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.
Lmao funny you say. I find L.A. to be a larger sacramento when compared to the urban hustle and bustle of the Bay. L.A. is borderline country when compared to urban landscapes like SF. SF has real city folks while L.A. is suburban in spirit amd development.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspoon91
The Bay has everything L.A. has and more. L.A. isnt even a real city. Suburban folks with kids playing in the streets
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspoon91
I hear L.A. talk about this one way hearted but yet I only hear L.A. people mention that there'd a rivalry at all. L.A. people live to hate on the Bay because they know their large subutban landscape and hollywood isn't enough to compare them to a real City like the San Francisco Bay Area
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspoon91
Also Oakland feels much more urban than L.A.. it has the urban grit that L.A. lacks
Let's unpack all of this...
First of all, it is next to impossible to truthfully say Oakland is more urban than LA. The entire city of Oakland is 4-square miles larger than South Los Angeles, with less than half of the population of South Los Angeles. It's basically what South Los Angeles would look like if it were suburbanized. On that merit alone, its unbelievably laughable that one could say Oakland is more urban than LA...
LA is such a huge city, of course it has large suburban districts. But let's not pretend there are no suburban areas in the "real city" of the Bay Area lmao...
San Francisco is practically an island that is almost entirely built out. All things fair, I would agree SF is more urban than LA. But then all things fair, SF is what, 40-odd square miles? What would the core 40-odd square miles of LA look like in comparison? I'll go out on a limb and say SF conceivably would still have an edge in urbanity, though I doubt it's very dramatic...
What is it with the Bay Area inferiority complex on here? Its obsessive on this website...
First of all, it is next to impossible to truthfully say Oakland is more urban than LA. The entire city of Oakland is 4-square miles larger than South Los Angeles, with less than half of the population of South Los Angeles. It's basically what South Los Angeles would look like if it were suburbanized. On that merit alone, its unbelievably laughable that one could say Oakland is more urban than LA...
LA is such a huge city, of course it has large suburban districts. But let's not pretend there are no suburban areas in the "real city" of the Bay Area lmao...
San Francisco is practically an island that is almost entirely built out. All things fair, I would agree SF is more urban than LA. But then all things fair, SF is what, 40-odd square miles? What would the core 40-odd square miles of LA look like in comparison? I'll go out on a limb and say SF conceivably would still have an edge in urbanity, though I doubt it's very dramatic...
What is it with the Bay Area inferiority complex on here? Its obsessive on this website...
1st . Who said i live in the Bay Area? 2nd just because most people say SF Bay is better than L.A. on every magazine and poll doesnt mean its inferiority. The prerequisite for inferiority be that you're inferior? If anything I would go on a limb and say L.A. complaining about a non existent "one sided rivalry" is a sign of self knowing inferiority. I understand that most put S.F. ahead of L.A. in most things but real Bay Area folks and real L.A. folks dont care about this "rivalry". L.A. and SF both hold their own. P.s. if hollywood didnt try and sell L.A. so much i dont think they would get as much attention in the media. Silicon Valley dwarfs Hollywood but you don't see tech companies selling the Bay Area every chance they get
I’d say Oakland is more tight-knit for what that’s worth, but for most aspects of urbanity I’d give it to LA
Just because L.A. is bigger doesnt excuse it from having urban areas. Whos fault is it that it covers that much area? Take away numbers, Oakland is more urban than L.A.. Oakland doesnt really have any suburban areas whereas L.A. does. Even though there's pockets that are more urban than Oaklands densest pockets doesnt changr the fact that a lot of Los Angeles is way more sunurban than any part of Oakland
1st . Who said i live in the Bay Area? 2nd just because most people say SF Bay is better than L.A. on every magazine and poll doesnt mean its inferiority. The prerequisite for inferiority be that you're inferior? If anything I would go on a limb and say L.A. complaining about a non existent "one sided rivalry" is a sign of self knowing inferiority. I understand that most put S.F. ahead of L.A. in most things but real Bay Area folks and real L.A. folks dont care about this "rivalry". L.A. and SF both hold their own. P.s. if hollywood didnt try and sell L.A. so much i dont think they would get as much attention in the media. Silicon Valley dwarfs Hollywood but you don't see tech companies selling the Bay Area every chance they get
Quote:
Originally Posted by tspoon91
Just because L.A. is bigger doesnt excuse it from having urban areas. Whos fault is it that it covers that much area? Take away numbers, Oakland is more urban than L.A.. Oakland doesnt really have any suburban areas whereas L.A. does. Even though there's pockets that are more urban than Oaklands densest pockets doesnt changr the fact that a lot of Los Angeles is way more sunurban than any part of Oakland
Lol at Oakland having no suburban areas. The neighborhoods surrounding Piedmont Ave arent the most urban of neighborhoods in Oakland. Even if we accept your argument, explain how "there is no suburban areas in Oakland", and yet Oakland is still more suburban than South LA...
In real life you hear more if the "rivalry" coming from Northern Californians. Also in real life, there's far from a consensus that The Bay is better than LA...
Lol at Oakland having no suburban areas. The neighborhoods surrounding Piedmont Ave arent the most urban of neighborhoods in Oakland. Even if we accept your argument, explain how "there is no suburban areas in Oakland", and yet Oakland is still more suburban than South LA...
