San Francisco Bay Area vs. Greater Los Angeles (living, better, comparison)
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.
No, you tell me how it stacks up to downtown SF as an urban destination?
That's why if it werent for Staples, the only people that would go there are wholesale shoppers--the places feels largely seedy and all the amenities that should be there are all scattered around the westside, like shopping, like entertainment venues for regular people, not just noseringed tatooed people.
DTSF is beseiged by visitors from the surrounding areas and from out of town 12 months of the year by comparison.
Location: As of 2022….back to SoCal. OC this time!
9,297 posts, read 4,573,025 times
Reputation: 7613
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair
No, you tell me how it stacks up to downtown SF as an urban destination?
Thanks for asking but why even ask?
Because I don't agree LA is "unacceptable"......it's a silly thing to say without saying why IMO. I already said I like LA & Sf.........I would happily live in either one.
That's not the argument I was making. Maybe calm down and try to read and comprehend my posts a little better. Lets try this again. The vast majority of LA's suburbs are nothing special. Got that? The one's that are are mainly along the coast and they can definitely be included in the better, more unique parts of LA to explore. Still with with me? And those away from the coast compromise a very large portion of the LA metro. Therefore a lot of what you brag about being worth exploring (Sherman Oaks, Burbank, etc..) are really nothing special or unique.
Never suggested Pasadena wasn't a nice city, where on earth do you get this crap? And it's a suburb you can find in a lot of other places with the exact same stores and types of restaurants. Nice yes, unique NO.
I agree the vast majority of US suburbs are nothing special especially outside of the Northeast. LA has several, many on the coast that are somewhat notable though among the most notable are ones that do not have a coastline such as Pasadena which, as far as suburbs go, is fairly notable within the US. I’m not so familiar with Sherman Oaks, but Burbank is also notable due to it being a hotbed for media production in the US and has a decent downtown area and neighborhoods. Culver City is also another popular city with roots in the early days of US cinema. West Hollywood is a popular for nightlife and entertainment. Beverly Hills in its flatlands is a major high-end shopping area. East LA is one of the most well-known areas when it comes to Chicano culture. Some of these are relatively well known as far as US suburbs go.
In the context of a SF Bay Area comparison, it’s important to remember that LA is about an order of magnitude larger in land area than San Francisco is. While downtown LA is certainly not on par overall with downtown San Francisco, there are a lot of areas within LA’s boundaries that are quite a distance from downtown, but still within the city and notable in some respect such as Westwood, Sawtelle, and Fairfax.
Now, are there many suburbs that are very unremarkable? Sure. However, in a comparison with the Bay Area, I’d argue that there are more interesting spots.
Last edited by OyCrumbler; 03-02-2020 at 04:45 PM..
No, you tell me how it stacks up to downtown SF as an urban destination?
That's why if it werent for Staples, the only people that would go there are wholesale shoppers--the places feels largely seedy and all the amenities that should be there are all scattered around the westside, like shopping, like entertainment venues for regular people, not just noseringed tatooed people.
DTSF is beseiged by visitors from the surrounding areas and from out of town 12 months of the year by comparison.
Thanks for asking but why even ask?
I'm not going to say that DTLA equates to DTSF. However, it's seeing a ton of development. It's already established itself as a dining and nightlife hotspot for LA and the entire west coast. It several subway stations. Companies that left DTLA a long time ago are not returning to office buildings in DTLA and more are moving in that were never there before. Lots of new apartments and condos all over. Lots of new shopping coming to the area. DTLA is not just Staples. There are tons of businesspeople going to work in the many office towers of DTLA. There are over 80k people now living in DTLA.
LA was always a region of multiple cities and its attractions were always spread throughout the region. SF has its tourism, shopping, businesses, and hotels mostly clustered right in the area in which you showed photos of. LA's major shopping destinations are largely outside of LA, somewhat in Hollywood, definitely Beverly Hills, Century City, Santa Monica, etc. Its entertainment industry is what it's known for, and that needed large studio plots, so that's why Hollywood, Burbank, and Culver City developed as destinations away from DTLA.
I'm giving you actual answers here, yet you seem to really know nothing about DTLA if you think it's all people going to Staples, poor people shopping in Santee Alley, and hipsters. It's far more than that. There's a reason The Bloc was redeveloped. There's a reason the LGBT community is large and growing. There's a reason new hotels are going up there. There's a reason that people are traveling from all parts of LA to experience the nightlife there. Yet still, on top of all of that, LA has tons of other neighborhoods with a lot going on too. Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Century City, Culver City, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach, etc. are all other places with a lot of businesses. Many of those are tourist hotspots as well. I actually prefer that LA's tourism hotspots are away from DTLA. Dealing with tourist season in FiDi in SF always sucks. The same way New Yorkers constantly avoid certain parts of Manhattan because they're overrun with tourists. DTLA is an actual neighborhood that locals love and frequent that hasn't been developed into a tourist mecca and taken away its identity to turn it into some urban shopping destination for the rich. It's still full of local bars and restaurants, artists, immigrant communities, etc.
