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.
I agree with Krudmonk and Coldwine have said. While SF is more sophisticated and prettier I don't think its more cosmopolitan than LA. LA is huge and more diverse, its just not the prettiest looking city on the outside.
I disagree L.A. is a very pretty city people are just short to judge it.
Here is LA by a mile... composed of people from or at home in many parts of the world; especially not provincial in attitudes or interests
Here is SF by 10 miles... a sophisticated person who has travelled in many countries
Not only that, but the Bay Area as a whole easily matches LA in being cosmopolitan as far as being comrpised of people from around the world. In other words, we actually have both kinds of Cosmopolitanism.
Both cities are about the same on the cosmopolitan scale. SF tends to cater towards the classy, sophisticated, 'snobby' side, while LA tends to cater to the central hub, 'melting pot,' crowd.
Agree that San Francisco is very cosmopolitan & the first city in California to be considered cosmopolitan. But San Francisco is becoming a resort city for most because it is too expensive to live a relatively small city [under million] & is losing it's great diversity slowly. In some ways Berkeley is more cosmopolitan than San Francisco though mostly a university city.
Los Angeles is cosmopolitan for what it offers as a industry city for the arts [film\ music\ tv].
SF is the center of a metropolis of nearly 8 million. Why use city proper for the comparison
It's all relative.
I know this American guy who used to live in SF, and when I asked him why he decided to move to London from SF, his reply was "SF felt provincial" (his own words).
SF is the center of a metropolis of nearly 8 million. Why use city proper for the comparison
I think it may be due to the isolation, distance, and direct connection to the rest of the metro. Silicon Valley considers itself separate. The East bay does have a connection, but even it feels more like its own thing than a typical metro. How does one even find a thread this old? lol
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,411 posts, read 6,556,774 times
Reputation: 6686
having lived in both areas it is close, but I'm giving SF the slight edge as the more cosmopolitan and sophisticated city. LA makes it close with its museums and entertainment/arts venues.
having lived in both areas it is close, but I'm giving SF the slight edge as the more cosmopolitan and sophisticated city. LA makes it close with its museums and entertainment/arts venues.
cos·mo·pol·i·tan
ˌkäzməˈpälətn
adjective
1.
familiar with and at ease in many different countries and cultures.
There is a very specific definition of 'cosmopolitan' though is often thought of as synonymous with sophisticated. According to the definition, I'd say LA is much more cosmopolitan, having lived in both places myself.
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.
