Downtown San Francisco vs. Downtown Los Angeles (Long Beach, Richmond: neighborhood, shops)

WOW. I know the purpose of this particular thread is for opinions only, and I have respected every opinion about this subject so far. Allow me to stress my opinion. Anyone who argues that San Francisco has no "real" downtown does not study accordingly to the statistics. I used to visit a website quite frequently that focused completely on the structures and buildings around the World. San Francisco has one of the LARGEST numbers of buildings located in its downtown compared to other cities around the nation. The city of San Francisco is COVERED with skyscrapers similar to that of cities on the east coast like New York City, Chicago, Boston, and Philadelphia. Seattle has the second most impressive skyline and thirdly would be Los Angeles throughout the entire West Coast according to "skylines". NetSurf on Emporis dotcom for spectacular photos of cities around the World.

[NYSD1995]

Originally Posted by City Boy

North Beach Is Downtown and at night its as crowded as anywhere. The Mission ,Noe Valley, Market Street etc. is not what i'd call a ghost town either until like 2 am and even then its full of crazy people. Most of SF is what i'd call "Down Town". It has a city feel all over. La is like a giant suburb. There is nowhere thats really a ghost town in SF other than the Richmond or Sunset.

SF has a dense, city feel but North Beach and Noe Valley is not "Downtown SF". Downtown SF is the financial district.

[TheRealAngelion]

Originally Posted by City Boy

I think you have LA mixed up with SF. SF downtown is where everything is. It has a true downtown with fine dining, clubs and shopping. LA has nothing.

I don't know what you mean by "true downtown," but DTLA has fine dining, clubs, and shopping too. The difference is that in LA you have these amenities all over the city and metro so people don't have to go just downtown to enjoy them.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by ImRandy

There's the disconnect. North Beach, Mission District, Noe Valley... none of these places are commonly considered downtown by people who live in the area.

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.

[City Boy]

Originally Posted by TheRealAngelion

I don't know what you mean by "true downtown," but DTLA has fine dining, clubs, and shopping too. The difference is that in LA you have these amenities all over the city and metro so people don't have to go just downtown to enjoy them.

It's the same way in SF and the Bay Area. Nobody just stays on market st in SF.

[TheRealAngelion]

Yes, but downtown SF is more of a destination or center of gravity for shopping and entertainment than is downtown LA. And this is because LA is bigger, more spread out, and has far more capacity to support major retail throughout the city than does SF.

You think downtown San Francisco is more of a center gravity for ONLY shopping and entertainment? If you think this is true...you have convinced me more that you have never been to San Francisco than you have convinced me that you have actually been more than 5 times. The San Francisco business district is more prominent and popular Internationally as regards to doing International Business than Los Angeles is. San Franciso's business district has been recognized for decades compared to Los Angeles. Los Angeles's expertise lies with primarily shopping and entertainment while both San Francisco and San Jose alone could carry the weight of the entire Western United States to be responsible for all International Business. This is an overview of the Financial District.

"The District is home to the city's largest concentration of corporate headquarters, law firms, banks, savings & loans and other financial institutions, such as the corporate headquarters of VISA, Wells Fargo Bank, the Charles Schwab Corporation, McKesson Corporation, Barclays Global Investors, The Gap, and the Union Bank of California among others. The headquarters of the Bank of California, the 12th district of the United States Federal Reserve, and the Pacific Stock Exchange (although no longer located in that building) are located in the area as well. Montgomery Street ("Wall Street of the West") is the traditional heart of the district. There are several shopping malls in the area including the Crocker Galleria, the Embarcadero Center, the Ferry Building, and the Rincon Center complex."

Also, New York City is one of the preeminent global economic centers, with its business, financial, legal, and media organizations having worldwide influence and both San Francisco and Seattle are usually chosen instead of Los Angeles because San Francisco and Seattle are more qualified for joint business transactions and partnerships. Los Angeles is only chosen every so often by larger east coast corporate businesses in Boston and New York just because Los Angeles has POTENTIAL. And Los Angeles only has potential because of its extreme population. Can you imagine if L.A. and San Francisco were the same population? L.A. would not even be considered because even though San Francisco is less than 800,000 there is, has, and always will be superiority in business and finance for the mere fact that "the city by the bay" was constructed and invested properly.

[TheRealAngelion]

I don't know who you are and why you are calling me out for an argument (I certainly was not looking for one), but you are a bit off subject and very ill informed.

I never said downtown SF was "only" a center of gravity for shopping and entertainment. Of course, it's a major business and financial hub, but that is not the topic of this thread.

Furthermore, you are completely wrong and off base in your assertions about the SF area's business economy. The economy of the SF metro area is ranked 9th in the U.S., LA's is ranked 2nd behind New York. Seattle is not even in the top 10. Do your homework before getting on a public message board to troll and insult people.

Gross metropolitan product - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Apparently I am not wrong and off base about my assertions about SF's business economy because my post was not describing the San Francisco METROPOLITAN area. There is no way that you can compare a metropolitan area to its actual central downtown city proper. San Francisco is the business and financial center of the entire West Coast.

"Furthermore", I clicked on your link to the wikipedia results for its statistics about every metropolitan area and where each city stands and apparently you were the one that did not do enough of your homework. San Francisco was ranked just this year, the results were even released on MSN's homepage. The statistics proved that San Francisco was of the top 3 with New York City obviously being the first on the list for EVEN Ivy League College Graduates choosing the best city to pursue their career successfully in a BUSINESS oriented environment. Los Angeles barely made rank in the top 10.

The topic of this thread was comparing "DOWNTOWN" Los Angeles and San Francisco, which I obviously was doing because hey, where are the financial and business districts located? Say what, downtown? And the only reason I felt the need to use your comments as an example is because it seemed to me that you were siding with L.A. because your quote stated "LA is bigger, more spread out, and has far more capacity to support major retail throughout the city than does SF." I was only "arguing" to prove you wrong because if someone releases information about San Francisco that isn't true, you'd better believe I'm going to defend its name. San Francisco itself (which is less than 800,000 people) in no way represents the entire San Francisco Bay Area which serves nearly 7 million inhabitants. In fact, many Bay Area residents separate themselves completely from San Francisco itself. So I am afraid that your false statistics do not support your argument. If you don't believe me....check out your link once again. That particular list is not updated due to the fact that it dates all the way back to 2004.

This concludes that San Francisco once again will always prosper over Los Angeles having superiority in business and finance thanks to the pure genius of the ones who constructed and invested in this great city.