Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
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 2 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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 02-11-2008, 09:54 PM
 
Location: Hollywood, CA
258 posts, read 1,501,821 times
Reputation: 149

Advertisements

What do the local people of San Francisco think of the city of Los Angeles and its people that live there? What about San Diego? I already know what the people of LA and SD think of SF and vice versa. It seems that every city has something against one of the other cities. Which I can understand one standing up for their city. What does SF offer that LA or SD cannot? All three cities rank nationally as some of the most expensive places to live, so it doesn't have anything to do with rent prices. From an outsiders perspective I would say SF has better overall colleges with Berkeley and Stanford, not to mention all the little art schools. I think SF has better museums and more of a walkable downtown. I think LA has everyone beat in the entertainment/arts job industry obviously. And the only thing SD has better is weather and surfing.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 02-11-2008, 10:12 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,717 posts, read 16,291,439 times
Reputation: 2974
Wow, you're opening a big can of huge worms...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 12:08 AM
 
28,107 posts, read 63,385,620 times
Reputation: 23222
A nice place to visit, but a little to dry and arid for me to live there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 01:09 AM
 
15,630 posts, read 26,110,200 times
Reputation: 30907
Quote:
Originally Posted by california??? View Post
What do the local people of San Francisco think of the city of Los Angeles and its people that live there? What about San Diego? I already know what the people of LA and SD think of SF and vice versa. It seems that every city has something against one of the other cities. Which I can understand one standing up for their city. What does SF offer that LA or SD cannot? All three cities rank nationally as some of the most expensive places to live, so it doesn't have anything to do with rent prices. From an outsiders perspective I would say SF has better overall colleges with Berkeley and Stanford, not to mention all the little art schools. I think SF has better museums and more of a walkable downtown. I think LA has everyone beat in the entertainment/arts job industry obviously. And the only thing SD has better is weather and surfing.
When my hubby worked for the Great Satan, B of A, he had to go to LA often. Occasionally I would go with, and we'd stay in Hollywood. I LOVED LA. I thought it was beautiful, and I liked the warmth.

It had some great record stores, some great bookstores... we never did get to the Comedy Store.

But we are Old Hollywood fans.

Do I want to live there? No -- next time I move I'm going back east....
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 09:09 AM
 
Location: San Francisco Bay Area
1,482 posts, read 5,160,501 times
Reputation: 798
One of the main reasons I moved up here was for the better weather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 12:14 PM
 
146 posts, read 565,101 times
Reputation: 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by california??? View Post
What do the local people of San Francisco think of the city of Los Angeles and its people that live there?
They take *our* water to water *their* lawns in THE DESERT
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 02:02 PM
 
1,229 posts, read 3,236,748 times
Reputation: 456
Interesting question. I’ve always had a negative opinion of LA and a neutral one of SD. As a kid the negative opinion of LA derived primarily because of the Giants-Dodgers thing. As an adult it is because:

a. I don’t like the weather.

b. I don’t like driving in the LA area.

c. They take northern CA water. (I read an article a few years back about some guy who built a spec house in the LA area he was trying to sell for something like $25 million. It was on a large spread and what killed me was that the guy was spending over $20,000 a month on the water bill for the landscaping.

d. All of the statewide political clout runs south because of the large number of voters there.

As for what I think about the people, nothing more or less than I do about people up here or anywhere else.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 02:51 PM
 
409 posts, read 1,826,167 times
Reputation: 301
The LA area was really crappy from about 1975 until just a few years ago. The areas surrounding Los Angeles are still horrific, dystopic nightmares of American culture. The city itself has been improving steadily and is improving and cleaning up its act far quicker than SF is.

The real problem with LA is the type of people that move there. FAKE, retarded entertainment-biz wannabes are drawn to the place wasps to an enormous lamp. The idea of having to be around these people every day is simply nauseating to most people in Northern California.

The rift comes from the 1950's era where Los Angeles developed an image-based outlook, where the car you drive is what *really* matters whereas San Francisco developed as a blue-coller/intellectual culture. The two were definitely at odds and that historic division is still present.

The present truth is that Los Angeles and San Francisco have grown much closer to each other since the late 1980's. SF has become more pretentious and image-based, especially the greater Bay Area. Silicon Valley has turned into our own little Orange County and the region has sprawled and spread beyond any logical sane limits and become a car-centric, consumption-driven nothing with "old" suburbs that rapidly degrade into wastelands after the white-flighters have moved on to the next enclave.

Los Angeles on the other hand has invested in transit, air pollution controls, water conservation, community-ownership and organization, supported the arts, etc. The city is still surrounded by its monster but is working rapidly to become a real city of its own, a diverse metropolitan area with the amenities you would expect to find. Los Angeles has woken up to the fact that it's a city, an American one, and it is full of potential. The concrete steps taken in recent years toward that future are tangible and commendable. This makes SF people uncomfortable, to see LA coming up from behind... but SF has improved itself too, by some standards, offering more wealth, trendiness and hip-factor. Image-wise SF is moving back to the top of its game and is gaining on the attention radar of the "cool" people in every demographic. As a place to "be seen" it is mounting a serious challenge in a way that it has not in the recent decades preceeding.


When a high-speed rail link finally opens between the two California epicenters the fusion of our cultures will be complete, for better or for worse.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 04:13 PM
 
Location: yeah
5,717 posts, read 16,291,439 times
Reputation: 2974
"Silicon Valley" is not a geographical distinction, nor is the Santa Clara Valley analogous to Orange County just because they play second fiddle on the fame scale. What a shallow assessment.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 02-12-2008, 04:36 PM
 
Location: In the Redwoods
30,286 posts, read 51,731,941 times
Reputation: 23653
Basically, I see LA & SF as two different states... after all, you could get from DC to Atlanta in the time it takes to drive between them! As for myself, I think LA is way too hot, smoggy, worse traffic, sprawling, and no offense to them, but I'm not too fond of the people either - generally speaking, of course, they seem more shallow and materialistic than San Franciscans. I also think this area is much prettier, at least when you're comparing downtown/central SF & LA.

Now on the upside, the LA area has a lot of opportunities, depending on what you do for a living... I'm a musician, and have always dreamed of being a studio (soundtrack/show) musician down there. If only it weren't for all the negatives I listed above, I'd move there in a heartbeat & pursue that career. They also have a more reasonable cost-of-living, since there are many "affordable" suburbs within 20-30 minutes of downtown LA. Finally, I do like the "scene" down there, which has a more punk/funky vibe than SF - lots of good tattoo shops & music clubs.
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:


Settings
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2020 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $104,000 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
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - 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, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top