San Francisco Bay Area vs. Greater Los Angeles (pros, living, state)
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.
Sporting venues are awful in SF. Even the NFL did not want to be there. Oakland sporting venues are even worse. Hope the A's can get put of the nasty east bay and move to Austin!
AT&T Park is the nicest ball park in the country(not to be confused with my favorite- Fenway and Wrigley are still the overall winners).
Considering SF has only two professional sports teams worth noting, that's kind of a ridiculous point to make.
I have a slightly off topic question but its been on my mind since our latest trip to S.F. Which of these two cities has a better plan for dealing with homelessness? Are they about the same or is something more innovative / effective being implemented in one of them?
Not sure there is anything innovative at least for the LA area. Last year 2017 - 2 ballot measures passed in the LA region.
Measure H - Is the large county wide (10 million resident county) .25% sales tax. Here is the link for more info. https://ballotpedia.org/Los_Angeles_..._H_(March_2017)
Other non direct but related is the defeat of LA City's Measure S which would have halted large construction of development and go under review by neighborhoods. Many of those supporting argued development was causing gentrification (and the effects of evictions, homelessness). Also ruins the character of neighborhoods (SFH neighborhood supported) and the traffic issues of higher density. Those opposed argued the need for more housing and development in limited supply.
Measure JJJ in LA passed which would tie new development requiring zoning changes and parking minimums and such to add some affordable housing to that project. Some units can be very low income (like those who are homeless but with income to afford), and low income (working class types).
Of course these measures are still very new and require many years to start seeing the effects. Often it takes years to plan, finance, design, review and then build any large building for homeless. There are people who will complain they passed it last year and expect tens of thousands of housing units to be built by now. SMH. I hope it reduces the homeless population, but with the housing crises and those on the cusp of losing their homes due to rising rents/evictions, you can house a 1000 a year but find 1000 new people to replace the house ones so you are back to square 1.
Has downtown LA even built any new towers that are solely office space? Seems like they all include condos/apartments and hotels. Given office rents are pretty low in DTLA I doubt it's even financially feasible to build a high rise that's just commercial office space. They both just built 1,000+ towers and of course LA's includes hotel rooms and condos. SF's is just commercial office space and is actually named after a company.
For all of DTLA's progress this is yet another excuse you come up with? Hotels, stores, restaurants, parks, companies relocating, residents, cultural amenities, nightlife, improved public transportation; its all growing. The people that are making it happen, know what they're doing.
For all of DTLA's progress this is yet another excuse you come up with? Hotels, stores, restaurants, parks, companies relocating, residents, cultural amenities, nightlife, improved public transportation; its all growing. The people that are making it happen, know what they're doing.
I've come to the conclusion from mere observation that it doesn't matter what it is, this guy will tear down any positive thing said about LA in favor of SF.
As if saying LA is working to improve is some kind of slight against SF; but what do I know, I'm just the guy that needed a safe space
For all of DTLA's progress this is yet another excuse you come up with? Hotels, stores, restaurants, parks, companies relocating, residents, cultural amenities, nightlife, improved public transportation; its all growing. The people that are making it happen, know what they're doing.
Excuse for what? YOU were the one that brought up how "quite a few companies have relocated to DTLA " and were doubting downtown SF was developing at a more rapid pace. So if that was the case then new office towers should be sprouting up no? That's one rather major and important thing you all seem to ignore when it comes to Downtown LA's development, office space/buildings, and apparently get all defensive when someone points it out.
Excuse for what? YOU were the one that brought up how "quite a few companies have relocated to DTLA " and were doubting downtown SF was developing at a more rapid pace. So if that was the case then new office towers should be sprouting up no? That's one rather major and important thing you all seem to ignore when it comes to Downtown LA's development, office space/buildings, and apparently get all defensive when someone points it out.
You asked for towers that were solely office use, and while the answer is no, that doesn’t mean that new office space isn’t being added. Space of all kinds, retail, office, and residential, are being added to downtown LA—it’s just that residential is being added into towers much more rapidly. That seems reasonable as it’s a housing crisis LA is facing, not an office space crisis.
You asked for towers that were solely office use, and while the answer is no, that doesn’t mean that new office space isn’t being added. Space of all kinds, retail, office, and residential, are being added to downtown LA—it’s just that residential is being added into towers much more rapidly. That seems reasonable as it’s a housing crisis LA is facing, not an office space crisis.
Clearly which is why I called into question how many employers are actually relocating there. If it was really that many you think there would be strong demand for office space.
Excuse for what? YOU were the one that brought up how "quite a few companies have relocated to DTLA " and were doubting downtown SF was developing at a more rapid pace. So if that was the case then new office towers should be sprouting up no? That's one rather major and important thing you all seem to ignore when it comes to Downtown LA's development, office space/buildings, and apparently get all defensive when someone points it out.
Why does it have to be new office towers? Are you kidding me? And again, no one is ignoring office space. The Wilshire Grand which opened 6 months ago has 677,000 square ft of class a office space. Yes it has a hotel, restaurants including a rooftop bar on the top floor but so what. What's the problem?
Why does it have to be new office towers? Are you kidding me? And again, no one is ignoring office space. The Wilshire Grand which opened 6 months ago has 677,000 square ft of class a office space. Yes it has a hotel, restaurants including a rooftop bar on the top floor but so what. What's the problem?
That would indicate strong demand for employment space. I never said it was a problem, I was simply pointing out how Downtown SF is building everything Downtown LA is and then some, aka office towers. For some reason that gets you and others rather defensive.
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.
