San Francisco vs LA (San Diego, San Jose: crimes, layoffs, schools)

[Wendy97]

Originally Posted by JM95

Saw a great documentary about Helmut Newton done in the 80's. He used to spend the winters at Chateau Marmont. On SF vs. LA: "San Francisco thinks they are so European and cultured...fu*k culture! I'll take the warm weather and pretty girls"

SF really is a bunch of pseudo-intellectual smug pricks who are busy trying to control other peoples lives with their demented left wing agenda's. Fu*k them and their bicycles, obama stickers, and cotton reusable shopping bags.

The mayor Gavin Newsom is another self-righteous cu*t. This guy was banging his best friends wife. On top of that, this was his campaign manager, who helped him become mayor of the socialist republic of SF. What a lovely human being.

Now this monkey wants to be governor of CA. First let's see him clean up the degenerate zombies who infest the streets of downtown and the Tenderloin.

LOLOLOLOLOL.

Mind you, I'm not opposed to some liberal ideals, but the annoying extreme left wing annoys the crap out of me. And I know I'm not some conservative bigot because if I lived in the conservative's equivalent to SF (or near to it), I'd be complaining as well. I notice most people in LA tend to be more moderate than anything else, which is really nice because it's (conservative + liberal) - dumbass

[Boompa]

I can put my car in the garage and leave it there for a month

San Francisco any day

[stillfresh]

^way to generalize an entire city, smart guy
look i can do it too
l.a is full of brain dead celebrity crazed neanderthals, gang bangers and illegal immigrants

[subPrimeTime]

I totally agree with what Uptown said about it being trendy to hate LA and also (as another poster wrote) that intelligent, educated people are supposed to hate LA and love SF, Boston, NY. Whereas here in LA, most of my friends and I can readily admit we love many things about those cities without feeling like we’re “sell-outs”. I certainly didn’t grow up with a disdain for any of those places, but rather an appreciation of them as great places to visit.

I'll agree with stillfresh though, while SF has some gangs, it's just not as prevelant as LA's gang problem. But if you live in appropriate areas (like the Westside for example), you don't really think about it. At least I don't.

Also, I’m not gonna say one city is better than the other in the SF vs. LA debate, but I will say this, of the two main gripes that people have with the cities (SF’s weather, LA’s lack of good public transit), one of them can be changed (and is slowly coming along actually) and one of them can’t ever be changed.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by subPrimeTime

Also, I’m not gonna say one city is better than the other in the SF vs. LA debate, but I will say this, of the two main gripes that people have with the cities (SF’s weather, LA’s lack of good public transit), one of them can be changed (and is slowly coming along actually) and one of them can’t ever be changed.

One thing that seems irreversible in SF is that in days of yore it was actually a working class town! North Beach, if you can imagine it, was a prole sticks. Sure, there's Bayview and Visitacion, but it's the general loss of economic diversity that I think has really hurt the city, and sapped its vitality, and is why I prefer Oakland nowadays. Not to mention LA where there are still solidly working class enclaves, places long equivalent to the Mission District as it used to be just 20 years ago. BTW, in that upthread ticking off of LA's Mexican-based shortcomings, SF's Mission District that shares the same issues is also the one centerpiece of San Francisco's real vibrancy.

Still, when we talk of gang activity there's no denying it exists in SF. Who cares if it's MS13 or not? I used to walk 24th St at night and I certainly kept my head down, especially when someone started screaming "5-0! 5-0!" It wasn't a bunch of friends trading baseball cards. A few years ago on Halloween I was on foot with a friend. We decided not to take the bus. The next morning we found out probably on the very #14 we would have taken at that time of the evening there was a slashing. Some gangland initiation ritual committed on a random passenger. It could have been anyone, if you know the #14. So there is the concern that gang activity can hit you at your very doorstep, unlike areas that are easily avoided in LA. That's certainly no endorsement of LA, but I will not make a more positive assessment of SF on the matter of gangs.

[DowntownVentura]

In the 70's, I would have taken San Francisco over Los Angeles. I liked the walkability and I liked how everybody accepted everybody no matter what their view. It seems like now, they will accept your viewpoint as long as it matches theirs. It seems the far left have become as elite as the establishment they railed against in the 60's/70's.

