How different is SoCal from NorCal? (San Diego, San Francisco: centers, swimming pool, suburbs)

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

You're kidding, right? I was in Palm Springs a few weeks ago and every single person I met that was from LA had a negative comment to say about SF: "Ugh the weather sucks!" "It's so expensive!" "It's so dirty!", etc

"Expensive and dirty", thats what half the nation thinks. Remember when 95% of SF was as squeaky clean as Pacific Heights, and muni and BART stations were as clean as German subway stations. Only the Tenderlion and Chinatown were "dirty". You're probably too young to remember that.

Could be a SoCal thing, but not an LA thing. Living in LA proper especially on the west side and in Hollywood the people I know always think of SF as a "great little get away", yes the weather is cloudy and "cold" but it's a "fun and interesting city".

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

Hogwash. San Diegans don't care for LA much either. In fact most things people hate about CA seem to be related to LA but applied to the whole state when people don't know the state.

Yep you're right, I grew up in Clairemont and Pacific Beach (SD), I should have mentioned that. But, we, San Diegans ragged on LA because it was this huge complicated, "crime-ridden" megapolis. San Diego was half the size as it is today, and LA was "urban and liberal" with large "black and latino" neighborhoods, with gangs, smog, traffic, Scary! LA had rich, pretentious Hollywood types, omg! That's why we ragged on LA.

San Diego was a "quiet", conservative military town, but super fun, friendly and the whole nation adored it. Back in the day, after spending a weekend in the "fast-paced, big city" of LA, and once you hit the "Camp Pendleton divide" on I-5, and further south around the 52, you could feel it in the air, the pace, everything dramatically slowed down, you felt like you were in Nor*Cal southern Cal version. San Diego was calm, safe and quiet compared to LA.

[Chimérique]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

I have never lived in LA, but go for work a few times per year. I think it's great. It's beautiful, energetic and huge and I love it. The people I've met have been friendly and the food is always good. What's not to like?

That all said, I'm always excited to come home to SF. LA looks and feels like a more sophisticated, elegant and cosmopolitan version of my hometown, Houston. SF is different in virtually every way, though, which makes it much more appealing.

We were in Houston last month, and we kept commenting how LA-like it is, but only in size and scale. I love that there are huge homes "everywhere", and lots of trees like Sacramento. It needs mountains and hills, and a spectacular coast like LA, the gulf doesn't cut it. It feels diverse, like California.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Yep you're right, I grew up in Clairemont and Pacific Beach (SD), I should have mentioned that. But, we, San Diegans ragged on LA because it was this huge complicated, "crime-ridden" megapolis. San Diego was half the size as it is today, and LA was "urban and liberal" with large "black and latino" neighborhoods, with gangs, smog, traffic, Scary! LA had rich, pretentious Hollywood types, omg! That's why we ragged on LA.

San Diego was a "quiet", conservative military town, but super fun, friendly and the whole nation adored it. Back in the day, after spending a weekend in the "fast-paced, big city" of LA, and once you hit the "Camp Pendleton divide" on I-5, and further south around the 52, you could feel it in the air, the pace, everything dramatically slowed down, you felt like you were in Nor*Cal southern Cal version. San Diego was calm, safe and quiet compared to LA.

San Diego was conservative and backwards. It only really changed in the last 15 years or so. Still has a bit of it's past "elements" in it however. SD has grown and grown up quite a bit. However within CA, it's still like the stepchild. Just look at this thread, it's the second largest city in the state yet most of the discussion about Socal has centered around LA.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

We were in Houston last month, and we kept commenting how LA-like it is, but only in size and scale. I love that there are huge homes "everywhere", and lots of trees like Sacramento. It needs mountains and hills, and a spectacular coast like LA, the gulf doesn't cut it. It feels diverse, like California.

I've known two people who have moved from CA to Houston, they hated it and promptly moved back.

