Do people in San Francisco have an inferiority complex when it comes to L.A.? (Los Angeles: to live, restaurant)

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Westside's Most Wanted

You're right.

And when people leave L.A., San Francisco isn't even a consideration:

Top Places people in LA County move to, 2010-2012

1. Orange County - 14,834
2. San Bernadino County - 11,441
3. Riverside County - 6,382
4. San Diego County - 4,885
5. Ventura County - 3,990
6. New York City 3,668
7. Las Vegas - 3,089
8. Phoenix - 2,350

On the other hand, Los Angeles is the #1 city people from SF move to when they leave the Bay Area:

Top Places San Franciscans move to, 2010-2012

1. San Mateo - 2,973
1. Alameda - 3,430
3. Santa Clara - 2,543
4. Los Angeles - 1,905
5. Contra Costa - 1,656
6. New York City - 1,350
7. San Diego -867
8. Marin - 845

So telling. Bad mouthing L.A. seems to be some sort of way for many people to convince themselves that they hate L.A. when so many of them secretly want to live there.

SOI Tax Stats - Migration Data Downloads

lol you seem a little too sensitive about this.

That's the migration data for all of LA County(Pop 10 Million) vs San Francisco(Pop 835,000)

If you had data for say the Westside only, SF would probably be in the top 10-nobody cares about where people from Pomona move to, quite frankly.

[NYMTman]

Yeah, we're just a little more enlightened here in the Bay Area.

[Ruth4Truth]

Something tells me this is one of those threads that will never die. It'll drag on for months, then will sink down a bit in the listings, only to be revived periodically.

[rah]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

lol you seem a little too sensitive about this.

That's the migration data for all of LA County(Pop 10 Million) vs San Francisco(Pop 835,000)

If you had data for say the Westside only, SF would probably be in the top 10-nobody cares about where people from Pomona move to, quite frankly.

Correction: you don't care.

Your constant cheerleading for the wealthy, and constant condescension towards the lower classes got old like 5 years ago. What the hell man.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by rah

Correction: you don't care.

Nope, the correction would be:

"Nobody IN TECH, FINANCE, MEDIA, ACADEMIA, ART, ETC gives a rat's tail where people from Pomona move to."

That's just how it is.

Your constant cheerleading for the wealthy, and constant condescension towards the lower classes got old like 5 years ago. What the hell man.

Get over it.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by NIMBYS IN SPACE

I wouldn't use "provincial" to describe the way Angelenos hole up in their neighborhoods. I'd probably say "cloistered." LA is like a huge high school cafeteria with different tables for different subcultures. You stick to your own kind. The upside is that there is a lot less conformity in LA. People don't bother you if you're a freak, yet you can also get away with being completely bland and normal. There's a place for everyone. In SF, everything seems geared some vaguely hip, decently educated, affluent crowd, and if you're out of this range, you're either marginalized (Bible-thumpers, blue collar workers) or tokenized (transgender people, black San Franciscans).

I recently talked to a trans girl (in transition) who told me she much preferred LA because it was one of the few places where she could lead a normal life. In Texas, she was heckled; in New York, she was gawked at; in SF, she was fawned over: "Oh, you're so strong for what you've done! You're so cool! Go you! (The subtext: "Can I be your friend? I'm the last one at work without a transgender bff!) In LA, people couldn't care less. She lives a completely normal suburban life and is among the less unusual-looking people milling around her local supermarket in the heart of the Valley. You can even see this among the homeless people. They're far less agitated in LA than SF because everyone completely ignores them and they go about their business in peace, for better or worse.

