Strong NorCal bias on this forum. Does anyone actually prefer SoCal? (Los Angeles: homes, neighborhoods)

[Astral_Weeks]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

The LA area has also been historically more conservative than the Bay. The image of "laidback, liberal LA" really didn't exist outside of a few small areas. Inland Empire, Orange County, Ventura County, San Fernando Valley, the high desert areas, have traditionally been VERY conservative. They are the reason you know who Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are. Meanwhile, the Bay has many suburban areas that, while not as liberal as SF... are still pretty liberal! Marin, for example..

Overall, very good post. Of course, I agree Orange County was "VERY" conservative. But LA County (by far the largest population center in So.Calif.) was far from a conservative bastion.

Of course, in the City of Los Angeles (which includes the S.F. Valley), Reagan lost his adopted home city BOTH times in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential election.

Historically in Presidential elections: a majority in Los Angeles County voted for the following:
-FDR all four times,
-Truman in 48,
-Kennedy in 60,
-LBJ in 64,
-Carter in 76 and has voted Blue in every presidential election since 1988.

I'd also point out that in the 1980 Presidential election even liberal Marin and Santa Cruz Counties went to Reagan.

[Valhallian]

Originally Posted by boulder2015

"Sure, the scenery was gorgeous, but I still don't get the overall allure of SF vs. LA/OC, the latter of which seems to much better align with the "California Dream," so to speak."

No, you are not alone, and even less so these days. However, as other posters pointed out, it's kind of off to compare SF proper to ALL of LA area. I'd take most of the Bay over anywhere in LA, but prefer to avoid SF if possible. But would I take the 7 miles of SF over the 7 miles around downtown LA? Hell yeah. Would I take pee-stained Market St. over Beverly Hills? Uh no. So it's complicated...

And yes, you are right to notice a derogatory tone from Bay Area folks towards LA and its residents... while LA folks barely seem to know that SF exists and, if they have visited it, generally have positive feelings towards it. This is based more on history, than any differences that currently exist. The gap between the two has narrowed: LA is expanding its rail lines, while the Bay is worried about how to keep the escalators in BART stations from clogging and stalling from poop from the homeless. (Google it!) LA's smog situation is declining, while the Bay Area's traffic gets worse and worse by the year. I would still take the Bay over LA, though, as LA's traffic is... insane.

Also, the Bay is now full of people who moved there almost solely for jobs and money, and the chance to strike it rich in high tech. Not to blame any of those folks individually or collectively (I hate the "anti-techie" losers in SF), but when you have a HUGE portion of your population moving there to either make money or show off their money or buy houses as a hedge against economic issues in their home countries, then that will affect the previous bohemian culture of SF and the Bay. It just will. This is the first time in my life (which includes many years in both regions) that I am hearing people talk of leaving SF for LA for "livability, cost of living, and pace of life" issues. Seriously. Blows my mind. Techs are moving to Silicon Beach in LA, which, if you are able to do without using or even crossing a freeway to get from home to work, seems a LOT better than trying to drive anywhere in SF or Silicon Valley.

In addition, there is a history of intellectualism in the Bay and a history of ANTI-intellectualism in Socal. Obviously, that is a massive over-generalization, which does not include the reality of CalTech, JPL, Scripps, UCLA, etc. and the incredible amount of innovation and invention that have come from Southern Cal. However, I do think it is a real thing. The LA area has also been historically more conservative than the Bay. The image of "laidback, liberal LA" really didn't exist outside of a few small areas. Inland Empire, Orange County, Ventura County, San Fernando Valley, the high desert areas, have traditionally been VERY conservative. They are the reason you know who Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon are. Meanwhile, the Bay has many suburban areas that, while not as liberal as SF... are still pretty liberal! Marin, for example.

Getting back to the "intellectualism" issue, you would be more likely to get an interesting discussion on "Bay vs. LA" from someone in the Bay, who would love to talk to you over coffee about demographics, income comparisons, etc, and has strong opinions on "how much LA sucks". If you ask a similar person in LA, you might get: "Huh? why you want to talk about that ***** stuff? Dork!" The fact that you have knowledge, stats, in your head, will make you look smart and potentially "f_ggy". You might even be talking to someone who barely has a functioning notion of what a state is. Ever seen the movie Idiocracy? Remember President Camacho's cabinet? Unfortunately, a lot of LA bears a resemblance to those characters...

