Downtown San Francisco vs. Downtown Los Angeles (Long Beach, Sacramento: real estate, houses)

[TheRealAngelion]

I don't feel the need to argue with you. The facts are out there. Your pontifications and grandiose delusions about San Francisco are so rediculous and uninformed its really not worth my time.

That's great. I'm glad that your impression of me leads in the direction of mental illness and arrogance. Apparently all my thoughts were empty and meaningless which may be described as rambling in your point of view. I assume at this point all we can do is agree to disagree since I am in obvious need to call a psychiatric hospital to come and pick me up on the spot. Shall I add spontaneity to my list of characteristics as well?

[whoIam]

Hi,
Not sure what this thread is for, but personally I like SF's abundance and variety of small shops and cafes, waterfront, older charm (like cable cars and architecture) while I like the modern & contemporary art museums and some of the newer buildings in L.A. As for business districts, I wouldn't find either too attractive (especially after hours) as a visitor. But if that is your interest I believe both have good opportunities, L.A. moreso in international trade and SF in the financial (and internet) world.

[rah]

Originally Posted by City Boy

How can North Beach not be down town when you're basically one or two blocks away from the Transamerica building? the Mission district starts downtown on the other side of vaness . San Francisco is a small city. There are financial high rises all over. I don't care what the snobs say or think there is more to downtown sf than the buildings lining market.

Sorry. North Beach is not Downtown. Neither is the Mission. Ask any san francisco resident. SF is small, but it still has boundaries...c'mon. "Downtown" SF encompasses: The Fincancial District, Union Square, and the area around Moscone Center, as well as a small part of SoMa between the embarcadero and Moscone Center, which is pretty much a southern extension of the financial district. The tenderloin, Civic Center, and parts of Nob hill are also part of "Downtown." The mission is quite seperated from downtown. They have at least one neighborhood between them, depending on how you go from one to the other. Also, North Beach is partially seperated from downtown by chinatown....

...and all of this doesn't even matter, because the simple truth is, North Beach, the Mission and Noe Valley are NOT part of downtown, regardless of what your own opinion is. You don't know what you're talking about. It's like saying west oakland is part of downtown oakland. Or that hollywood is part of downtown LA...

This has nothing to do with snobs, and no, there are not "financial high rises all over." With the exception, of course, being...downtown. (unless you wanna count that fugly USBank building on Mission Street...the one that has no windows and is covered in paintball marks)

[tande1n5]

Yeah. Many things in SF that aren't "downtown" are really close, but they do have to draw the lines somewhere as to what is and isn't.

[KerrTown]

Can someone tell me why the downtowns are located where they are. S.F. seems to be located on the wrong side of the peninsula and L.A. is too far from the beach. I would think that a logical choice for S.F. is to locate it on the Pacific shoreline between Lincoln Park and Golden Gate Part where the Richmond district is today or in the Presidio. Concerning L.A., is the DT there because of the Pueblo? I would have located the DT where Santa Monica is now and named it Los Angeles or keep it Santa Monica.

I'd like to complement the Californians on having two very unique cities with very different climates; the cold and the fog in S.F. or the warm but blinding sunshine in L.A. Unlike in my native Texas, a debate between Dallas and Houston might be pointless because they are too similar except that my city is located on the Gulf Coast.

[Desertho]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Can someone tell me why the downtowns are located where they are. S.F. seems to be located on the wrong side of the peninsula and L.A. is too far from the beach. I would think that a logical choice for S.F. is to locate it on the Pacific shoreline between Lincoln Park and Golden Gate Part where the Richmond district is today or in the Presidio. Concerning L.A., is the DT there because of the Pueblo? I would have located the DT where Santa Monica is now and named it Los Angeles or keep it Santa Monica.

Many of the world's great cities are similarly non-sensically situated. Paris and London for example are inland, though by the river like Los Angeles. Madrid's center, which ruled much of the world for a while, is not near a water feature. Rome while close to a river and the beach, is not ON a river and a distance from the coast.

I think LA's downtown could've been located where Long Beach or Santa Monica is right now. But since no missions were ever established on the beach, it would've been unlikely that both cities would have downtowns too far from them.

[TheRealAngelion]

I think SF's city fathers got it right. Had they located downtown on the Pacific, the city would be even more gray, gloomy, and cold most of the year because that's the side of town that gets the most fog and coastal haze.

Downtown LA is where the pueblo was originally settled. It doesn't seem logical today, but back then the LA river was a real river and was nearby and I suspect the land was a little more fertile for farming than the land closer to the coast was. I would also guess that back then in the age of no smog, the Spaniards were so awe-inspired by the sight of the majestic San Gabriel Mountians, that it must of felt like heaven to be in their shadow.

[Sassberto]

The cities were founded with protection from the water. Most major cities are located on a river or bay for that reason. Remember that structures 100+ years ago were not nearly as tolerant to the elements as they are today.

[ImRandy]

Originally Posted by KerrTown

Can someone tell me why the downtowns are located where they are. S.F. seems to be located on the wrong side of the peninsula and L.A. is too far from the beach. I would think that a logical choice for S.F. is to locate it on the Pacific shoreline between Lincoln Park and Golden Gate Part where the Richmond district is today or in the Presidio.

Actually, that would have been the nonsensical place to put "downtown" San Francisco. That area was a sand dune wasteland when San Francisco was founded and remained so for many many years after. The eastern side on the other hand, had a natural harbor called Yerba Buena Cove, was protected from Pacific storms, and had natural sources of surface water. Aside from being considered inaccessible and uninhabitable the area just wasn't part of the city. It was all government land until 1866.