U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-12-2009, 12:55 PM
 
1,217 posts, read 1,470,371 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by skatealoneskatetogether View Post
Look at LA, people have road rage free way shootings, race riots, police beatings caught on camera, celebrety murders, gangland wars(sometimes with in the same southern hispanic gangs)... no offence but these things are damn near pretty foreign to most people living a life in SF.
No, these definitely happen in the Bay Area (except for the celebrity murders since there aren't that many celebrities here.) In the past ~year, a mother of 6 was killed in a freeway road rage shooting, there have been countless gang murders in the Mission & points around, and who could forget the race riots in Oakland & the BART police shooting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-12-2009, 01:03 PM
 
1,217 posts, read 1,470,371 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by majoun View Post
Here's a question I have, and I hope it doesnt sound stupid. I'm a Southern Californian from L.A. (born in Hollywood, raised in West L.A., currently in Culver City) and it looks like I'll have to move to the Bay Area next year for work related reasons. I've always liked many aspects of SF and have always liked going there, and most of the negatives aren't too different than some of LA's negatives (the homeless problem in LA is comparable to that in SF, for example) but one thing that bothers me is the INTENSE prejudice in SF against Southern Californians and particularly Angelenos - would that have any effect on me when I move there? I'm not one of the stereotypical "SoCal" types, would I get hassled in SF for my southern origins and roots?
They won't hassle you personally, but you'll have to get used to a lot of backhanded compliments.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 01:47 PM
 
1,217 posts, read 1,470,371 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy View Post
Wow this is an old thread, ^^^^ anyways, how is LA more urban than SF? SF is more dense and has more people per square mile than LA.
There are some VERY dense areas in LA -- in particular Koreatown/Los Feliz/Silverlake/Echo Park/Hollywood, but most people don't realize that because the predominant images of LA are palm trees, celebrities, beaches, cars, glitz, and the fancy areas...these are of course mostly suburban sprawl. A typical example of what people think of when they think of Los Angeles is West LA, and that's the least dense area.

Another reason is that people often don't associate the city of Los Angeles with 'LA' - they think of the suburbs.

Some quick calculations put SF's population density at 16,000-17,000/sq mi. (The census website puts it at 16,636.) This is roughly twice LA city's (7876.9). But keep in mind that LA's population is not evenly distributed.

Check out this site which shows LA's population density rates by district (it's from 1998 but I doubt population density has changed that much): City of Los Angeles: Districts Ranked by Population Density

The densest area (Rampart) has a population of 271,742 and a density of 34,348/sq mi. That'd be a decent sized city in itself, and twice as dense as SF!

When you add the next three densest areas (Southwest, Wilshire, and Newton), all of which have a similar density to SF (16,000-17,000/sq mi), you get a population of over 800,000. That's more than SF, and the average density of these four districts is higher than SF. So as far as density is concerned it's not hard at all to see how LA could be considered more urban than SF.

And then--keep in mind that density is only one factor for urban-ness. There are so many things that LA has that SF can't hold a candle to. So many ethnic neighborhoods that have their own flair and character. Not just a few stores. There's the world's biggest Koreatown (outside of Korea) but then there's also the fairly sizeable Thaitown and Little Armenia! Where else do you find that? Little Tokyo may be in decay (although IMO it is not that much different than SF's Japantown, except it's a bit dirtier) but the late-night Japanese district on the Westside (unofficially called Little Osaka or West LA Little tokyo) is hip and modern, home to the newest trends & restaurants imported directly from Japan. Two Giant Robot stores too!

LA also has many more highly renowned colleges and universities than SF, in particular UCLA and USC (USF, while very good, is not quite as renowned. Throw in the East Bay and you get Berkeley, which is definitely on par w/ UCLA & better than USC) -- I think the number is due mostly to size -- but still, don't discount size.

LA is the type of place you can visit many times and drive around for hours andnot see the same thing twice -- and you can live in for many years and keep on making new discoveries. After two years in SF I've seen it all. Just about everything trendy starts in LA or NY too. (Some people in SF consider this a turn-off but noneless I consider it a factor in urban-ness.)

