Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Greater LA or San Francisco Bay Area
Greater Los Angeles 105 44.30%
San Francisco Bay Area 132 55.70%
Voters: 237. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 08-05-2018, 04:58 PM
 
Location: La Jolla
4,185 posts, read 3,210,206 times
Reputation: 4096

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bubb Rubb View Post
I choose LA because I feel like its a pretty misunderstood place in a way that SF is not. It just seems more exotic to me than SF does
There's a reason tourists prefer SF to LA-because it's a small, one dimensional place. You can take a two day trip there and not really feel like you missed anything. There are native Angelenos who were born in the city and have lived there all their lives who still haven't unlocked the mysteries of Los Angeles. It's like comparing a 90 minute 80's action flick to sprawling, four hour sci fi opus.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 08-06-2018, 05:20 PM
 
Location: In the heights
36,881 posts, read 38,781,820 times
Reputation: 20894
Quote:
Originally Posted by TheseGoTo11 View Post
Tech isn't some niche industry. LA tech companies don't offer the same equity packages, and the selection of employers is more limited. LA is better if you're in the arts or entertainment. SF has way more high end jobs per capita.

Much of LA is also "hidden" if you don't know about it. I know people who've been to LA 30 times and never been to Silver Lake, K-town, Echo Park, or even Griffith Observatory. SF is more like a dense, eastern city where most people see or visit the Ferry Building, Golden Gate Bridge, Marina, etc.
I agree that LA doesn't have strong usual destinations for tourists to hit because a lot of things are scattered pretty far apart from each other while others simply aren't that fun or scenic. LA is more "hidden" than SF and the Bay Area as the city and metro is much, much larger. but I'll also say that there is a lot in SF and the Bay Area that is relatively hidden, have relatively few people going to them, and are fantastic. Even in the tiny city of SF itself, there are neighborhoods and institutions that see few tourists visiting, but are pretty interesting.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 05:22 PM
 
724 posts, read 551,199 times
Reputation: 1040
Quote:
Originally Posted by Losfrisco View Post
There's a reason tourists prefer SF to LA-because it's a small, one dimensional place. You can take a two day trip there and not really feel like you missed anything. There are native Angelenos who were born in the city and have lived there all their lives who still haven't unlocked the mysteries of Los Angeles. It's like comparing a 90 minute 80's action flick to sprawling, four hour sci fi opus.

I dunno if I'd describe SF as "one-dimensional" given that most people who visit not only visit SF, but also Oakland (which in the popular national consciousness is a completely different city with its own culture), Berkeley, Napa Valley, Redwoods, etc.

There's nothing like an LA on the East Coast since it is drier, has beaches and mountains, and a completely different kind of urban form that seems almost foreign to us. SF is a bit more familiar.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 06:39 PM
 
Location: Chicago
6,359 posts, read 8,753,138 times
Reputation: 5869
Quote:
Originally Posted by the resident09 View Post
Lol that's not the question of the OP or point of the poll.
I do know that,
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-06-2018, 07:58 PM
Status: ""...I wrote it down, now I follow thru..."" (set 8 days ago)
 
Location: North Raleigh x North Sacramento
5,740 posts, read 5,498,102 times
Reputation: 7010
LA and it's not even close...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2018, 10:15 AM
 
Location: Unplugged from the matrix
4,754 posts, read 2,922,529 times
Reputation: 5126
Quote:
Originally Posted by elchevere View Post
There was also a looking down at and/or hatred from SF people towards LA, which most Angelenos seemed unaware of and/or oblivious to.
Interesting because this is the first time I've seen someone have it this way. As a transplant, I've noticed the complete opposite. More people from the Bay would talk down on LA than the other way around. LA is like twice the size of the Bay Area in population and offers more amenities. LA is too big and does it's own thing similar to NYC. Probably the only two cities in the country that don't really have a "rival" unless it's each other.


Quote:
Originally Posted by OyCrumbler View Post
I agree that LA doesn't have strong usual destinations for tourists to hit because a lot of things are scattered pretty far apart from each other while others simply aren't that fun or scenic. LA is more "hidden" than SF and the Bay Area as the city and metro is much, much larger. but I'll also say that there is a lot in SF and the Bay Area that is relatively hidden, have relatively few people going to them, and are fantastic. Even in the tiny city of SF itself, there are neighborhoods and institutions that see few tourists visiting, but are pretty interesting.
There's a difference between having strong usual destinations and having destinations close to each other. It depends on what you want to do while in LA. There are people that come for the theme parks (5 major theme parks), the beach, and/or explore the city. LA has distinct tourist areas (theme parks, Hollywood, Santa Monica/Venice, the Hills) that are filled to the brim. I occasionally see tourist buses in other parts of the city like Koreatown, but not often.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-07-2018, 12:08 PM
 
636 posts, read 603,328 times
Reputation: 953
The bay is cool but just can't compare to LA.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 12:49 AM
 
Location: where the good looking people are
3,814 posts, read 3,972,837 times
Reputation: 3284
With SF, it is really only the NE quadrant that is interesting. The rest of the city is very dull.

Berkeley is okay, and Uptown Oakland. Other than that the bay is just bland suburbia with nothing going on.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 01:19 AM
 
Location: Land of the Free
6,542 posts, read 6,576,312 times
Reputation: 7353
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1 View Post
But isn't that every city? I know many people who visited DC dozens of times and never been to Anacostia, Frederick Douglas' house, Deanwood, Petworth, Hillcrest, Fort Dupont and many others. With NYC I know people who never set foot in Harlem and Brooklyn but visited NY many times.
To some extent, and you're right about DC. Used to drive me crazy how many tourists would hang around the Mall and White House and never walk just the few blocks to Logan Circle/14th St, Adams-Morgan, or even Kalorama.

But LA doesn't have the same centralized attractions being so spread out. So someone who's been to Santa Monica 10x the last 5 years has no idea what's going on downtown, isn't about to bump into the hiking trails in Runyon Canyon, nor the hippie brunch and clothing stores in Topanga. So if you neither do the research, nor go exploring, you don't just stumble onto places serendipitously like you do walking 5 minutes north of the White House.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 08-09-2018, 01:29 AM
 
Location: Land of the Free
6,542 posts, read 6,576,312 times
Reputation: 7353
So we live full-time in the East Bay, but I'm in LA a lot due to my wife having a ton of friends there, and my parents are looking to move there as a winter destination away from Boston. One thing we've noticed is in SF is that if you have a friend who moves from SF to Marin, or San Jose, or Walnut Creek, you still see them. People move around within the area but seem pre-conditioned to get out and about due to the South Bay jobs, North Bay wineries, East Bay urban centers in Oakland/Berkeley. But in LA, we've noticed "east siders" around Atwater Village, Los Feliz, etc do not feel motivated to drive out to see friends who move to the dreaded west side around Century City, Westwood, or God forbid, the Valley, unless maybe they're meeting for a beach day. My parents know that if they buy a nice place in some neighborhood near the 405, my wife and her late 20s/early 30s friends will not be insulted if they never get an invite.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top