It does, for the economy's sake, make me sad that LA has fallen a step behind NY/DC/SF in attracting ambitious, businessy people from elite East Coast schools, but let me tell you one thing, those sorts of people are the biggest conformists there are, if only because they're better at picking up on and following the unspoken rules that we're all meant to be conforming to. As a result, they can be real creativity buzzkills. I know because I went to one of these schools myself and spent four years around these people. A vital question: has San Francisco gotten less interesting or more interesting with the influx of this elite East Coast private school crowd? Remember, well-educated, ambitious people are YUPPIES (young urban professionals)! The Bay Area mainly attracts yuppie types at this point, and yuppies rarely rock the boat or go to extremes. They have too much to lose. Meanwhile, LA is siphoning off SF's (and NY's) art, film, and music communities, but you can't sustain an economy on artists. Which situation is better is a matter of personal preference.

But to get back to the original question. No, SF certainly does not have an inferiority complex toward LA. They're convinced they live in the loveliest, most enlightened, progressive, forward-thinking, prosperous place in the world, and in all honesty they probably do. SF is Switzerland. LA is Berlin.

You already know this (I presumed the question was rhetorical) - less interesting for sure.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Originally Posted by CirclingLogan

This is a solid piece of analysis.

DC is definitely attracting an uber-educated, ambitious set the last decade, but it's also becoming somewhat repetitive and bland. I still really like it as it is *extremely* liveable: great architecture, good bars, restaurants; dense, lively neighborhoods, etc. But, I understand the criticisms.

The same thing is happening in SF, though I would argue to a much lesser extent. And, there's always Oakland.



Personally, I like LA. Its post-war structure, treeless streets and cement block apartment buildings may not be considered "attractive", but it has a certain bleak beauty that is hard to put a finger on. The film "Los Angeles Plays Itself" does a much better job describing what I mean than I ever could. It also is vibrant and lot of things of interest.

With that being said, those stats in no way indicate people from the Bay prefer LA. Everything on those lists fall into these categories: 1) suburbs, 2) NYC (people from all cities move to the most important metropolis in the nation, regardless of difficulty) and 3) cheaper places. That list simply reveals that people priced out of the most expensive real-estate market in the US (SF) relocate to the nearest large job market with cheaper housing (LA), just like people from LA move to Phoenix, San Diego and Las Vegas. In other words, the less successful are forced down the pecking order.

I much prefer the Bay Area because it has a more vibrant economy, more sophisticated culture, "real" cities (well, not San Jose, duh), lush countryside (not all desert), better wine regions, better beer, better food culture, fewer untraveled locals, etc.

I moved here from the east coast. If I wanted to move to LA, I could have. In ways, it would have been much easier. But, I'd rather shoot for the stars and settle for the moon if I ever get priced out!

I need to correct your mistaken notion that LA's hinterlands are nothing but desert. Sure, there is desert to the East and Northeast of LA (after cresting the real mountains, complete with forests and winter sports locations). But heading out in other directions it's not desert. In fact, heading northwest out of LA you'd be hard pressed to tell where you are ... am I in Ventura County or Solano County? Same golden rounded hills with oaks.

[NOLA101]

From an outsiders perspective, while LA and SF are both world class cities, LA is one of the most important cities on the planet, and SF is not.

LA is massive, with a much bigger and more diverse economy, incredible population diversity, a huge cultural capital, and is one of the most iconic and vibrant places anywhere. SF is important too, much prettier and more precious, but probably overrates itself more than any other major U.S. city (IMO). It's a great city, but more in the class of a Boston or Toronto than an LA.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by NOLA101

From an outsiders perspective, while LA and SF are both world class cities, LA is one of the most important cities on the planet, and SF is not.

LA is massive, with a much bigger and more diverse economy, incredible population diversity, a huge cultural capital, and is one of the most iconic and vibrant places anywhere. SF is important too, much prettier and more precious, but probably overrates itself more than any other major U.S. city (IMO). It's a great city, but more in the class of a Boston or Toronto than an LA.

And that's fine with SF-ers and Bay Area-ites.

And how long do you think LA would last without water?

[LoriBee62]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

And that's fine with SF-ers and Bay Area-ites.

Hahaha I was just going to reply with "And I'm fine with that". You beat me to it.