U.S. Cities  
Happy New Year 2010!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California
Register Blogs Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.

Get a detailed profile
Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
View Poll Results: I prefer the following CBD the most:
Downtown San Francisco 69 78.41%
Downtown Los Angeles 19 21.59%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll

Reply


 
Old 07-31-2007, 10:58 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: City of Angels
1,261 posts, read 1,306,078 times
Reputation: 466
TheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of light
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-01-2007, 02:29 AM
Flipinino
Guest
 
n/a posts
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?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-01-2007, 07:48 AM
Not a member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
72 posts
Reputation: 29
whoIam is on a distinguished road
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.

Last edited by whoIam; 08-01-2007 at 08:04 AM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2007, 01:17 AM
rah
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: San Francisco
1,022 posts, read 656,612 times
Reputation: 374
rah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nicerah is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy View Post
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)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-02-2007, 02:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
807 posts, read 927,553 times
Reputation: 236
tande1n5 has a spectacular aura abouttande1n5 has a spectacular aura abouttande1n5 has a spectacular aura abouttande1n5 has a spectacular aura abouttande1n5 has a spectacular aura about
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2007, 03:15 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Greater Houston
2,224 posts, read 1,859,229 times
Reputation: 322
KerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the roughKerrTown is a jewel in the rough
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2007, 03:36 PM
Not a member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
128 posts, read 185,331 times
Reputation: 58
Desertho will become famous soon enoughDesertho will become famous soon enough
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2007, 06:18 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: City of Angels
1,261 posts, read 1,306,078 times
Reputation: 466
TheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of lightTheRealAngelion is a glorious beacon of light
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2007, 07:07 PM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Rolando, San Diego CA 92115
5,117 posts, read 5,399,672 times
Reputation: 1230
Sassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud ofSassberto has much to be proud of
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-03-2007, 07:55 PM
Grand Poobah
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,199 posts, read 1,116,392 times
Blog Entries: 11
Reputation: 433
ImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really niceImRandy is just really nice
Quote:
Originally Posted by KerrTown View Post
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.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.



Reply


Quick Reply
Message:

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Similar Threads


Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:42 PM.

Copyright © 2005-2009, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 - Top