Los Angeles vs San Francisco: Which city is more cosmopolitan? (Fillmore: living in, vs.)

[BeauCharles]

They're at least even. If you take LA from downtown to the Westside its very cosmopolitan. People from every corner of the planet, restaurants showcasing those origins, art galleries galore, media center of the world, constant flow of visitors.

[bountybligh]

San Francisco.

[bigdumbgod]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

San Francisco's lopsided lead in the poll indicates that participants are not answering the question as worded.

Cosmopolitan is not synonymous with urban or walkable or "I like it better." Cosmopolitan is more along the lines of comprised of international elements or connected to the globe. By this definition, both S.F. and L.A are very cosmopolitan, with inhabitants and culture representing every corner of the planet. L.A. may have the edge since it has a larger port, larger airport with more foreign carriers and more consulates. I'm sure the definition can be tweaked to favor either city (often by using total numbers vs. normalized).

^^^This

cos·mo·pol·i·tan (kzm-pl-tn)

adj.1. Pertinent or common to the whole world: an issue of cosmopolitan import.
2. Having constituent elements from all over the world or from many different parts of the world: the ancient and cosmopolitan societies of Syria and Egypt.
3. So sophisticated as to be at home in all parts of the world or conversant with many spheres of interest: a cosmopolitan traveler.
4. Ecology Growing or occurring in many parts of the world; widely distributed.

n. A cosmopolitan person or organism; a cosmopolite.

cosmopolitan - definition of cosmopolitan by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

[Tex?Il?]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

San Francisco's lopsided lead in the poll indicates that participants are not answering the question as worded.

Cosmopolitan is not synonymous with urban or walkable or "I like it better." Cosmopolitan is more along the lines of comprised of international elements or connected to the globe. By this definition, both S.F. and L.A are very cosmopolitan, with inhabitants and culture representing every corner of the planet. L.A. may have the edge since it has a larger port, larger airport with more foreign carriers and more consulates. I'm sure the definition can be tweaked to favor either city (often by using total numbers vs. normalized).

Thank you! I was thinking of writing a post like this tonight anyways. You beat me to it.

For the record, I put about the same. But you hit the nail on the head. This thread is finally getting more balanced.

Now, if you want to have a thread titled: "Which California has more of the European-like historic charm" well thats a no brainer. But cosmpolitan? they both are very much so.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

SF tries to mimic the East Coast or Europe but fails. Still, all that trying imparts a certain cosmopolitan pastiche.

LA has bona fides such as many non stop flights to world destinations you can't get to non stop from SFO, as well as retail locations for international brands poorly or not represented in the Bay Area.

None of this is a surprise, LA is over twice the critical mass of the Bay Area.

All in all, I called them equal.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

San Francisco's lopsided lead in the poll indicates that participants are not answering the question as worded.

Cosmopolitan is not synonymous with urban or walkable or "I like it better." Cosmopolitan is more along the lines of comprised of international elements or connected to the globe. By this definition, both S.F. and L.A are very cosmopolitan, with inhabitants and culture representing every corner of the planet. L.A. may have the edge since it has a larger port, larger airport with more foreign carriers and more consulates. I'm sure the definition can be tweaked to favor either city (often by using total numbers vs. normalized).

Thank you! After reading the first few replies I was thinking something like this (and I also looked up the definition that bigdumbgod ended up posting) but was on my phone so I didn't want to attempt typing it out. I did, however, get the first vote in for LA.

Originally Posted by Bunjee

The whole of San Francisco could fit into about 1/3 of L.A. proper though, including areas like China Basin, Ingleside, Cow Palace, etc. So SF loses punch. If we expand SF to outlying areas the sprawl factor of both cities evens out, and SF loses punch.

This I can see. There's no question that both cities are extremely diverse and cosmopolitan. But, when you compare a city of 800k to a city of 3.8M and both have a similar percentage of diversity, the 3.8M one is just going to be more cosmopolitan by a landslide due to having way more of every type of everyone and everything from everywhere. For example, when I moved up to SF from SoCal I was shocked to find that there were no used Japanese bookstores in SF or anywhere in the Bay Area. LA has plenty. (OC has a couple and even San Diego has one, for that matter.)

Many parts of the Bay Area are more diverse than SF city...but if you include these when talking about SF, you have to include LA County and/or metro area too for LA, which means it's still more cosmopolitan.

[jimmykem]

They are both cosmopolitan, but Los Angeles moreso.

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by drunk on kool aid

San Francisco's lopsided lead in the poll indicates that participants are not answering the question as worded.

Cosmopolitan is not synonymous with urban or walkable or "I like it better." Cosmopolitan is more along the lines of comprised of international elements or connected to the globe. By this definition, both S.F. and L.A are very cosmopolitan, with inhabitants and culture representing every corner of the planet. L.A. may have the edge since it has a larger port, larger airport with more foreign carriers and more consulates. I'm sure the definition can be tweaked to favor either city (often by using total numbers vs. normalized).

D'oh...! You're right.

As worded, I'll say they're fairly even.

[although SF is nice]

[04kL4nD]

As a whole city, SF without question

Although there are certainly parts of LA that feel more cosmopolitan than the outer reaches of the sunset. People need to remember how HUGE and spread out LA proper is and how compact SF is.

I know most people hate DT LA, but I actually like it for its grit and funk. To me, the most desirable areas of LA are the beach cities (not technically part of LA proper), the west side, and parts of the east side like Silverlake, and they aren't exactly cosmopolitan. In SF I find North Beach, Nob Hill, Chinatown, FiDi, SOMA, and the Mission to be the epitome of cosmopolitanism.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by 04kL4nD

As a whole city, SF without question

Although there are certainly parts of LA that feel more cosmopolitan than the outer reaches of the sunset. People need to remember how HUGE and spread out LA proper is and how compact SF is.

I know most people hate DT LA, but I actually like it for its grit and funk. To me, the most desirable areas of LA are the beach cities (not technically part of LA proper), the west side, and parts of the east side like Silverlake, and they aren't exactly cosmopolitan. In SF I find North Beach, Nob Hill, Chinatown, FiDi, SOMA, and the Mission to be the epitome of cosmopolitanism.

I agree with most of this but, SOMA? The Mission???