Why woud someone choose SF over LA? (San Francisco, Sacramento: hotels, colleges)

[Chimérique]

Traditional descriptions/stereotypes still apply:

SF’s wealth is understated, “hidden”, more humble.

LA’s wealth is glamours, flaunted, boldly celebrated.

You are more likely to find a shabbly dressed humble looking middle-aged asian multi-millionaire hanging out at the local cafe talking about his last fishing trip versus the Jewish LA multi-millionaire dressed expensively talking about his shopping spree in Paris or Milan or his weekend in NYC.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by majoun

What's wrong with raising kids in the Peninsula or Marin, other than conspicuous consumption?

Walnut Creek isn't exactly poor and also has problems with conspicuous consumption. Lamorinda has some major problems in this regard,

I've always thought Walnut Creek and Danville/Blackhawk were anomalies in the Bay Area. They seem like they belong more in So Cal as LA/OC suburbs. Conversely, Ojai and Sierra Madre have a very "Bay Area" feel to them.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

I've always thought Walnut Creek and Danville/Blackhawk were anomalies in the Bay Area. They seem like they belong more in So Cal as LA/OC suburbs. Conversely, Ojai and Sierra Madre have a very "Bay Area" feel to them.

Or perhaps the two areas are more alike overall than some care to admit.

[Chimérique]

On the ground SF is less latino, more asian, more educated, more granola, the snob-appeal elitists are more educated, and community oriented.

But California is very brown/latino, mixed-raced and diverse. 20 something whites feel like the minority in all urban areas including half of the suburban cities.

SF’s greater area is much more middle to upper-middle class; a lot less “blue-collar” than LA’s greater area.

But the Southland(LA-Orange Cnty-Inland Empire) is vast, over 2 1/2 times the size in both land area and population over SF. You never stop discovering LA.

LA - 18+ million
SF - 8+ million

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by majoun

Keep in mind that neither Angelenos nor OC residents consider OC cities to be within the LA metro area or under the influence of LA - OC residents often hate LA like Bay Area and San Diego people do.

O.C. "hates" LA because it is largely a suburban extension of LA that wants to maintain its own identity -- sort of the way a teenager "hates" their parents. San Diegans don't "hate" LA so much as they want to be a less-hurried, more conservative version of it. They want to be LA a la 1975. San Diego is sort of in its own little So Cal bubble...more like a bigger version of O.C., if you will...

The hatred toward LA from SF is really unfounded and is more of a one-way street. It exists on an entirely different level and defies all rationality as nobody in LA thinks one way or another about it.

LA vs. SF is apples and oranges, really.

It's like comparing Miami and Boston.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

On the ground SF is less latino, more asian, more educated, more granola, the snob-appeal elitists are more educated, and community oriented.

But California is very brown/latino, mixed-raced and diverse. 20 something whites feel like the minority in all urban areas including half of the suburban cities.

SF’s greater area is much more middle to upper-middle class; a lot less “blue-collar” than LA’s greater area.

But the Southland(LA) is vast, over 2 1/2 times the size in both land area and population over SF. You never stop discovering LA.

LA's size and sprawl allowed it to be more middle class and have larger blue collar communities. Conversely, the land use restrictions in the Bay Area kept it more exclusive and less accommodating to the working class, which is why many of the Bay Area's working class live out in the Central Valley in places like Tracy, Stockton, Vacaville, Patterson and Modesto.

The Inland Empire outside of LA functions a lot like the Central Valley does for the Bay Area, except that the Inland Empire is contiguous with LA County, whereas, the Central Valley is physically and demographically separated from the Bay Area.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

The hatred toward LA from SF is really unfounded and is more of a one-way street. It exists on an entirely different level and defies all rationality as nobody in LA thinks one way or another about it.

I love this because it is so true. It's a case of San Francisco being provincial.

Traditionally, San Francisco has always been "jealous" of LA's fame, it's culture and influence upon the nation and world, better coastal weather, and the glamourous life-style.

Traditionally, SF is "stuck-up" and they have always looked down upon LA for a long list of things; gaudy wealth, hollywood fake types, higher crime, larger ghettos, the under-educated working class - both the whites in the Valley and the blacks in south central, and mexicans in East LA; and for it's SMOG, and car-centric suburban life-style.

Whereas, LA barely even thinks about SF. This dated mindset has been diluted, I think with the emergence of SF/Silicon Valley as the world's tech giant.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by kttam186290

LA vs. SF is apples and oranges, really.

It's like comparing Miami and Boston.

I'll agree with this only if one is comparing SF, the city itself, with the westside of LA.

But if you compare the whole SF Bay area with the whole of the LA area, then SF and LA are a lot alike, very Californian.

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I love this because it is so true. It's a case of San Francisco being provincial.

Traditionally, San Francisco has always been "jealous" of LA's fame, it's culture and influence upon the nation and world, better coastal weather, and the glamourous life-style.

Traditionally, SF is "stuck-up" and they have always looked down upon LA for a long list of things; gaudy wealth, hollywood fake types, higher crime, larger ghettos, the under-educated working class - both the whites in the Valley and the blacks in south central, and mexicans in East LA; and for it's SMOG, and car-centric suburban life-style.

Whereas, LA barely even thinks about SF. This dated mindset has been diluted, I think with the emergence of SF/Silicon Valley as the world's tech giant.

I don't believe it is jealousy. It is more like contempt.

In fact, I don't really believe it is anything at all. San Franciscans certainly are not envious of the "glamorous LA lifestyle". As we mentioned here, San Francisco culture is directly opposed to that. LA culture and world influence are also not on our minds here. Quite the opposite, in fact. The rivalry is a sports one, plain and simple.

When San Franciscans in my line of work think of LA, they think of very talented, creative people who live in an undesirable place for a number of reasons--many of which are the ones you list as reasons we are "jealous". We love their work and yes, it is fun to visit for a few days and enjoy the beach, but otherwise it's just not a place that comes to mind.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

We (SF) love their work and yes, it is fun to visit for a few days and enjoy the beach, but otherwise it's (LA) just not a place that comes to mind.

...but, apparently, it does come to mind

And quite often