Topic: North Coast or Big Sur (July 2010) (Read 4467 times)

mengenlehre · « **on:** January 23, 2010, 08:38:09 am »

first things first: this is my first post here on LL, so hello everybody glad to be here. I'm an Italian teacher and wannabe photographer (a few stuff here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/12358410@N05/).

now, I'm going to Los Angeles this summer to shoot the wedding of a friend of mine, so I'll have the opportunity to wander around California for a week with my girlfriend and her 6-years-old son

Big Sur's beauty is legendary, but the prices for holiday homes are exorbitant, plus I'm afraid that it may be overcrowded.
The North Coast, on the other hand, is much cheaper, probably less packed with tourists, and judging by the panoramio's pics that show up in google earth is equally amazing.

We'd also love to pay a visit to San Francisco and to the Sequoia National Park.

Any suggestions?

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #1 on:** January 23, 2010, 10:36:33 pm »

l live in No. Cal., and have visited both Big Sur and the north coast multiple times, and I much prefer the north coast (especially the redwood parks around Crescent City, and Humboldt redwoods park farther south). Especially coming from Italy, the Big Sur coast probably isn't all that different from some parts of the Italian coast (Cinque Terra, maybe?), while Europe has nothing like the redwood forests. They're the most beautiful forests I've ever seen. You're right that the north coast will be much cheaper and less crowded than Big Sur, but it's a considerably longer drive. Also, if you want fine dining and fine resorts, you'll be better off at Big Sur. Still, if you enjoy forests, I'd choose the north coast over Big Sur by a longshot. If you're starting from LA, San Fran will be on the way to the north coast, but doing the whole thing starting and ending in LA will be a *lot* of driving. Consider flying into San Fran instead - there are many LA to SF flights a day. If you're not spending all your time driving up & down the length of California, but fly into SF instead, you'll have time to visit both Big Sur (which is only a couple of hours from SF) *and* the north coast.

Lisa

mengenlehre · « **Reply #2 on:** January 25, 2010, 07:04:26 am »

Quote from: Lisa Nikodym

l live in No. Cal., and have visited both Big Sur and the north coast multiple times, and I much prefer the north coast (especially the redwood parks around Crescent City, and Humboldt redwoods park farther south). Especially coming from Italy, the Big Sur coast probably isn't all that different from some parts of the Italian coast (Cinque Terra, maybe?), while Europe has nothing like the redwood forests. They're the most beautiful forests I've ever seen. You're right that the north coast will be much cheaper and less crowded than Big Sur, but it's a considerably longer drive. Also, if you want fine dining and fine resorts, you'll be better off at Big Sur. Still, if you enjoy forests, I'd choose the north coast over Big Sur by a longshot. If you're starting from LA, San Fran will be on the way to the north coast, but doing the whole thing starting and ending in LA will be a *lot* of driving. Consider flying into San Fran instead - there are many LA to SF flights a day. If you're not spending all your time driving up & down the length of California, but fly into SF instead, you'll have time to visit both Big Sur (which is only a couple of hours from SF) *and* the north coast.

Lisa

Dear Lisa,
thank you for your reply.

I think I forgot to mention that we'll be on a budget (we are always on a budget, being Italian teachers ), so fine dining and fine resorts are out of the question - as are, I'm afraid, six internal flights. I enjoy driving, anyway, and doing so in such a beautiful country will be a pleasure (plus, you Americans seem to give away petrol for free ).

I'm really looking forward to visiting the redwood forests, now. Should I ever manage to take any decent photo, I'll post it here. Stay tuned

best of luck,
Giuseppe

mengenlehre · « **Reply #3 on:** January 25, 2010, 07:08:57 am »

hey, let's take full advantage of this thread
would you trust this site: http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/California/r21.htm for holiday homes, or would you suggest something else?

Paul Sumi · « **Reply #4 on:** January 25, 2010, 10:30:44 am »

Quote from: mengenlehre

I enjoy driving, anyway, and doing so in such a beautiful country will be a pleasure (plus, you Americans seem to give away petrol for free ).

I also live in California (Los Angeles). I don't know if you have ever visited our state before. But don't underestimate how far it is between places in California. At 770 miles, California is longer than the entire country of Italy.

Driving from Los Angeles to San Francisco is about 400 miles. It will take you about 5-7 hours, depending on which major freeway you use (101 on the coast or 5 which is inland). Obviously, this depends on road and traffic conditions. This is without stops or time for sightseeing and photography.

If you have the time, take the 101 freeway, even though it is the longer drive. The shorter route, on the 5 freeway, is a very boring drive (with apologies to those who live in the Central Valley). It will also be a much warmer drive during the summer than the 101 freeway on the coast.

Paul

Paul Sumi · « **Reply #5 on:** January 25, 2010, 11:17:32 am »

Quote from: mengenlehre

hey, let's take full advantage of this thread
would you trust this site: http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/California/r21.htm for holiday homes, or would you suggest something else?

It is much less expensive to use a hotel or motel rather than rent a home, especially as you say you are traveling on a budget. All of the major hotel chains are in the areas you will want to visit. I would check their websites for locations and pricing.

Paul

Ken Doo · « **Reply #6 on:** January 25, 2010, 11:30:48 am »

Quote from: mengenlehre

hey, let's take full advantage of this thread
would you trust this site: http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/California/r21.htm for holiday homes, or would you suggest something else?

