Why woud someone choose SF over LA? (Los Angeles, San Francisco: sales, 2015)

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Yes, it is contempt, but traditionally, it always has been jealousy as well. San Franciscans were just too "stuck-up" or smug to admit that it was jealously. .

I can't agree. Jealousy? Of a city of freeways, until relatively recently virtually no public transportation, and with a reputation for being choked with pollution? It was LA's pollution that resulted in CA enacting the strictest air quality standards around. LA has a bad image. That may be undeserved in this day and age, but it lingers.

Besides, some people dig a small, fairly walkable city with gorgeous views. What's not to like? LA is overwhelming. The thread title is pretty funny. My response is: why wouldn't someone choose SF over LA? LA has always been a bad joke in NorCal.

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

I like these descriptions of SF, I agree, you expressed that well.

I lived in SF, many years, several different neighborhoods, and I lived in LA several years, several different neighborhoods.

What did I like about LA better?... the average working person is nicer, more open, friendlier, less judgmental. I love the beach culture and beach cities of LA because I'm a surfer. And, LA has fabulous pool parties, in the middle of the city you have the Hollywood Hills with fabulous homes, big homes with big lots for awesome parties!

High end very expensive fashion is appreciated and expressed gloriously in LA. The elite and very wealthy on the whole, dress more conservatively in SF compared to LA.

But y'know, a lot of people see that as a good thing. They call it "good taste". Flamboyance isn't everyone's cup of tea, dahling. And what's the point of having "big homes with big lots for awesome parties" if you're out of the loop? Or do surfers get invited to those? Or did you somehow score an exclusive spot with the in-crowd? The buzz around the Bay among dude-kind is that women in LA expect perfection. If you don't look like a male model, have mucho cashola, and exceptionally fine wheels, you can be out of luck. We get a fair amount of dating-scene refugees from LA up here.

And btw, how's your water supply doing?

[GatsbyGatz]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

And btw, how's your water supply doing?

Flooding the UCLA campus due to a water main break, of course.

But I do believe SF has it's own water shortage problems...

[jade408]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

I used to rag on LA a lot for having 24/7 traffic, but over the past year or so the Bay Area has certainly caught up. I used to be able to drive up and down 880 in the late morning/early afternoon during the week with no problem- not anymore. I used to be able to zip across the Bay Bridge after 10am during the week- not anymore. Couple this with overcrowded BART trains that have gotten even worse, and I'm not seeing a huge difference in traffic these days.

Yup and LA is killing us in the race to add more transit.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

I can't agree. Jealousy? Of a city of freeways, until relatively recently virtually no public transportation, and with a reputation for being choked with pollution? It was LA's pollution that resulted in CA enacting the strictest air quality standards around. LA has a bad image. That may be undeserved in this day and age, but it lingers.

Besides, some people dig a small, fairly walkable city with gorgeous views. What's not to like? LA is overwhelming. The thread title is pretty funny. My response is: why wouldn't someone choose SF over LA? LA has always been a bad joke in NorCal.

You haven't been to LA in a while. My last trip had me on the bus, subway and light rail. We were completely car-free for the weekend. Took transit from the airport to West Hollywood, and WeHo is very walkable. Downtown LA and downtown Oakland are quite similar in architecture. Lots of pockets of activity. The time before we spent some time walking around there, and in Los Feliz, another walkable area.

[kttam186290]

Originally Posted by ByeDC

San Francisco is the jewel of this state and has productivity and sophistication that Los Angeles could never dream of having.

Geeze!?!? Smug much?

That's exactly what everyone was saying about Los Angeles during the Hollywood film production heyday.

The above aptly-demonstrated smug attitude is what contributes to the so-called "Bay-vs.-LA" rivalry more than anything else.

Keep it up...

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I prefer the Bay Area's weather by far.

The coastal weather is really not that much different..."by far" seems like a stretch.
Coastal LA is on average 10 degrees warmer across the seasons compared to coastal-Bay Area. LA's Ocean temp is 10 degrees warmer with 2 months when no wetsuit is required.

I like LA's weather better. If it had another 10 inches of rain a year I'd like it even more.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

I dont know what you mean by LA has culture that reaches the masses like SF never could- because Twitter, Youtube and Facebook reach the masses like NOTHING from LA ever could.

Historically, SF always had a bit of envy-jealously-attitude toward LA especially regarding pop culture mostly because of film and television. Are you old enough to remember the 30's through the 90's? Regarding media, communications, and pop culture no city could touch LA's influence upon the nation and world. Even NYC couldn't compare because it was an old tired city, everything cool and hip came out of LA. LA, overwhelmingly, received the lion's share of the young, hip and creative. LA's only competitor was SF, and SF suffered from being too small and provincial.

Today, there are many hip and progressive cities in the US with booming economies, "back in the day", LA and SF were the only hip and progressive cities with booming economies, and SF was always second to LA.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Furthermore, I can see how some in SF may have been jealous in the 1930s-early 1960s when LA was truly golden as far as being the epitome of the American dream.

During the 30's to 60's, SF barely had a glamourous cuture, it was a working class town. North Beach was full of under-educated low-income Italians; the Castro, the same, but Irish. Chinatown/The Polk/Tenderloin wasn't exactly a tourist mecca, rather a run-down very ethnic non-English speaking ghetto. SF was not glamourous. LA-Hollywood was glitzy, glamours with huge beautiful homes, big lots, perfect weather, art deco glam.

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

LA actually was once a major banking center, a major aerospace center, the only place for film and tv production etc.

Yes, exactly! Hence, SF's envy of LA. LA was more "tech-oriented" and glamours than SF. It's amazing how much LA has transformed into "something else".

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by jade408

You haven't been to LA in a while. My last trip had me on the bus, subway and light rail. We were completely car-free for the weekend. Took transit from the airport to West Hollywood, and WeHo is very walkable. Downtown LA and downtown Oakland are quite similar in architecture. Lots of pockets of activity. The time before we spent some time walking around there, and in Los Feliz, another walkable area.

Impressive. I wonder how they do that? Voters support public transit, and there's enough of a tax base to pay for all that? What have they got that we havn't got in NorCal? Besides Hollywood megabucks and the tax income from that.

[tcave360]

Originally Posted by Bonez765

the ass of Pennsylvania.

Pennsylvania is actually Philly's ass

[jade408]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

Impressive. I wonder how they do that? Voters support public transit, and there's enough of a tax base to pay for all that? What have they got that we havn't got in NorCal? Besides Hollywood megabucks and the tax income from that.

They prioritized funding and expansion with a short timeline. In the time it is taking us to build the 1.5 mike Central Subway, they are wrapping up like 3 light rail lines and the subway to the beach as it is dubbed. We are apparently content taking 40 years to build BRT on Geary even though the buses are packed, carry 50% of the people using the corridor and take forever.