Not sure how the jeans part fits in with the whole "California smells better" claim, but I don't live there.



Written like a true New Yorker.



Not my experience with folks I know from New Jersey at all (none of whom fit what you term the "Gotti" stereotype). I've seen nothing but incredible state pride (along with a fanatical, almost Pope-like devotion to Bruce Springsteen).

Make sure you do that, so that you can see how little and silly I actually am. If I looked like this, I wouldn't go around calling guys twice my size a twat:

What of,some forum unity east, west, and Canadian ?

Hammer, don't hurt, him.

Some parts of London have great architecture, of what has been mentioned, Chelsea actually has quite poor architecture, as does most of Knightsbridge, Marylebone and Mayfair.
Belgravia is very nice, most of Holland Park is also, but it's only just in 'real' London.
Kensington is very so so in my opinion.
If I were to rank London's areas in terms of architectural quality, it would be as follows:
1. Belgravia
2. Regent's Park
3. Little Venice / Maida Vale
4. St. John's Wood
5. The City
6. Holland Park
7. The south east of Marylebone
8. Canary Wharf
9. Hampstead
10. South Kensington
11. (Architecturally) generic areas (Bayswater, Mayfair, Paddington, Notting Hill, Belsize Park, Most of Kensington, Earl's Court, Fulham, Ealing etc.)

To say Chelsea or has nice architecture confuses me. Sure it is a nice area, but architecture? It is simply a mix of very bad 60s architecture and London's generic architectural style.

I like London's generic architectural style. I like NY's, too, but there is less of it still around. East of Lex there is nothing but glass boxes from 96th to the harbor. Almost.