Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It seems like there's a very strong bias for NorCal, in particular the SF Bay Area, on City-Data as opposed to Los Angeles and Orange County.
I know that this forum attracts a lot of posters with an affinity for urbanity by the very nature of its title, so its understandable that there's a stronger bias for SF vs. LA/OC.
However, I can't help but notice that "in real life," there seems to be a much stronger affinity for LA/OC and Southern California in general, both within California and elsewhere in the United States and abroad.
Before a recent trip to SF, I was reading through a few long threads on C-D comparing and contrasting LA and SF. It seemed like 75-80% of the posters who responded to those threads favored SF, so my expectations were high.
When I arrived in SF, I was pretty let-down. What I found was:
-Damp, chilly, foggy weather (this one I was at least prepared for)
-Ugly, nondescript architecture (looks like the East Coast, Midwest and the rest of California threw up their ugliest housing styles to give birth to the architecture of the SF Bay Area)
-"Triple-decker" homes like you'd see in the city I grew up in (*shivers*)
-Dirty, beat-up sidewalks
-Very narrow streets that looked in greater disrepair than those in SoCal and beyond
-Tons and tons of homeless people all over the place
-A bizarre stench in some areas of the city (I attributed this to the large homeless population)
-Relatively unfriendly locals (by CA standards)
-Standstill traffic that was largely comparable to that of LA
-Higher food prices for what seemed like lower quality
-Generally less attractive, more oddly dressed people
To say that I left the city disappointed and scratching my head was understatement.
Sure, the scenery was gorgeous, but I still don't get the overall allure of SF vs. LA/OC, the latter of which seems to much better align with the "California Dream," so to speak.
Although I didn't have any firsthand experience with this during my visit, I know that the Bay Area is very militantly liberal and not very diverse in ideologies and viewpoints, or accepting of those that are different. That would probably make me uncomfortable and somewhat of an outsider, given that I'm a strong fiscal conservative (advanced degree, high-income) and socially left-of-center.
Regardless, this trip validated that, although I haven't lived in California for very long, I definitely belong in SoCal.
Does anyone else share a similar sentiment, or am I alone on this forum?
It seems like there's a very strong bias for NorCal, in particular the SF Bay Area, on City-Data as opposed to Los Angeles and Orange County.
I know that this forum attracts a lot of posters with an affinity for urbanity by the very nature of its title, so its understandable that there's a stronger bias for SF vs. LA/OC.
However, I can't help but notice that "in real life," there seems to be a much stronger affinity for LA/OC and Southern California in general, both within California and elsewhere in the United States and abroad.
Before a recent trip to SF, I was reading through a few long threads on C-D comparing and contrasting LA and SF. It seemed like 75-80% of the posters who responded to those threads favored SF, so my expectations were high.
When I arrived in SF, I was pretty let-down. What I found was:
-Damp, chilly, foggy weather (this one I was at least prepared for)
-Ugly, nondescript architecture (looks like the East Coast, Midwest and the rest of California threw up their ugliest housing styles to give birth to the architecture of the SF Bay Area)
-"Triple-decker" homes like you'd see in the city I grew up in (*shivers*)
-Dirty, beat-up sidewalks
-Very narrow streets that looked in greater disrepair than those in SoCal and beyond
-Tons and tons of homeless people all over the place
-A bizarre stench in some areas of the city (I attributed this to the large homeless population)
-Relatively unfriendly locals (by CA standards)
-Standstill traffic that was largely comparable to that of LA
-Higher food prices for what seemed like lower quality
-Generally less attractive, more oddly dressed people
To say that I left the city disappointed and scratching my head was understatement.
Sure, the scenery was gorgeous, but I still don't get the overall allure of SF vs. LA/OC, the latter of which seems to much better align with the "California Dream," so to speak.
Although I didn't have any firsthand experience with this during my visit, I know that the Bay Area is very militantly liberal and not very diverse in ideologies and viewpoints, or accepting of those that are different. That would probably make me uncomfortable and somewhat of an outsider, given that I'm a strong fiscal conservative (advanced degree, high-income) and socially left-of-center.
Regardless, this trip validated that, although I haven't lived in California for very long, I definitely belong in SoCal.
Does anyone else share a similar sentiment, or am I alone on this forum?
