San Francisco versus Los Angeles areas: pros and cons? (San Jose: movies, school)

[jade408]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

The old money and new money crowd in LA is more flashy for sure tho. Not saying that's good or bad, just that it is-in fact, Ive been told on more than one occasion that my taste is more in line with LA than SF which I dont mind cause I love the way Angelenos dress. LOL.

But I have found SFs social scene(as in High Society) to be larger, more multi-generational and a bit more complex than its LA equivalent, where the lines between real high society and the Hollywood elite are greatly blurred--but its not the same thing.

I think "old money" San Franciscans look like a more multi-culti version of Upper East-siders. "New Money" San Franciscans are as my sister calls it "working rich" people. They still need a job to fund their lifestyles. And these people are likely to work because they like it. Much more casual. I bet because they are on the go to stay successful at work. And work doesn't have much relationship to appearances.

Being practical rules in SF.

[jeffredo]

I of course prefer to live in my hometown, but I really like Los Angeles. I've always enjoyed my trips down there, have family there and could easily live there if the right job came along. I've never been much for zero sum comparisons of metro areas - they all have their good points.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by jade408

They are very different, but more alike than California to non-CA city.

Full disclosure, I haven't spent a ton of time in LA (but have many LA native friends).

1. Things are much farther apart in LA. You need to factor in traffic/congestion for most trips. This is only true in the Bay Area is you are leaving your "zone" East Bay, Peninsula, South Bay.
2. Transit is generally better in the Bay Area than in LA, but LA is making big improvements
3. Downtown SF is more cohesive than downtown LA. Downtown LA had been abandoned for awhile so it is up and coming. Downtown SF is more of a destination and always has been.
4. The weather is different. Especially in the summer. The winter is a bit chillier and rainier in the Bay Area. But it is a few degrees, not dramatic. You are more likely to have random hot days in the winter in LA than SF. But they do happen. SF has a very unsunny micro-climate. The rest of the bay area is dramatically sunnier.
5. People generally have different jobs. You are more likely to run into an entertainment person in LA. In SF and the greater Bay Area it is likely you will run into someone in tech, finance or sciences.
6. SF has a very small fashion scene and fashion/socialites aren't very common or prevalent vs as in LA.
7. Because you find people are in appearance industries in Socal (entertainment, fashion), people care more about "appearances." Appearances in SF is a little more subtle, and you'll see that people are more likely to judge for driving the right car, eating the right type of food, and supporting the right causes. (In SF: OMG did you actually eat at McDonald's. Gross! That's not seasonal/local/organic. LA: OMG, she looks like she just woke up and didn't bother to do her makeup)<<exaggeration
8. Cultural amenities and opportunities are very similar. If you like nightclubs, LA wins. Nightlife in the Bay is about the bars. Generally a dive or artisan cocktails sort of place. Museums etc, it is a toss up. Both places have excellent amenities
9. The Bay Area is generally more mixed. People are pretty separate by class/ethnicity/religion in LA. In the Bay Area this isn't as true. In LA you'll find Armenian, Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese, Korean, Mexican .... communities where they only talk to each other and socialize with each other. It is more segregated, especially by class, than the bay area.

I was going to post but, you took all my words away

[goldenchild08]

9. The Bay Area is generally more mixed. People are pretty separate by class/ethnicity/religion in LA. In the Bay Area this isn't as true. In LA you'll find Armenian, Iranian, Egyptian, Chinese, Korean, Mexican .... communities where they only talk to each other and socialize with each other. It is more segregated, especially by class, than the bay area.

True. The Bay Area is much less segregated than L.A. L.A. is the tenth most segregated urban area in America. Blacks and Hispanics tend to live together in L.A. and never see White or Asian people on a regular basis unless it is the police or liquor store or mini-mart owners.

Where Are the Top 10 Most Segregated Cities? - TIME NewsFeed

Gentrification has caused San Francisco to become more integrated post 2000. Many of the once predominantly Black enclaves in SF are no longer 60-80% Black like the OMI and Hunter's Point. San Francisco is still somewhat segregated, but much less so than the majority of cities in the country. The northern half of SF is very White and very rich. The rest of the city is a mix of Asian and White with a more complete mix of Asian, White, Black and Hispanic in the southern half of SF in neighborhoods like the Mission, OMI, Excelsior, Visitacion Valley, Hunter's Point etc. Many areas in East Bay cities, like Oakland, are among the most ethnically diverse and integrated in the country.

[Charles]

OK, the niners had some good years but:

Dodgers 1959, 63, 65, 81, 88
Lakers 1972, 1980, 83, 85, 87, 88 99, 2000, 2001, 2009, 2010
Los Angeles Rams 1951
Los Angeles Raiders 1983
California Angels 2007
Anaheim Ducks 2004

[ChrisC99]

Thank you for all those wonderful responses! So most of you would agree then that LA DOES have more to do, more going on, etc. than the Bay? I know it's a much larger city overall, but I wondered whether perhaps the urban center of SF itself was larger than LAs urban center, and if that might make things different than they appear.

This would seem to imply that LA has everything that SF has. There are mainly two things that do seem to be lacking, though: secluded beaches, and areas with cooler coastal forests. Anyone happen to know if either of these can be found anywhere around the Los Angeles basin, or even up by Santa Barbara?

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by ChrisC99

Thank you for all those wonderful responses! So most of you would agree then that LA DOES have more to do, more going on, etc. than the Bay? I know it's a much larger city overall, but I wondered whether perhaps the urban center of SF itself was larger than LAs urban center, and if that might make things different than they appear.

This would seem to imply that LA has everything that SF has. There are mainly two things that do seem to be lacking, though: secluded beaches, and areas with cooler coastal forests. Anyone happen to know if either of these can be found anywhere around the Los Angeles basin, or even up by Santa Barbara?

There are no coastal forest in SoCal with the exception of a tiny remnant of rare pines at Torrey Pines on the central San Diego County coast. As for secluded beaches, someone else may know more about that than I would.

[scottfreez]

Whoever said SF has more hills than LA is completely wrong wrong wrong.....

[NorCal Dude]

Originally Posted by scottfreez

Whoever said SF has more hills than LA is completely wrong wrong wrong.....

Same goes for SF being more integrated by class. Sf and the bay is hyper segregated by class. There is really just pricey upscale and downscale trashy and that is really it.

[Floritar]

The Los Padres National Forest near coast in Santa Barbara