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.
The very best urban environments will attract not only White people, but the prestige that comes along with being a big city destination.
At the end of the day, though, isn't prestige in the U.S. defined by what the SWPL class believes? There must be a reason why Vermont is viewed as being more prestigious than Alabama. Or why the New York Times is regarded as being more prestigious than USA Today.
There was nothing prestigious about Brooklyn in 1990. Fast forward 25 years later and the name carries prestige. Why? Because SWPLs live here now. Williamsburg is chic and any neighborhood SWPLs invade will become similarly chic and get NYTimes write ups.
I would say SF is more prestigious than LA precisely because it seems to be the most favored destination for SWPLs after NYC. It is seen as cultured and sophisticated without much of the stigma that LA has. LA is more popular than SF. But South Beach is also more popular among the masses than Martha's Vineyard. As someone mentioned earlier, popularity and prestige aren't exactly the same thing.
I would imagine it would be for its weather. It's also more famous (with way more celebrities). Not sure if it is admired in any other way.
I mean, if you had to ask people if they wanted their city to be more like SF or more like LA, I think people would choose more of SF's characteristics.
I'm sure many people will love their city to be too expensive, over crowded with insufficient public transportation, homeless everywhere, urine on the sidewalks, cool year round even in the summers, water not warm enough to swim in, full of geeks, ugly women, running all of the poor and lower income people out of the city, and super liberal. I'm sure most millionaires in the Bay are there for tech and most millionaires in LA are there by choice.
I'm sure many people will love their city to be too expensive, over crowded with insufficient public transportation, homeless everywhere, urine on the sidewalks, cool year round even in the summers, water not warm enough to swim in, full of geeks, ugly women, running all of the poor and lower income people out of the city, and super liberal. I'm sure most millionaires in the Bay are there for tech and most millionaires in LA are there by choice.
New York is also "too expensive" along with London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Paris, etc. That seems to be a common thing among very popular cities that a lot of people want to live in.
My point is that if you make a list of things people admire SF for, it would probably be longer than LA's. People seem to talk about LA's weather a lot, and while they might bring up some other things (diversity, restaurants, etc.), people are as likely to bring up negatives (smog, segregation, sprawl, gangs, traffic, "illegals"). That's why LA posters are always complaining about "everybody hating on LA" after all. You don't hear nearly as much of the negative with SF as you do with LA.
Even the one clear advantage LA has over SF--fame--is seen as a negative in some ways because the city's not famous for world class museums and such. It's famous because of Hollywood, which is often seen as vapid and superficial.
All in all, prestige is tied to each person and their circumstances. Case in point, if you're an all American basketball player, then you'll view UCLA, Duke, UK, UNC etc as prestigious. If you're an all American football player, you view Alabama, Florida, UT, USC etc as prestigious. If you're focused on education you view the Ivy League schools, U of Chicago, MIT, Stanford etc. as prestigious. If you're in tech, finance, or want a great urban experience you'll view San Francisco as more prestigious. If you want the weather, the glamour, the cachet, the celebs you'll see LA as more prestigious. People drop $10million for a home due to prestige. Due to tech, people make lots of money in the Bay and its reflected in 18montclairs stats, but for a person who already has money and doesn't need to live in a place due to his industry being located there, LA is a more desirable place to be. NYC and LA are cities that make you feel like you are in the center of it all.
New York is also "too expensive" along with London, Tokyo, Los Angeles, Paris, etc. That seems to be a common thing among very popular cities that a lot of people want to live in.
My point is that if you make a list of things people admire SF for, it would probably be longer than LA's. People seem to talk about LA's weather a lot, and while they might bring up some other things (diversity, restaurants, etc.), people are as likely to bring up negatives (smog, segregation, sprawl, gangs, traffic, "illegals"). That's why LA posters are always complaining about "everybody hating on LA" after all. You don't hear nearly as much of the negative with SF as you do with LA.
Even the one clear advantage LA has over SF--fame--is seen as a negative in some ways because the city's not famous for world class museums and such. It's famous because of Hollywood, which is often seen as vapid and superficial.
This can be said for a few other cities. Other cities have world class museums, are finance centers, more urban, better downtowns, higher income per capita, more walkable, bike-able, better public transportation, and arguably better universities but does that make them more prestigious than LA?
I'm sure many people will love their city to be too expensive, over crowded with insufficient public transportation, homeless everywhere, urine on the sidewalks, cool year round even in the summers, water not warm enough to swim in, full of geeks, ugly women, running all of the poor and lower income people out of the city, and super liberal. I'm sure most millionaires in the Bay are there for tech and most millionaires in LA are there by choice.
Haha what a sad attempt to refute the facts.
Oh, and SF is an absolute joy to visit and live in. In fact, very few travel surveys would ever put LA above SF as far as favorite cities and I have NEVER seen a livability ranking that put LA above SF.
Oh, and SF is an absolute joy to visit and live in. In fact, very few travel surveys would ever put LA above SF as far as favorite cities and I have NEVER seen a livability ranking that put LA above SF.
Visiting and living in Los Angeles is a chore by comparison.
Anything else?
That study is just for people who they surveyed, and lord knows how small of a sample size that is. Way more people visit LA than the little city by the Bay, so LA is the most visited city on the west coast. Anything else?
That study is just for people who they surveyed, and lord knows how small of a sample size that is. Way more people visit LA than the little city by the Bay, so LA is the most visited city on the west coast.
Haha no Chicago, SF and NY are perennial favorites in nearly every survey. Los Angeles is almost never mentioned.
And of course LA has more visitors, so does Orlando and Vegas. All the flashy towns attract lots of people.
But when people are asked to rate their visit, those cities sink while the actual favorite cities rise to the top.
This is not new either.
Let me know if you need more clarification.
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.