Granted when you throw in the rest of the Bay Area, SF does become one hell of a metro area. On par with, I'd say -- but then just as spread out as -- the LA metro area. But I would agree that LA city is more urban than SF city.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 02:35 PM
rah
 
Location: San Francisco
3,086 posts, read 4,814,356 times
Reputation: 2154
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347 View Post
There are some VERY dense areas in LA -- in particular Koreatown/Los Feliz/Silverlake/Echo Park/Hollywood, but most people don't realize that because the predominant images of LA are palm trees, celebrities, beaches, cars, glitz, and the fancy areas...these are of course mostly suburban sprawl. A typical example of what people think of when they think of Los Angeles is West LA, and that's the least dense area.

Another reason is that people often don't associate the city of Los Angeles with 'LA' - they think of the suburbs.

Some quick calculations put SF's population density at 16,000-17,000/sq mi. (The census website puts it at 16,636.) This is roughly twice LA city's (7876.9). But keep in mind that LA's population is not evenly distributed.

Check out this site which shows LA's population density rates by district (it's from 1998 but I doubt population density has changed that much): City of Los Angeles: Districts Ranked by Population Density

The densest area (Rampart) has a population of 271,742 and a density of 34,348/sq mi. That'd be a decent sized city in itself, and twice as dense as SF!

When you add the next three densest areas (Southwest, Wilshire, and Newton), all of which have a similar density to SF (16,000-17,000/sq mi), you get a population of over 800,000. That's more than SF, and the average density of these four districts is higher than SF. So as far as density is concerned it's not hard at all to see how LA could be considered more urban than SF.
Yes, but population density in SF isn't evenly distributed either, and the densest parts of the city are around the 40-50,000 mark (with some individual census tracts approaching 100,000 people per square mile). What you're talking about in terms of parts of the city being denser or less dense applies to SF too, not just LA. Of course LA is much bigger geographically and size wise so it's hard to compare the two cities alone to begin with (and of course both cities would jump in density if you removed parkland, undeveloped, and industrial areas from the equation too...SF for example has about 6 square miles of parks, and probably around 2 square miles of industrial land).

Here are the densest zip-codes in SF:

94108: 54,776/sq. mi (pop. 14,270)
94109: 47,832/sq. mi (58,599)
94102: 46,203/sq. mi (30,163)
94133: 41,506/sq. mi (27,911)
94110: 32,777/sq. mi (77,651)
94115: 30,829/sq. mi (34,454)
94117: 28,678/sq. mi (40,304)

those zips all border each other to make the core of the city, with a population of 283,352, and a population density of about 36,327 per square mile...a more populated and slightly denser core than the area you're talking about in LA. I left out the 94103 zip code, with a population of 23,946, and 1.1 square miles because it's industrial/commercial areas limit the population and bring the density down to around 18,000/sq. mi...but if that were included it would be a core of 307,298 and a density of 33,769...just barely less dense than that area in LA, but with over 30,000 more people as well (and remember this is including maybe about a square mile of industrial/commercial only areas as well as part of downtown/the financial district, where not too many people live)

Of course once you start getting out from the core more, LA is going to start being more dense than SF...because as i said, and as most people know, LA is gigantic compared to tiny SF. It only makes sense (and LA does have the densest metro area in the US as well).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 03:05 PM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
1,554 posts, read 3,407,329 times
Reputation: 642
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radical347 View Post
There are some VERY dense areas in LA -- in particular Koreatown/Los Feliz/Silverlake/Echo Park/Hollywood, but most people don't realize that because the predominant images of LA are palm trees, celebrities, beaches, cars, glitz, and the fancy areas...these are of course mostly suburban sprawl. A typical example of what people think of when they think of Los Angeles is West LA, and that's the least dense area.

Another reason is that people often don't associate the city of Los Angeles with 'LA' - they think of the suburbs.