I agree the vast majority of US suburbs are nothing special especially outside of the Northeast. LA has several, many on the coast that are somewhat notable though among the most notable are ones that do not have a coastline such as Pasadena which, as far as suburbs go, is fairly notable within the US. I’m not so familiar with Sherman Oaks, but Burbank is also notable due to it being a hotbed for media production in the US and has a decent downtown area and neighborhoods. Culver City is also another popular city with roots in the early days of US cinema. West Hollywood is a popular for nightlife and entertainment. Beverly Hills in its flatlands is a major high-end shopping area. East LA is one of the most well-known areas when it comes to Chicano culture. Some of these are relatively well known as far as US suburbs go.
In the context of a SF Bay Area comparison, it’s important to remember that LA is about an order of magnitude larger in land area than San Francisco is. While downtown LA is certainly not on par overall with downtown San Francisco, there are a lot of areas within LA’s boundaries that are quite a distance from downtown, but still within the city and notable in some respect such as Westwood, Sawtelle, and Fairfax.
Now, are there many suburbs that are very unremarkable? Sure. However, in a comparison with the Bay Area, I’d argue that there are more interesting spots.
What does them being "notable" have to do with them be unique or interesting to visit? I suppose movie and tv studios are worth visiting for some people but it certainly isn't the downtown or built environment there that's unique. Pasadena is notable for a parade one day a year. Their downtown's or neighborhoods are nothing special. I personally don't think of WeHo or BH as suburbs as they kind of lie inside or closely border LA's urban core.
I've made it pretty clear LA is much larger and there is more to see and do as there should be and one would expect. But a lot of what the other poster was bragging about were mostly unremarkable.
I'm not going to say that DTLA equates to DTSF. However, it's seeing a ton of development. It's already established itself as a dining and nightlife hotspot for LA and the entire west coast. It several subway stations. Companies that left DTLA a long time ago are not returning to office buildings in DTLA and more are moving in that were never there before. Lots of new apartments and condos all over. Lots of new shopping coming to the area. DTLA is not just Staples. There are tons of businesspeople going to work in the many office towers of DTLA. There are over 80k people now living in DTLA.
LA was always a region of multiple cities and its attractions were always spread throughout the region. SF has its tourism, shopping, businesses, and hotels mostly clustered right in the area in which you showed photos of. LA's major shopping destinations are largely outside of LA, somewhat in Hollywood, definitely Beverly Hills, Century City, Santa Monica, etc. Its entertainment industry is what it's known for, and that needed large studio plots, so that's why Hollywood, Burbank, and Culver City developed as destinations away from DTLA.
I'm giving you actual answers here, yet you seem to really know nothing about DTLA if you think it's all people going to Staples, poor people shopping in Santee Alley, and hipsters. It's far more than that. There's a reason The Bloc was redeveloped. There's a reason the LGBT community is large and growing. There's a reason new hotels are going up there. There's a reason that people are traveling from all parts of LA to experience the nightlife there. Yet still, on top of all of that, LA has tons of other neighborhoods with a lot going on too. Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Westwood, Century City, Culver City, Santa Monica, Sherman Oaks, Burbank, Glendale, Long Beach, etc. are all other places with a lot of businesses. Many of those are tourist hotspots as well. I actually prefer that LA's tourism hotspots are away from DTLA. Dealing with tourist season in FiDi in SF always sucks. The same way New Yorkers constantly avoid certain parts of Manhattan because they're overrun with tourists. DTLA is an actual neighborhood that locals love and frequent that hasn't been developed into a tourist mecca and taken away its identity to turn it into some urban shopping destination for the rich. It's still full of local bars and restaurants, artists, immigrant communities, etc.
The past decade was one of radical change for downtown LA and this decade will be another one and likely one that really resets people’s views. There’s so much infrastructure being built right now and the 2028 Olympics and the publicity from such will see people realize just how much more urban and lively downtown has become.
Which one do you prefer? Both these areas, while they are both in California, are also both relatively large metropolitan areas that could be compared.
Any criteria could count.
