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.
As an Angelino I think it's fine for people from all over to claim LA. LA is really a huge polycentric urban area. Just because Santa Monica isn't officially LA, it's still LA. Hell even the Angels changed their name to LA so I don't see why we can't just claim everybody around here. It's also why on subs like this we talk about what is the "real" population of LA. Is Riverside LA? My opinion - yes. They are just a far-flung suburb and everyone knows it.
Yeah, it's impossible for me to think of Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, or WeHo as not parts of LA even though they technically are not.
"Everyone" knows that Riverside is a suburb of L.A.?
I wonder if people living in Silver Lake or Leimert Park believe this.
I don’t think they would.
We have a friend who grew up in Claremont CA, even that seems like a bit stretch. Definitely no doubt it’s within the “Metropolitan Los Angeles” area like most people would even associate with, say, Ventura County. However as an Angeleno I don’t think they are “LA proper” LA.
Technically WeHo, Beverly Hills are their own city with their own school districts, but most people lump them in “LA proper”, Inland Empire isn’t. Six Flags isn’t, Yorba Linda isn’t.
Pasadena is, imo, sort of, kind of, “LA proper”, but its vibe and ambiance actually are quite on its own and doesn’t feel all that LA, yet it’s “only” 11 miles from Downtown LA.
Yet Eagle Rock, only 4.6 miles from Pasadena, and Burbank, 7 miles from Eagle Rock, both feel TO ME completely “LA proper”.
It’s like people in Tri-State area in NY say to strangers “I live in New York.” when they live in Bergen County NJ/
White Plain NY/Long Island NY/Hartford CT. Yes it’s one train ride away, and you’re technically in the “Metropolitan New York” region, but physically/culturally/topography-wise can be very different and have very little in common.
is that much or any different than a person living in the UTC section, (east side of the freeway) of La Jolla when 98% of people think of The Village of La Jolla when hearing that city name or someone from Far Rockaway, NY claiming to be from Long Island (true) but most people associate it with Queens/NYC, not Nassau County. Neither of these examples is inaccurate, but it's not what many/most people think when they hear La Jolla or Long Island.
East of the 5 is University City, a different zip code- mostly businesses, not people, that propogate the "La Jolla" misnomer by putting in their names.
OTOH, I have met some folks around the country who also claim to be from the Bay Area but are actually from other parts of NorCal(like Salinas and Ukiah LOL), Whatever tho, we're all NorCal I suppose.
We have a friend who grew up in Claremont CA, even that seems like a bit stretch. Definitely no doubt it’s within the “Metropolitan Los Angeles” area like most people would even associate with, say, Ventura County. However as an Angeleno I don’t think they are “LA proper” LA.
Technically WeHo, Beverly Hills are their own city with their own school districts, but most people lump them in “LA proper”, Inland Empire isn’t. Six Flags isn’t, Yorba Linda isn’t.
Pasadena is, imo, sort of, kind of, “LA proper”, but its vibe and ambiance actually are quite on its own and doesn’t feel all that LA, yet it’s “only” 11 miles from Downtown LA.
Yet Eagle Rock, only 4.6 miles from Pasadena, and Burbank, 7 miles from Eagle Rock, both feel TO ME completely “LA proper”.
It’s like people in Tri-State area in NY say to strangers “I live in New York.” when they live in Bergen County NJ/
White Plain NY/Long Island NY/Hartford CT. Yes it’s one train ride away, and you’re technically in the “Metropolitan New York” region, but physically/culturally/topography-wise can be very different and have very little in common.
Just my tiny 2 cents.
This is just gatekeeping. People are just trying to say that they are better than someone because they live in a different part of town.
Once again, when people want to define the population of NYC they don't just stop at the literal political boundaries. Same is true for LA etc.
A lot of people on sites like this complain that some places like Atlanta, which has a very small city population in relation to its metro size, is racist because those damn suburbanites didn't let the boundaries expand to include a wider area. Now the argument is, "How dare those suburbs claim to be a part of us!"
According to postal codes by ratio (Eg which suburbs you write City proper, state on mail) from 2010 but I assume most places did not switch their mailing addresses any difference us population growth/loss rather than geographic differences.
Salt Lake City: (3.14x city population)
St Louis (2.96x city population)
Minneapolis (2.72x city population)
Cincinnati (2.68x city population)
Raw population
Las Vegas (834,000 suburbanites)
Minneapolis (638,000 suburbanites)
St Louis (614,000 suburbanites)
Cincinnati (500,000 suburbanites)
NY, Boston and LA are the only cities with significant inner city populations with non center city addresses
We have a friend who grew up in Claremont CA, even that seems like a bit stretch. Definitely no doubt it’s within the “Metropolitan Los Angeles” area like most people would even associate with, say, Ventura County. However as an Angeleno I don’t think they are “LA proper” LA.
Technically WeHo, Beverly Hills are their own city with their own school districts, but most people lump them in “LA proper”, Inland Empire isn’t. Six Flags isn’t, Yorba Linda isn’t.
Pasadena is, imo, sort of, kind of, “LA proper”, but its vibe and ambiance actually are quite on its own and doesn’t feel all that LA, yet it’s “only” 11 miles from Downtown LA.
Yet Eagle Rock, only 4.6 miles from Pasadena, and Burbank, 7 miles from Eagle Rock, both feel TO ME completely “LA proper”.
It’s like people in Tri-State area in NY say to strangers “I live in New York.” when they live in Bergen County NJ/
White Plain NY/Long Island NY/Hartford CT. Yes it’s one train ride away, and you’re technically in the “Metropolitan New York” region, but physically/culturally/topography-wise can be very different and have very little in common.
Just my tiny 2 cents.
Given that the city of Los Angeles is a very weird entity going from San Pedro i.e. adjacent to PV and Long Beach all the way up to essentially the San Gabriel Mountains, a good 45 miles away, I think L.A. would be a very strange place to be 'gatekeeping' some kind of 'city proper' idea. Like how would someone from Sylmar or San Pedro be more "L.A." than folks from the countless towns that are actually much closer to downtown L.A. than those.
I also feel like that someone born and raised in say Gardena or Carson is more of an "Angeleno" than some douchebro from the East Coast who moved to L.A. like three years ago. Current residence doesn't mean much IMO. I live in Virginia but I would never refer to myself as a Virginian.
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.