While I have only lived in SoCal, I have been to NorCal many times. I enjoy visiting many areas but would not likely live there. Either Too remote and cold or too far from the beach or too crowded (Not that SoCal isn't). I had friends in Petaluma and enjoyed it, so it isn't a SoCal is better, just in my opinion SoCal is better overall, though it too has shortcomings. In some cases it is a life style issue.
OP, you need to understand that the general preference for "SF" refers to the Bay Area at large, not always the City itself. Also, the city has definitely seen better days, but it's hard for long-time residents to give up their fond image of it. Also, it's much more compact than LA, which has a lot of advantages. Sprawl will never happen to SF, due to geographic limitations.
And yeah, the traffic has become impossible. Bay Area residents used to feel superior to LA, in part because of LA's reputation for being a traffic nightmare, but the Bay Area has now become one, too, sadly. LA also used to have more smog, but stringent anti-smog legislation took care of most of that. The one indisputable advantage that SF, and the Bay Area in general (the "inner Bay Area", anyway) still have over much of the LA area is cooler weather, as you noticed. That, too, is a matter of personal preference. Oh, and....we're closer to the water sources.
Well, 5 out of 9 California sub-forums are for SoCal, and the Monterey forum is nearly dead.
NorCal is peachy, but it is not as big a contrast to other states as is SoCal. The landscaping, low-profile architecture, broad streets, sprawling layout, the impossible mixture of low and high deserts, valleys, snow mountains, rolling hills, beaches, and flatlands within drivable distances, and of course the Mediterranean climate of SoCal are all pretty unique. SoCal is what the rest of the world thinks of when imagining California.
Maybe it's partly because Northern Californians, more so Bay Arean's (is that a word?), are more opinionated overall too. They also seem to have more or stronger pride than Southern Californians imo.
I live in SF Bay Area, and prefer the "North", but I think the Los Angeles metro area, aside from auto traffic, has its charms and advantages. A lot of interesting (yup) things are going on there with the arts, there are so many people (like NYC) you cannot accurately generalize. Many beautiful neighborhoods and homes, even toward the middle price ranges (which are high, of course, but you get much more than in Northern CA/SF). There is some great outdoor recreation (so what if it's not quite as good as SF?) and easy access to the desert. Weather is phenomenal.
I like the Bay cities too, and the SD area has some big pluses. Of course nothing is cheap that isn't far inland, but that's not what we're talking about.
I'm also from NY, and never bought into the silly stuff about LA being stupid. I do wish they would spend a few billion more on rail and smarter development, but they're at least trying right now, and building more than the Bay Area.
It seems like there's a very strong bias for NorCal, in particular the SF Bay Area, on City-Data as opposed to Los Angeles and Orange County.
I know that this forum attracts a lot of posters with an affinity for urbanity by the very nature of its title, so its understandable that there's a stronger bias for SF vs. LA/OC.
However, I can't help but notice that "in real life," there seems to be a much stronger affinity for LA/OC and Southern California in general, both within California and elsewhere in the United States and abroad.
Before a recent trip to SF, I was reading through a few long threads on C-D comparing and contrasting LA and SF. It seemed like 75-80% of the posters who responded to those threads favored SF, so my expectations were high.
When I arrived in SF, I was pretty let-down. What I found was:
-Damp, chilly, foggy weather (this one I was at least prepared for)
-Ugly, nondescript architecture (looks like the East Coast, Midwest and the rest of California threw up their ugliest housing styles to give birth to the architecture of the SF Bay Area)
-"Triple-decker" homes like you'd see in the city I grew up in (*shivers*)
-Dirty, beat-up sidewalks
-Very narrow streets that looked in greater disrepair than those in SoCal and beyond
-Tons and tons of homeless people all over the place
-A bizarre stench in some areas of the city (I attributed this to the large homeless population)
-Relatively unfriendly locals (by CA standards)
-Standstill traffic that was largely comparable to that of LA
-Higher food prices for what seemed like lower quality
-Generally less attractive, more oddly dressed people
To say that I left the city disappointed and scratching my head was understatement.
Sure, the scenery was gorgeous, but I still don't get the overall allure of SF vs. LA/OC, the latter of which seems to much better align with the "California Dream," so to speak.
Although I didn't have any firsthand experience with this during my visit, I know that the Bay Area is very militantly liberal and not very diverse in ideologies and viewpoints, or accepting of those that are different. That would probably make me uncomfortable and somewhat of an outsider, given that I'm a strong fiscal conservative (advanced degree, high-income) and socially left-of-center.
