Why do some people say that SF is provincial? (San Francisco: appointed, schools)

[Marissa23]

I'm from Maryland and I've never been to California. I'm planning on visiting SF this Christmas. Based on what I've read about the city over the years, I've always thought it was one of the major cultural capitals of the U.S., along with NYC,Chicago, Boston and D.C. Also, most foreign tourists say that it's their favorite U.S. city. However, recently I've read a few forums about SF and some people said that it was rather provincial. Why would they say that?
Thanks in advance.

[matt345]

When people say SF is provincial, I think they're referring to the Bay Area as a whole and the way people here tend to divide themselves up regionally, rather than seeing this as one big metro area. You know how in Maryland, someone from Bethesda will say they're from DC, or someone from Catonsville will say they're from Baltimore? Neither one technically lives in that city, but they still identify with it because that big city serves to the unite the larger region. Here no such uniting factor exists, even though you would think San Francisco would serve that function. It's something I never fully realized until moving here. The only people who say they're from San Francisco are those who actually live within city limits. People from Daly City, just across the city line say they're from Daly City, not SF. And then there's the bay, which really creates a mental block with people here. A lot of Bay Area residents make crossing the bridge seem like a big journey and don't like to do it on a regular basis. I was surprised (and frankly, quite disappointed) with how many people from San Francisco don't know a thing about Oakland and likewise, how many people from Oakland act as if San Francisco is in another state. The two cities are only 12 miles apart, but the residents sure don't seem to realize it.

[mayorhaggar]

You'd have to live there for a while to get it. There are a ton of out of town people who move into the Bay Area but there's a strong baseline of people who grew up there and will never leave. They kind of have a local townie attitude and don't know much about the rest of the country. They're not as guido as the townies in the NYC or Boston areas. Go to a Giants game and you'll see them--skinny white guys dressed like drug dealers in greasy starter-style jackets and trying to act tough.

As for the city or the region being provincial in other ways, part of it is that SF is so isolated from the rest of the country so it can be a bit blinkered and unaware of the rest of the country...it's not smugness, it's just from being so removed. Unless you're rich or travel for work, it's easy to never leave the Bay Area, flights and gas are expensive these days and you have everything you need in the Bay Area, so why leave? Plus there are plenty of people who don't even leave their part of the Bay Area--plenty of people in SF don't go to the East Bay because they think it's a huge ghetto, etc.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

Unless you're rich or travel for work, it's easy to never leave the Bay Area, flights and gas are expensive these days and you have everything you need in the Bay Area, so why leave?

That is simply not true at all. Lots of middle and lower middle class people take vacations outside of the Bay Area; Tahoe and Southern Ca seem to be popular destinations. The Bay Area doesn't have everything either, the lack of warm beaches here really is a drag during summer. It's nice to get away from this rat race every now and then.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Marissa23

I'm from Maryland and I've never been to California. I'm planning on visiting SF this Christmas. Based on what I've read about the city over the years, I've always thought it was one of the major cultural capitals of the U.S., along with NYC,Chicago, Boston and D.C. Also, most foreign tourists say that it's their favorite U.S. city. However, recently I've read a few forums about SF and some people said that it was rather provincial. Why would they say that?
Thanks in advance.

With the exception of finding out best places to live with schools and affordability on this site, DO NOT rely on forums of any kind to give anything that has ever seen the word accurate. This part especially includes this site.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by matt345

When people say SF is provincial, I think they're referring to the Bay Area as a whole and the way people here tend to divide themselves up regionally, rather than seeing this as one big metro area. You know how in Maryland, someone from Bethesda will say they're from DC, or someone from Catonsville will say they're from Baltimore? Neither one technically lives in that city, but they still identify with it because that big city serves to the unite the larger region. Here no such uniting factor exists, even though you would think San Francisco would serve that function. It's something I never fully realized until moving here. The only people who say they're from San Francisco are those who actually live within city limits. People from Daly City, just across the city line say they're from Daly City, not SF. And then there's the bay, which really creates a mental block with people here. A lot of Bay Area residents make crossing the bridge seem like a big journey and don't like to do it on a regular basis. I was surprised (and frankly, quite disappointed) with how many people from San Francisco don't know a thing about Oakland and likewise, how many people from Oakland act as if San Francisco is in another state. The two cities are only 12 miles apart, but the residents sure don't seem to realize it.

