Los Angeles vs San Francisco: Which city is more cosmopolitan? (Orange: homes, construction)

[04kL4nD]

They are very dense/urban and hotspots for international tourists. Ever been to 25 Lusk? Parts of Valenica Street are also very ritzy and upscale, although they are noticeably less cosmopolitan than say Russian Hill.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

They are very dense/urban and hotspots for international tourists. Ever been to 25 Lusk? Parts of Valenica Street are also very ritzy and upscale, although they are noticeably less cosmopolitan than say Russian Hill.

I guess. The Mission to me reminds me of Tijuana especially near the BART station. It actually looks like Revolucion in TJ. I'd call it international for that but not necessarily cosmopolitan. SOMA, ok maybe I can go with that.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

San Francisco's lopsided lead in the poll indicates that participants are not answering the question as worded.

Cosmopolitan is not synonymous with urban or walkable or "I like it better." Cosmopolitan is more along the lines of comprised of international elements or connected to the globe. By this definition, both S.F. and L.A are very cosmopolitan, with inhabitants and culture representing every corner of the planet. L.A. may have the edge since it has a larger port, larger airport with more foreign carriers and more consulates. I'm sure the definition can be tweaked to favor either city (often by using total numbers vs. normalized).

Agreed. As soon as the second post in this thread talked about how compact and walkable Sf is I knew basically people would just pick what city is the most urban and attractive.

[JasR30]

My god, I thought this poll would be close. San Francisco is kicking L.A.'s ass. Come on, there are more than 20 million people living in southern California. Surely somebody down there can defend their city.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by JasR30

My god, I thought this poll would be close. San Francisco is kicking L.A.'s ass. Come on, there are more than 20 million people living in southern California. Surely somebody down there can defend their city.

L.A. people don't get into this rivalry thing nearly as much as SF people do.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by Bunjee

The whole of San Francisco could fit into about 1/3 of L.A. proper though, including areas like China Basin, Ingleside, Cow Palace, etc. So SF loses punch. If we expand SF to outlying areas the sprawl factor of both cities evens out, and SF loses punch.

Try 1/10 of LA.

SF = 45 sq mi.
LA = 483 sq mi.

Just the cities, mind you, not the metros.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by JasR30

My god, I thought this poll would be close. San Francisco is kicking L.A.'s ass. Come on, there are more than 20 million people living in southern California. Surely somebody down there can defend their city.

This just seems like a higher-brow version of, "I wanna rep my SF homies; is Tenderloin in the house? And Fillmore, yo? " and to be followed up with "and f--k L.A. chumps".

Sorry to all if I'm not up on my "reppin' slang".

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

L.A. people don't get into this rivalry thing nearly as much as SF people do.

When your rival kicks your ass, the best thing to do is say that you were never rivals to begin with.

[zombocom]

I'd like to know what people define as cosmopolitan.

[FelixTheCat]

Originally Posted by Bunjee

The whole of San Francisco could fit into about 1/3 of L.A. proper though, including areas like China Basin, Ingleside, Cow Palace, etc. So SF loses punch. If we expand SF to outlying areas the sprawl factor of both cities evens out, and SF loses punch.

that's true sf has less land area, but it's used efficiently. in a relatively small area, there is much to see and it's not hard to get to. if you were to be dropped in the middle of sf, you could find a weeks worth of activities without a car and not get bored. it's apples to oranges, but i'd rather spend a week of free time in sf over la