[ttocs99]

Originally Posted by legal_eagle

Your story reminded me of an incident last summer. I had a court appearance in Nevada City, which is the Sierra foothills and a gorgeous Victorian mining town. After the appearance I decided to drive further up in the mountains before heading home. At a great scenic overlook over the Yuba River a guy on a Harley asked me if I knew how far the junction to I-80 was. It turned out that he and his friend were from Philadelphia and this was their first trip to California (they appeared to be in their 40's). He said they had flown out to LA, where they rented bikes to drive around California. He said he was blown away by how beautiful California was and that it had exceeded his expectations in every way.

I had to agree with him.

It's funny you mentioned Nevada City. I had come to the Bay Area for a wedding in 2010 with family. My Dad and his wife decided to make a vacation out of it (My visit was short, only 4 days). He had never been to Napa, so I told him to spend a day or 2 there. Instead, he met someone in San Francisco who was raving how nice Nevada City was. Well him and his wife decided to spend 2 days there, and they are STILL raving about it. They absolutely loved it, and can't wait to go back.

[Harrier]

San Francisco seems like an East Coast city that doesn't belong in California.

It is a 19th century style town that will never truly fit in with the rest of 21st century America.

L.A. is dynamic and executes makeovers to keep up with changing reality.

S.F. sits on its hills looking over the "rest" of California with haughty arrogance.

It never changes because it doesn't think that it needs to do so.

[Ruth4Truth]

The fact that SF has some 19th-century aspects isn't a bad thing. Who says it needs to fit in? Let it be itself. A mix of old and new.

Personally, I think the TransAmerica Pyramid is nice. It still lends distinction to the skyline.

[EclecticEars]

I think the following:

Oakland and Long Beach are kind of the redeveloping-but-still-seen-as-somewhat-hood cities of their respective regions, overshadowed by the more prominent cities nearby.

South Orange County and the Outer East Bay are quite similar, with OEB not having direct ocean access.

Los Angeles has many surprisingly hilly areas not immediately in the Santa Monica Mountains. San Francisco, while notoriously hilly, has many flatland areas on the east side along the Bay (Bayshore Blvd., 3rd St.)

L.A. and San Francisco have two of the most famous skylines in the world.

L.A. has multiple skylines--downtown, Wilshire, Santa Monica, Culver City, Sherman Oaks. The Bay Area doesn't have this concentration of skylines, but Oakland and San Jose still clearly have theirs.

L.A. has Caltech, USC, UCLA, UC-Irvine, the Claremont Colleges, and Occidental among their list of world-famous universities. San Diego has UCSD. The Bay Area has two, but they kinda take the cake: Stanford and Berkeley. Of course, the Bay's Santa Clara and especially UCSF are absolutely no slouches, either. Not too far from the really populated areas lie UC-Santa Barbara and UC-Davis, with Cal Poly SLO to be shared by all. Can't we all just get along?

San Diego and Sacramento tend to take second fiddle in their regions, although San Diego is not seen as a backwater. (No, I'm not accusing Sac-town of being a backwater by any means.)

Go inland into the Outer East Bay or Solano County up north, or the Inland Empire down south, and find housing values that won't murder you like along the coast.

SoCal has Big Bear, the San Gabriel Mountains, Crestline, the Mojave Desert, Anza-Borrego, Torrey Pines, and the Tehachapis. You can also drink wine around Santa Ynez and Temecula.

NorCal has Modoc County (a semi-arid county), Mt. Lassen, Mendocino County, Humboldt County (and the pot associated with it), and the Sacramento River Delta. Of course, Livermore and Lodi are there for wine if you don't want to go to Napa or Sonoma.

Inland NorCal has very conservative counties along I-5, while the inland SB and Riverside Counties down south are gradually leaning liberal. The line of demarcation, arguably through Monterey, San Luis Obispo, and/or Fresno Counties, contains "split" counties where both libs and cons can feel comfortable.

The similarities and differences are too complex to get into. Like a 21-year-old girl's wardrobe, it can take years to understand it.

[Harrier]

Yosemite is poetic.

Harrier will give NC that.