As for the pride thing, you are right. SF Bay people have a traditional identity: "we're not LA... hella not LA!" LA people have... LA. The weather is good, the water is warm (most of the year), there are usually jobs, the world is watching you through the ent biz, the Mexican food is outstanding, the girls (and guys) are hot... why would it even register to you that there are other places on the planet that are worthwhile, including a cold-ass place with windy beaches 400 miles north that you only know of because of the 49ers and Clint Eastwood movies? Why would you care what Bay Area folks think? And why are you smart enough to know enough "smart guy stuff" that would add detail or context to a comparison of two areas... bro?

Good example: I tend to only use the term "Cali" for California on this board, as it tends to upset some of the trolls on this board who get all bent when out-of-staters use the term. I have seen that in the Bay forums... not in the LA forums. LA folks simply just don't care enough about such things, while in the Bay that kind of pettiness can often define them.

As an LA native, I thought this post was mostly dead on, however your description of LA as this stupid unsophisticated population I think is a bit of an exaggeration. LA has a LOT of intelligent, successful and politically engaged people, and those people also don't care at all about the rivalry.

[Bulldogdad]

NorCal it is absolutely the worst. And to others thinking of moving here, don't. You wont like it. LA has many more opportunities, prettier cities and natural wonders. It's every bit as bad as the OP makes it out to be and more.

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by Bulldogdad

NorCal it is absolutely the worst. And to others thinking of moving here, don't. You wont like it. LA has many more opportunities, prettier cities and natural wonders. It's every bit as bad as the OP makes it out to be and more.

Roflmfao

My lips are sealed. Fingers bound with tape. Fear not.

[HappyinCali]

Originally Posted by Chimérique

Intriguing, I'll look into these books.

Just to clarify. they are not solely about intellectualism. they are about LA - the culture of the city and its history. They address the intellectualism as part of it.

[misaligned]

Yes, I prefer Southern California and am trying to line up a job in Orange County so I can relocate.

[boulder2015]

Originally Posted by Astral_Weeks

Overall, very good post. Of course, I agree Orange County was "VERY" conservative. But LA County (by far the largest population center in So.Calif.) was far from a conservative bastion.

Of course, in the City of Los Angeles (which includes the S.F. Valley), Reagan lost his adopted home city BOTH times in the 1980 and 1984 Presidential election.

Historically in Presidential elections: a majority in Los Angeles County voted for the following:
-FDR all four times,
-Truman in 48,
-Kennedy in 60,
-LBJ in 64,
-Carter in 76 and has voted Blue in every presidential election since 1988.

I'd also point out that in the 1980 Presidential election even liberal Marin and Santa Cruz Counties went to Reagan.

Thanks. However, while i agree that la county has a dem tradition, i would not characterize the sf valley as liberal historically and i would doubt that it has voted the same way as folks in the basin in the past. Also keep in mind that until the 60s, the dem party had historically been the party of slavery and segregation in america, even after the new deal. Voting for fdr and truman wasnt a vote for liberalism for many folks... it was just tradition and spite as many southerners swore off the gop for 100 years after the civil war. As for the 1980 election, im not sure how picking a landslide election where reagan crushed carter is really the best example of marin or sc voting patterns? Typically the dems win those counties by 70-30 margins.

[Count David]

I don't prefer either or. I like parts of them both. I dislike parts of them both.

[BayAreaHillbilly]

Yeah! The Bay Area has done a great job shooing away all those inconvenient middle income people who don't have Ivy paper! Especially the local yokels. Most especially, danged HILLBILLIES! Much better than LA.

But I hear LA is working on it.


In any case: YEAH!!!! We're a WINNER! / sarc

[Tulemutt]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

I don't prefer either or. I like parts of them both. I dislike parts of them both.

Are you splitting the vote in your household as well? One for The Donald. One for The Bern?

C'mon David! Let's hear some passionate committment! Good vs evil! Light vs dark! Keep the thread alive and vibrant!