As for safety/crime, there are sections of L.A. and L.A. adjacent that are just as safe as the finest sections of San Francisco. I am never concerned about my safety when I am in either city. I ride the subways and I walk in both cities and I am just not concerned.

In the end, I like both cities, I just prefer L.A. these days.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

Bunjee, I agree with you. I love San Francisco, but the smug attitude so often found there can be annoying. I found that in LA people were usually more than willing to admit that they really enjoyed both cities, while in SF it's so often the trendy thing to hate LA. People are certainly entitled to their opinions, and can hate LA all they want, but it drives me batty when it's for bogus reasons like "there's no public transportation" or "there's no culture" or "everyone is so materialistic" (and SF's not?!?). I love both cities, but am rather shocked to find that I, a dedicated "city" person, prefer LA. It's bigger, does seem like it has more vitality, and takes itself less seriously.

Both cities are pretty fabulous, though, which is why I never can understand why so many people (or at least those in SF) think you are somehow required to hate LA if you love SF. There's no rule saying you can't like both.

Both this and Bunjee's statements are very keen insights. It was with mixed feelings that I returned to the Bay Area after spending most of the 1980s in the Southland. I came close to heading South again during the early 90s but the job negotiations fell through. It annoys me to experience the bitterness toward LA that I encounter up here especially considering how few of the haters are native Californians. One thing I liked about the Southland was that it had, for me, more of a Native California vibe - even transplants seemed to pick it up. Meanwhile, up here, they are into preconceived notions and / or want to transform things into an East Coast with better weather atmosphere. Very, very annoying. Still sticking it out but for how long?

If we leave, though, it will probably be for another state or to leave the US entirely.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by sav858

No it does not.

2007 C-D Crime Index (lower # = lower crime)
SF: 501.7
LA: 356.8

2007 Murder rate per 100,000 people
SF: 13.6
LA: 10.2

LA was also ranked the 3rd safest big city in America, SF did not even make the Top 10
RealClearPolitics - America's Top 10 Safest Cities - #3 Safest: Los Angeles

you should really watch or read the news more often:

Gang members shot men for wearing red, cops say

Judge orders Ramos tried on 3 murder counts

SF may not have the quite the gang culture LA does but there are plenty of dangerous gang members all over the Bay Area.
They both are about equal in this department:

SF
White: 44.7%
Black: 6.7%
Asian: 31.5%
Hispanic: 14.0%
http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/ADPTable?_bm=y&-geo_id=16000US0667000&-qr_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_DP3YR5&-ds_name=ACS_2007_3YR_G00_&-_lang=en&-redoLog=false&-_sse=on

LA
White: 29.3%
Black: 9.7%
Asian: 10.4%
Hispanic: 48.5%
Los Angeles city, California - ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates: 2005-2007

It would be interesting to see the stats, metro against metro. LA would be even further ahead in that one, IMO. The thing about SF is, SF stupidly cut off its annexation path shortly after the gold rush, by splitting off from San Francisco County (becoming the City and County of SF, leaving the remainder as the new San Mateo County). If SF had annexed the way LA had, its crime stats would be even worse.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

Originally Posted by Grandata

SF's weather is so poor, that it boggles the mind why anyone would move all the way to California and live in a place with cold, horrible weather (SF).

Spoken like a true Southern Californian. (That's not a compliment.)

I know it also "boggles the minds" of some coastal Californians that anyone could live in Palm Springs - or really anywhere where the average high temperature is above 80 degrees in the summer, or the average low temperature is below 50 degrees in the winter.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by BayAreaHillbilly

It would be interesting to see the stats, metro against metro. LA would be even further ahead in that one, IMO. The thing about SF is, SF stupidly cut off its annexation path shortly after the gold rush, by splitting off from San Francisco County (becoming the City and County of SF, leaving the remainder as the new San Mateo County). If SF had annexed the way LA had, its crime stats would be even worse.

http://os.cqpress.com/citycrime/Metr...8_Rank_Rev.pdf

Beforehand, I actually thought as a metro area LA would be worse than the Bay Area b/c of a lot of bad suburbs there but the Greater LA area ranks the 97th Most Dangerous metro area and the Greater SF area ranks as the 25th most dangerous, at least according to this one study.