If you're staying put for awhile, then a rental property may be attractive, though can still be expensive. I have clients in the Carmel-Monterey area that like www.vrbo.com

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #7 on:** January 25, 2010, 12:40:15 pm »

OK, then let me share some of my favorite north coast places with you... (I've been up there quite a lot!)

There are two "best" areas. The southern one includes Humboldt Redwoods State Park, which is (in my opinion anyway) the best of the redwoods parks. There is plenty of inexpensive lodging in nearby Eureka or Garberville. Eureka is more historic, with some interesting old Victorian houses too. The best part of Humboldt park is the Rockefeller Forest area.

The northern good area has Jedediah Smith Redwoods State Park (Stout Grove there is *almost* as good as Humboldt), Redwoods National Park (which isn't better than the state parks, but about the same, despite being a national park instead), and Prairie Creek Redwoods State Park (where Fern Canyon is the best part). There is plenty of inexpensive lodging in Crescent City, near those parks.

As others have mentioned, California is BIG, so you'll be doing a lot of driving. To go from LA to No. Cal., Interstate 5 through the central valley is very fast, but very, very boring. Highway 101 (nearer the coast) is more interesting, but much, much slower. The mapquest web site is good for finding distances and driving times. Highway 101 is what you want to get from San Fran to the north coast; it's not fast, but it's very scenic.

If you're short on time, you can do just the southern area (around Humboldt park), skipping the northern area, and not miss too much.

Best of luck with your trip planning, and let me know if you have any more questions.

Lisa

JeffKohn · « **Reply #8 on:** January 25, 2010, 03:48:58 pm »

Quote from: mengenlehre

hey, let's take full advantage of this thread
would you trust this site: http://www.holiday-rentals.co.uk/California/r21.htm for holiday homes, or would you suggest something else?

I would suggest checking out http://www.vrbo.com as I've used them a few times in the past and been happy. Sometimes you can get a pretty nice place for about the same as what a standard hotel room would go for, and if you're traveling with a group the savings from getting a 2- or 3-bedroom condo over getting several hotel rooms can be substantial. The only thing to watch out for is that some of them will have minimum stays and/or cleaning fees; so staying for just a night or two in a location may not be a very good deal.

JeffKohn · « **Reply #9 on:** January 25, 2010, 03:51:28 pm »

Lisa,

How much rain does the Northern CA coast get in mid- to late-spring, compared to further north in Oregon and WA? Would that be a bad time to visit?

Thanks,

Paul Sumi · « **Reply #10 on:** January 25, 2010, 04:09:37 pm »

Quote from: JeffKohn

How much rain does the Northern CA coast get in mid- to late-spring, compared to further north in Oregon and WA? Would that be a bad time to visit?

The Weather Underground (www.wunderground.com) is your friend (average temperatures and rainfall by month):

San Francisco, CA:
http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayN...&normals=on

Portland, OR
http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayN...&normals=on

Seattle, WA
http://www.wunderground.com/NORMS/DisplayN...&normals=on

That said, we're currently getting the most rain (at least here in Southern California) since 2005.

Paul

Lisa Nikodym · « **Reply #11 on:** January 25, 2010, 04:31:26 pm »

Quote

Lisa,

How much rain does the Northern CA coast get in mid- to late-spring, compared to further north in Oregon and WA? Would that be a bad time to visit?

Thanks,

Not sure, since I have only been to Oregon & WA a few times, so I'm not well calibrated on that, but probably a majority of the rainstorms that hit the northwest reach northern CA too. There's generally considerably less rain in mid to late spring than in winter, though there's still some. This winter is an El Nino winter, however, which means a lot more rain than normal. Still, if you're going to be traveling during rain, redwood forests are about the best place to be; you're not seeing much sky anyway (and you'll have less of a dynamic range problem, which is good), and the trees filter the rain a lot so you'll get dripped on, but not really poured on. If you want to be sure to avoid rain, you should wait for summer, but in my case I don't mind spring rain in the redwood forests.

Lisa

JeffKohn · « **Reply #12 on:** January 26, 2010, 12:41:12 pm »

I definitely agree that overcast, drizzly weather is ideal for photography in that kind of terrain; that's what we had for the most part when we were in the Columbia River Gorge last May. A steady, driving rain on the other hand, is not so fun. Looking at the rainfall data, maybe mid- to late-April would be OK...

mengenlehre · « **Reply #13 on:** January 26, 2010, 02:03:43 pm »

I'd like to thank everybody - you've been very, very helpful

blansky · « **Reply #14 on:** January 26, 2010, 03:34:25 pm »

Personally since you only have a week, which is very short since you also have to drive back to LA, I'd drive up the coast from LA to Santa Barbara and see how far you get past there the first day. ( I assume you'd stop a lot to sightsee and take pictures).

The next day you can get up to Big Sur, and Carmel/Monterey.

See Big Sur and then stay in the Carmel Monterey area for a whole day.

Next day drive up through Santa Cruz and up to San Francisco.

Stay around San Francisco for a day.

Next day take 101 up to Santa Rosa, through Sonoma County Wine Country and up to Mendocino.

You are now in day 6. Time to start thinking about getting back to LA. It will take a long day on either 101 or way over to the boring but faster 5.

The drive up the coast will be quite slow and you'll want to stop a lot.

Have fun.

Michael

Author Topic: North Coast or Big Sur (July 2010) (Read 4467 times)