Some quick calculations put SF's population density at 16,000-17,000/sq mi. (The census website puts it at 16,636.) This is roughly twice LA city's (7876.9). But keep in mind that LA's population is not evenly distributed.

Check out this site which shows LA's population density rates by district (it's from 1998 but I doubt population density has changed that much): City of Los Angeles: Districts Ranked by Population Density

The densest area (Rampart) has a population of 271,742 and a density of 34,348/sq mi. That'd be a decent sized city in itself, and twice as dense as SF!

When you add the next three densest areas (Southwest, Wilshire, and Newton), all of which have a similar density to SF (16,000-17,000/sq mi), you get a population of over 800,000. That's more than SF, and the average density of these four districts is higher than SF. So as far as density is concerned it's not hard at all to see how LA could be considered more urban than SF.

And then--keep in mind that density is only one factor for urban-ness. There are so many things that LA has that SF can't hold a candle to. So many ethnic neighborhoods that have their own flair and character. Not just a few stores. There's the world's biggest Koreatown (outside of Korea) but then there's also the fairly sizeable Thaitown and Little Armenia! Where else do you find that? Little Tokyo may be in decay (although IMO it is not that much different than SF's Japantown, except it's a bit dirtier) but the late-night Japanese district on the Westside (unofficially called Little Osaka or West LA Little tokyo) is hip and modern, home to the newest trends & restaurants imported directly from Japan. Two Giant Robot stores too!

LA also has many more highly renowned colleges and universities than SF, in particular UCLA and USC (USF, while very good, is not quite as renowned. Throw in the East Bay and you get Berkeley, which is definitely on par w/ UCLA & better than USC) -- I think the number is due mostly to size -- but still, don't discount size.

LA is the type of place you can visit many times and drive around for hours andnot see the same thing twice -- and you can live in for many years and keep on making new discoveries. After two years in SF I've seen it all. Just about everything trendy starts in LA or NY too. (Some people in SF consider this a turn-off but noneless I consider it a factor in urban-ness.)

Granted when you throw in the rest of the Bay Area, SF does become one hell of a metro area. On par with, I'd say -- but then just as spread out as -- the LA metro area. But I would agree that LA city is more urban than SF city.
I've been to LA a thousand times , and It's just not the same feeling as San Francisco in terms of urban landscape. As for the college thing, I don't look at it as a limited to San Francisco thing, Driving from downtown SF to Stanford in Palo Alto would be like driving from Downtown LA to UCLA (Westwood) even faster to get to UC Berkley. Which are both on par with the schools you mentioned. Since LA is so huge and spread out it's not even logical to compare the two in the same way in terms of neighborhoods and and the size of them.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 03:58 PM
 
1,217 posts, read 1,470,371 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by rah View Post
Yes, but population density in SF isn't evenly distributed either, and the densest parts of the city are around the 40-50,000 mark (with some individual census tracts approaching 100,000 people per square mile). What you're talking about in terms of parts of the city being denser or less dense applies to SF too, not just LA. Of course LA is much bigger geographically and size wise so it's hard to compare the two cities alone to begin with (and of course both cities would jump in density if you removed parkland, undeveloped, and industrial areas from the equation too...SF for example has about 6 square miles of parks, and probably around 2 square miles of industrial land).

Here are the densest zip-codes in SF:

94108: 54,776/sq. mi (pop. 14,270)
94109: 47,832/sq. mi (58,599)
94102: 46,203/sq. mi (30,163)
94133: 41,506/sq. mi (27,911)
94110: 32,777/sq. mi (77,651)
94115: 30,829/sq. mi (34,454)
94117: 28,678/sq. mi (40,304)

those zips all border each other to make the core of the city, with a population of 283,352, and a population density of about 36,327 per square mile...a more populated and slightly denser core than the area you're talking about in LA. I left out the 94103 zip code, with a population of 23,946, and 1.1 square miles because it's industrial/commercial areas limit the population and bring the density down to around 18,000/sq. mi...but if that were included it would be a core of 307,298 and a density of 33,769...just barely less dense than that area in LA, but with over 30,000 more people as well (and remember this is including maybe about a square mile of industrial/commercial only areas as well as part of downtown/the financial district, where not too many people live)