Theres a lot of history with this as well as the geography of the area that adds to it. I will admit I'm guilty of not knowing much about SF until recently and still don't know as much as I should having grown up and lived just across the bay. One thing is, people in one region simply don't have much reason to travel to another. Everything you need is right there. Also, this metro is geographically very large. The bay is about 70 miles long from end to end. Geographic barriers tend to keep people in their region. Most other metros don't have so many barriers.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by mayorhaggar

You'd have to live there for a while to get it. There are a ton of out of town people who move into the Bay Area but there's a strong baseline of people who grew up there and will never leave. They kind of have a local townie attitude and don't know much about the rest of the country. They're not as guido as the townies in the NYC or Boston areas. Go to a Giants game and you'll see them--skinny white guys dressed like drug dealers in greasy starter-style jackets and trying to act tough.

As for the city or the region being provincial in other ways, part of it is that SF is so isolated from the rest of the country so it can be a bit blinkered and unaware of the rest of the country...it's not smugness, it's just from being so removed. Unless you're rich or travel for work, it's easy to never leave the Bay Area, flights and gas are expensive these days and you have everything you need in the Bay Area, so why leave? Plus there are plenty of people who don't even leave their part of the Bay Area--plenty of people in SF don't go to the East Bay because they think it's a huge ghetto, etc.

The isolation factor is it. Only the Seattle area is more isolated. Think about it; the nearest major metro is LA, 400 miles south. To the east it's Salt Lake City and north is Seattle. Sacramento isn't a major metro. Along the east coast you basically have a megapolis from DC to Boston. The Midwestern metros generally aren't very far apart.

[ambient]

Originally Posted by Marissa23

I'm from Maryland and I've never been to California. I'm planning on visiting SF this Christmas. Based on what I've read about the city over the years, I've always thought it was one of the major cultural capitals of the U.S., along with NYC,Chicago, Boston and D.C. Also, most foreign tourists say that it's their favorite U.S. city. However, recently I've read a few forums about SF and some people said that it was rather provincial. Why would they say that?
Thanks in advance.

Because it's the internet, and some people always like to talk ****.

[Nineties Flava]

Originally Posted by matt345

When people say SF is provincial, I think they're referring to the Bay Area as a whole and the way people here tend to divide themselves up regionally, rather than seeing this as one big metro area. You know how in Maryland, someone from Bethesda will say they're from DC, or someone from Catonsville will say they're from Baltimore? Neither one technically lives in that city, but they still identify with it because that big city serves to the unite the larger region. Here no such uniting factor exists, even though you would think San Francisco would serve that function. It's something I never fully realized until moving here. The only people who say they're from San Francisco are those who actually live within city limits. People from Daly City, just across the city line say they're from Daly City, not SF. And then there's the bay, which really creates a mental block with people here. A lot of Bay Area residents make crossing the bridge seem like a big journey and don't like to do it on a regular basis. I was surprised (and frankly, quite disappointed) with how many people from San Francisco don't know a thing about Oakland and likewise, how many people from Oakland act as if San Francisco is in another state. The two cities are only 12 miles apart, but the residents sure don't seem to realize it.

I think you mean 6 miles. Other than that I agree with most of what you wrote... the only thing I'd add is that people here do have a regional identity (The Bay). The difference is when someone asks what part of the Bay you're from... you'll never hear someone from Hayward say they're from Oakland or someone from Colma say they're from San Francisco.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

The isolation factor is it. Only the Seattle area is more isolated. Think about it; the nearest major metro is LA, 400 miles south. To the east it's Salt Lake City and north is Seattle. Sacramento isn't a major metro. Along the east coast you basically have a megapolis from DC to Boston. The Midwestern metros generally aren't very far apart.

It's true that we aren't close to other major metro areas (although I believe LA is actually 375 mi from SF and 330 mi from Silicon Valley, and certainly an easy six-hour drive), but is that the main factor? Is DC cosmopolitan because it's less than an hour to Baltimore? I wouldn't think that makes much of an impact. DC is cosmopolitan because it's one of the world's (arguably THE world's) biggest political hub, and NYC is cosmopolitan in its own right too. I think metro areas needn't necessarily be near each other to make them worldly. SF is, in fact, a very cospomolitan place, and to call it provinical is strange when you consider the major international cultural influences and residents who call it home. We are a major melting pot and a major gateway to Asia. But there are certain people with provincial attitudes, like anywhere.