Has anyone seen this definition of NoCal(NorCal)?

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by sav858

Today the SF Chronicle did a story on potential candidates for CA governor and what the poll attached to the article looked like:

"Your favorite Democratic candidate for governor?
Jerry Brown
John Garamendi
Gavin Newsom
Dianne Feinstein, if she runs
Antonio Villaraigosa, even if he is from L.A."

That kind of sums up the attitude many Northern Californians, especially San Franciscans, have towards LA.

Feinstein leads Dem pack in governor's race

That is because of the Giant's vs. Dodger rivalry. Also LA represents everything that SF doesn't like... namely sprawl and fastfood.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

That is because of the Giant's vs. Dodger rivalry. Also LA represents everything that SF doesn't like... namely sprawl and fastfood.

Sports? It's sports??? Wow, that's really sick. (Obviously I'm not a sports fan.)

And hey, SF would have sprawl if there was room for sprawl. It's difficult to build on salt water. And if SF doesn't have sprawl, then what do you call Silicon Valley?

And you don't have fast food? Riiighhhhtttt!!!

[sav858]

Originally Posted by vdy1985

That is because of the Giant's vs. Dodger rivalry. Also LA represents everything that SF doesn't like... namely sprawl and fastfood.

It's more than just a baseball rivalry, not everyone in the Bay Area is a Giants fan or supports them and they say the same crap. I really don't see how LA represents "fast food", as if there are no fast food joints in SF. Plus I really don't think a region that sprawls 2 hours north to south and all the way east to Stockton can really call out another area for that. Many San Franciscans just have an opinion on everything and are incredibly judgmental about certain crap. Either way I don't really care what the reasons are but that line is a good example of the type of mentality prevalent there.

[Lovehound]

Originally Posted by sav858

I really don't think a region that sprawls 2 hours north to south and all the way east to Stockton can really call out another area for that.

Yeah, you said that better than I did. I'm not complaining about sprawl or claiming that Los Angeles doesn't have it. I'm just saying that SF is no better and no worse than LA. Both cities sprawl so badly that it's difficult to decide where one city ends and another begins without a map. Is Burbank part of LA? Is Oakland part of SF? Where do you draw the line?

[Chatteress]

Originally Posted by AndrewSoss

I grew up in Orange County (please, not 'the O.C.', god i hate that show) and always thought of NoCal exactly as described in that post.

What I find really interesting is the difference between S.C. and N.C. when describing freeways.

In SC it's the 101, the 5, the 405, the 55, the 57, the 605 etc...

In NC it's 101, 5, 880, 680, 280, 237, 80 etc...

Since I still have family down there, I find myself calling it 'the 101' when I'm in L.A. and 101 when I'm in San Mateo. It's crazy.

That's funny. I live in LA county and when we refer to a specific city, often times we would say "the City of Los Angeles" or "the city of Long Beach" I did not realize this until a friend of mine from the Bay Area pointed this out to me. When they refer to a city, they just say "Berkeley" versus "the city of Berkeley."

[mmouwse]

Interesting thread, thank you for starting it.
I grew up in Southern California... 1970's .... Orange County... At that time, much of the Southland was still rural! Cerritos, Cyprus were dominated by dairyfarms. The 5 Freewy and the 91 Freeway were in and the rest were built in. Orange groves, strawberries, Avocodos, walnuts and peppers are the crops I most remember. Oh...and lots of oil pumps dressed as grasshoppers!! Riverside and that area was oranges, and grains. PCH (Pacific Coast Highway) was rural, the sand from the beach blew across the road and there was mostly strawberry fields in that coastal area (Huntington Beach, etc). El Toro was a Marine Air Base, Irvine was mostly uindeveloped, Upper Newport BAy and Laguna Hills were undeveloped mostly open land....Not much heading South after Anaheim, Santa Ana...lots of open land . You would hit San Onofre on the coast then lots of open land again until SAn Diego. Very Different from now, huh? LOL In my late teens, I realized that (generally speaking) LA viewed OC as "country hicks". HMmmmmm.....
And....we did not have any ill feelings towards Northern California. The whole state was far less populated and far more open wildland.
But, when I lived in Northern California (Paradise) in the mid 1980's I learned that some Northern Californians resented us for "stealing their water" and for LA's (and most of SoCAl) crime, pollution, urban sprawl citification, and false facade "plastic" behvior. And that resentment of NorCal to SoCal seemed to grow over the years. I did realize that NorCal folks tended to be closer to the land and more apt to do it themselves and own and carry guns.
But....I find that to be less true now. Now, NorCal is as developed out as SoCal and the folks living there, seem to be growing more "citified" and less independantly close to the land. Now, they resent SoCal 'cos....I dunno....some don't anymore... some still do.
Then, there is Central California and the Central Coast (where I settled). Depending upon where you live in the state, the definition of this area varies. If you live in SLO, you view anything south of Santa Maria and "the point" to be SoCal and anything north of Big Sur to be NorCal. But some folks in Ventura define themselves as Central Cal and the SoCal dividing line to be the Conejo Grade to TO (Thousand OaKs). Hmmmm.... And Monterey....some of them feel they are central, some feel they are Northern. Some folks think of Central as Santa Barbara to Monterey....
Does this help or confuse it more?