In real life you hear more if the "rivalry" coming from Northern Californians. Also in real life, there's far from a consensus that The Bay is better than LA...
Well look at any magazine or rankings of cities and the Bay is always ahead of L.A... And u cant use a part of a city compared to a whole city because west oakland is far more dense than south central.. At the end of the day L.A. has a higher pct of suburbs than oakland does
You say LA has a higher percentage of suburbs than Oakland. Please provide proof, firstly. Secondly, LA is MASSIVE in size compared to LA. Comparing a tiny footprint of dense housing to the second largest city in the country is laughable. DTLA, Koreatown, MacArthur Park, Silverlake, Los Feliz, Hollywood is very urban, and that's just a fraction of the urban core of LA.
If you think LA lacks grit, you've never been to DTLA, Koreatown, MacArthur Park, Silverlake, Los Feliz, Hollywood, or any of those neighboring areas. You've ESPECIALLY never been to the less-gentrified parts of LA like Huntington Park or even West Adams. Plenty of others you're clearly unaware of also. Tell me again how gritty the Montclair and similar neighborhoods that border Piedmont are.
You say Silicon Valley dwarfs Hollywood. It's framed as an insult to LA being Hollywood-centric and the Bay being tech-centric. While true, LA's economy is far more diversified. Why do you think basically all of the tech companies in the Bay have large offices in LA as well? LA has a stronger international trade economy as well, while the Bay has basically no filming/entertainment industry. IMO, I'd rather a city like LA with a diversified economy, rather than the Bay which is so tech-centric.
About the SoCal/NorCal or SF/LA rivalry. You don't live in either. You don't get to comment as you've had no real world experience. I have. I'm an LA native that lived in SF for 4 years. It was a constant hatred of LA by SF residents. None of my friends in LA hate SF. Many people in SF hate LA for absolutely no reason.
You also say LA isn't a real city, but it's full of suburbanites with kids playing in the streets. I dare you to let your children play on Wilshire/Western or in the middle of Santa Monica/Vermont. LA also has one of the best public transit systems in the county no matter what your subjective opinion is of LA.
You say LA has a higher percentage of suburbs than Oakland. Please provide proof, firstly. Secondly, LA is MASSIVE in size compared to LA. Comparing a tiny footprint of dense housing to the second largest city in the country is laughable. DTLA, Koreatown, MacArthur Park, Silverlake, Los Feliz, Hollywood is very urban, and that's just a fraction of the urban core of LA.
If you think LA lacks grit, you've never been to DTLA, Koreatown, MacArthur Park, Silverlake, Los Feliz, Hollywood, or any of those neighboring areas. You've ESPECIALLY never been to the less-gentrified parts of LA like Huntington Park or even West Adams. Plenty of others you're clearly unaware of also. Tell me again how gritty the Montclair and similar neighborhoods that border Piedmont are.
You say Silicon Valley dwarfs Hollywood. It's framed as an insult to LA being Hollywood-centric and the Bay being tech-centric. While true, LA's economy is far more diversified. Why do you think basically all of the tech companies in the Bay have large offices in LA as well? LA has a stronger international trade economy as well, while the Bay has basically no filming/entertainment industry. IMO, I'd rather a city like LA with a diversified economy, rather than the Bay which is so tech-centric.
About the SoCal/NorCal or SF/LA rivalry. You don't live in either. You don't get to comment as you've had no real world experience. I have. I'm an LA native that lived in SF for 4 years. It was a constant hatred of LA by SF residents. None of my friends in LA hate SF. Many people in SF hate LA for absolutely no reason.
You also say LA isn't a real city, but it's full of suburbanites with kids playing in the streets. I dare you to let your children play on Wilshire/Western or in the middle of Santa Monica/Vermont. LA also has one of the best public transit systems in the county no matter what your subjective opinion is of LA.
The diversification of the economy doesnt matter. The Bay has a comfortable bank account and is a better place to be by every ranking I've ever seen. And L.A. has the slowest public transportation system once I've seen for large metropolitan areas in America. I don't care for L.A. it was disappointing and flat out dead other than the beach. No hustle about the city other than movie stars. Make America Urban Again
The diversification of the economy doesnt matter. The Bay has a comfortable bank account and is a better place to be by every ranking I've ever seen. And L.A. has the slowest public transportation system once I've seen for large metropolitan areas in America. I don't care for L.A. it was disappointing and flat out dead other than the beach. No hustle about the city other than movie stars. Make America Urban Again
LA has the most densely populated urban area in the country so idk where you're getting this from. Just keeping an open mind, and trying to see places for all that they are instead of abiding by the stereotypes makes you enjoy a place much more.
The Bay area is awesome, but you can't really compare it to LA, LA county has more people than the entire Bay area with San Jose as well again not a fair comparison.
The Montclair area of Oakland is very suburban as well as the area by the zoo it's actually very Hollywood Hills like looking down on Oakland, and San Francisco.
Overall LA actually has slightly higher density than Oakland even though 20% of the city is practically undeveloped mountain sides, but Oakland has many warehouses giving it an almost rust belt like appeal. https://www.statista.com/statistics/...t-metro-areas/
If we discount the fact that LA is 10x larger than Oakland I would say they are practically even in Urban Landscape. LA does however have many places that far exceed the density of any place in Oakland.
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.
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.