Regardless, this trip validated that, although I haven't lived in California for very long, I definitely belong in SoCal.
Does anyone else share a similar sentiment, or am I alone on this forum?
I think what you're doing here is comparing the City of SF vs. the entirety of Southern CA...which is a little strange. That said, I can certainly explain my preference for northern CA vs. southern CA...
LA (and the rest of southern CA) is fine and a nice place to visit, but I'd personally never want to live there. Far too sprawly and car-dependent for me. Walkable neighborhoods are harder to come by (comparatively - although LA/OC have a lot more walkable neighborhoods than most give credit for), and even if you happen to live in one, you likely will have to get in a car to get to pretty much anything you want to do (trust me, I've tried, very hard, to use PT as much as possible when in LA - but I always end up with the conclusion that I need a car to do everything I need to when there).
SF is certainly not the biggest bastion of urbanity and car-free living - but I can go weeks without using my car here in my "suburban" area of the SF Bay Area. And when in SF, it's even easier, usually. This is a huuuge deal for me.
I have no issue really with LA's culture or their people (I think those "issues" are huge generalizations, for the most part). I really like many parts of LA - they're just so spread out! I do know they're trying to address these issues with building more PT, but I also think they're doomed because the area is just so geographically huge...and driving everywhere is so ingrained in the culture. I see that as an almost impossible problem to solve with PT...at least in any immediate sense (I can see, decades from now, PT leading to denser development in corridors, but that will take a very long time to come to be).
Access to nature (especially more wild/wilderness areas far from civilization) is more difficult in LA compared to the Bay Area (imo), especially in the 3-4 hour range - which is a huge deal for me. LA does have nice nature around it, though.
Jobs up here are the biggest reason so many move here, too (many fields that aren't so big down in LA). While I didn't move here for the tech boom, I do like that there is such a large saturation of well-educated/intellectual people here with the prestigious universities and high-tech companies in the area. I've never found this as much down in LA (there are certainly MANY intellectuals and brilliant people in LA, so please don't take that the wrong way), and is something I care about (and is part of my preference).
Some of the other stuff you describe honestly either doesn't matter much to me or don't make sense to me:
Architecture frankly in both areas is not really to my taste (mostly mid-century stuff that has not aged well) - although I really like most of the architecture of SF proper
I assume by traffic you mean some of the bottlenecks in SF? Yeah, those can definitely be bad. And while traffic here in the region is getting worse yearly, I still have way worse traffic experiences in LA. Which isn't helped by the fact that in LA I basically have to drive due to how its built; while in the Bay Area, I often have an option of not driving (BART, Caltrain, Muni, etc.). Considering I drive rarely, the traffic isn't a huge deal to me - but I won't pretend it's not there.
What do you mean by "triple decker" homes (never heard this term before)? You mean houses with three stories?...I love the look of many of these homes. Not sure what the issue is there.
I think the Bay Area food scene is one of the better ones I've seen, especially in the food price range I generally eat (10-20 dollars). LA has a good food scene, and in many ways are pretty comparable. Not sure what to tell you there...
When was your trip? You had fog in the middle of winter? That is very uncommon (although we have been having a strange winter).
If it was 'damp and chilly' that would mean the entire area is that way too (when it rains, the entire area is generally rainy).
SF can be "chilly" by what people's expectations of CA weather "should" be, though - I actually love it, but I recognize I'm probably not like most.
General Bay Area weather is generally glorious (mid-peninsula and around Oakland having the best weather, imo). LA is (generally) too hot for me most of the time, especially if I want to be active outside (which I am often)
Many of the roads are not in great shape here, but I found most of LA's roads to not be in great shape either (certainly nothing to write home about).
OC does have good roads, but is also considerably newer than SF.
The outer parts of the SF Bay Area (San Ramon, Pleasanton, Dublin, Livermore, etc.) are comparable to OC, and the roads out there are in great shape...so to me this is a wash in many ways.
Lastly, I'll totally agree that the SF Bay Area right now is very overpriced. I moved here when the cost to live was much less - so it was very worth it to move here. LA is probably a much better deal right now.
That said, there are definitely reasons to prefer one area over the other.
Last edited by HockeyMac18; 03-07-2016 at 02:43 PM..
Look at Google Maps during weekdays between 6-10AM and 4-8PM. Every highway is gridlocked.
Don't drive at those times. Problem solved.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