Of course once you start getting out from the core more, LA is going to start being more dense than SF...because as i said, and as most people know, LA is gigantic compared to tiny SF. It only makes sense (and LA does have the densest metro area in the US as well).
Yes, good point. I agree that it's hard to compare the two cities to begin with...and I know that SF isn't totally evenly distributed too. If you broke down the districts in LA even further, I'm pretty sure even they wouldn't be evenly distributed too (but I can't find a site that does that too.) But 283,352/36,327 vs. 271,742/34,348 is not a huge difference and I think it does back up my point that LA can definitely be urban. That's the thing with LA, it's so big that it has areas in the city itself that feel urban and not-so-urban. What's the overall feel? I guess it depends mainly on where you hang out when you go to LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-12-2009, 07:08 PM
 
377 posts, read 329,495 times
Reputation: 83
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy View Post
I've been to LA a thousand times , and It's just not the same feeling as San Francisco in terms of urban landscape. As for the college thing, I don't look at it as a limited to San Francisco thing, Driving from downtown SF to Stanford in Palo Alto would be like driving from Downtown LA to UCLA (Westwood) even faster to get to UC Berkley. Which are both on par with the schools you mentioned. Since LA is so huge and spread out it's not even logical to compare the two in the same way in terms of neighborhoods and and the size of them.
I live in Southern California and while much of it does feel "urban", in my opinion that vibe is overshadowed by the fact that most of the time you are on the freeway to get to where you want to go. You get the feeling that the densest part of the LA is the freeways themselves... miles and miles of dreary, gray freeway. And the traffic.... it's just cars, cars, cars. To me, personally, spending so much time on gray freeways with nothing to look at out the window, makes the arrival to your destination kind of anti-climactic.

I live in O.C. currently, and people rarely walk anywhere for day to day activities, (other than jogging I suppose). You get in your car and drive to the corner... if you're out walking you look like a weirdo. Don't you have a car? Are you too poor to have a car? Are you an illegal immigrant? That's how weird it is to "walk" out here. And as far as I know, we don't have the greatest public transport. Because everyone has an SUV.

There are some great parts of LA obviously (west la in particular) but what exactly is LA? It's practically a state. I think the great thing about SF is it is one City... it has character, famous landmarks that everyone in the city sort of "adopts", and unlike LA, you can walk everywhere. LA doesn't really have an "identity".... it's simply a collection of diverse cities separated by lots of driving.

In LA you sort of have to know the area pretty well to get to where you're going. In SF you can just walk a little bit, and suddenly you're in a totally different environment. Kind of like Disneyland, now you're in Marina Land, now you're in Chinatownland, now you're in Castroland... you get the idea.

We have some good weather, and lots of things to do, and lots of famous people, but I don't think anyone can feel they are a "part of LA" in the same way someone from SF can say "This is my City". SF's condensed form is an advantage in this respect, in my opinion.

I was recently talking to a guy from Berkeley though, and he said he prefers LA to SF because in LA, you can "be yourself". So maybe it's a case of the grass is always greener.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 10:30 AM
 
Location: Oakland, CA
1,554 posts, read 3,407,329 times
Reputation: 642
^^^ I have to LOL at the guy who said you can "Be Yourself In LA" but not up here.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 12:34 PM
 
1,217 posts, read 1,470,371 times
Reputation: 959
Quote:
Originally Posted by City Boy View Post
^^^ I have to LOL at the guy who said you can "Be Yourself In LA" but not up here.
It makes sense. LA is just so massive that there's something for everyone. SF is full of groupthink (and the person who said the above was in Berkeley where it's probably ten times worse.)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-13-2009, 12:42 PM
rah
 
Location: San Francisco
3,086 posts, read 4,814,356 times
Reputation: 2154
San Francisco has 800,000 people...not as big as LA, but not small by any means. I don't think there's any more or less "groupthink" here than anywhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram


Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Francisco - Oakland

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top