However, I hear all the time that San Francisco Bay is generally more urban than Greater Los Angeles, but I actually find that to not be true. The LA area has more large areas like Hollywood, Koreatown, Downtown LA that are extremely walkable and cover a much larger area than even San Francisco. Not to mention in terms of things to do, I honestly feel like Los Angeles has San Francisco Bay beat. Even the LA rail network is expanding much more than BART/SF Muni is, and feels like in the future that LA really will rival NYC.
In terms of ethnic diversity, I don't even see how this is even close. Los Angeles has less integrated areas than San Francisco Bay, but the sheer amount of different ethnic enclaves and neighborhoods that can be found in LA can't be found in San Francisco Bay. There are areas like Little Armenia, Little Ethiopia, Thai Town, Pico-Union (little El Salvador), Koreatown, Little India (Artesia), etc. that can be found in LA. Hell, LA even has an area full of Russian people (West Hollywood). Even the demographic that SF Bay is known for (Asian people) is much more plentiful in LA and is growing faster in LA.
Economically, SF Bay seems to be a one trick pony while LA is much more well rounded. Without tech, SF Bay would barely be anything. If all of a sudden tech picks up and leaves SF Bay, it could literally be the Western version of Detroit. While LA is still recovering from manufacturing and aerospace leaving, LA area (inclusive of OC and Ventura Counties) is beginning to develop a tech sector of its own while still having things in manufacturing and the large port system.
In terms of things to do, LA blows SF out of the water. It isn't even close. At all. I honestly believe anything you could do in SF you could do in LA, except maybe ride an SF trolley car. The reverse is not true at all.
I'm an East Coast transplant to the West Coast and recently moved to LA over SF because I found LA to be like the center of gravity. Just the environment of LA feels like a major world city, while SF I felt was more American oriented and a bit insular not to mention extremely small. I hear people all the time compare SF to NYC, but it honestly is closer to a Boston in my opinion. LA isn't NYC, but in terms of how large and cosmopolitan it feels, LA is closer to NYC than SF by a mile. That's why movers and shakers move to LA.
I always felt comfortable in San Francisco. There are almost no chain stores, you can get around without a car. The Cantonese society lends to eating out or carrying home. Friendly people and mom and pop stores were great.Some of the best days I had were "clean air days". If pollution reached a certain level all public transit was free. My wife and I would ride Busses, Trollies, Ferries andTrains all day long. It was our opportunity for urban exploring
What does them being "notable" have to do with them be unique or interesting to visit? I suppose movie and tv studios are worth visiting for some people but it certainly isn't the downtown or built environment there that's unique. Pasadena is notable for a parade one day a year. Their downtown's or neighborhoods are nothing special. I personally don't think of WeHo or BH as suburbs as they kind of lie inside or closely border LA's urban core.
I've made it pretty clear LA is much larger and there is more to see and do as there should be and one would expect. But a lot of what the other poster was bragging about were mostly unremarkable.
Well, do you want individual details or an itinerary? I can give you a few pointers, but let me know if there are specific interests for you.
Pasadena is notable for more than just its parade. It has a top art school, a top tech school that usually has great lecture series open to the public, and a large community college that’s often served as a springboard to top schools, so there’s a large student population that helps make it lively and keeps shops busy. That and the fairly well-heeled communities in the area keeps a lot of retail and entertainment going especially in Old Town Pasadena. There’s also the Norton Simon Museum and Pacific Asia Art Museum which both feature great collections with rotating exhibits and Huntington Library and Garden close by. The Pasadena Playhouse is a fairly well-known small theatre company and performs in Pasadena. There are also a lot of historic houses and estates to visit.
Burbank is less exciting as a downtown area though it’s trying, but it’s sometimes fun to tour production studios or to be part of a taping. Catching a performance at Starlight Bowl is a lot of fun. Burbank Arts Festival in downtown can be pretty notable as a lot of animators have their own work that seldom makes it to popular media. There’s also antiquing and odd shops in Magnolia Park.
The thing with WeHo and Beverly Hills is that they’re pretty far out from downtown LA in the context of the size of San Francisco and how few cities and municipalities in the Bay Area really feel like they have much of a local center or character to me. WeHo and Beverly Hills are both pretty distinct as are multiple places previously mentioned, but their distance from downtown sort of make themselves their own centers. This makes sense given how much downtown LA often gets ding’d for not being as strongly a center for the greater region, which I agree it is not, but also means that places that are several miles or more out from downtown LA have their own pull.
Well, do you want individual details or an itinerary? I can give you a few pointers, but let me know if there are specific interests for you.
Pasadena is notable for more than just its parade. It has a top art school, a top tech school that usually has great lecture series open to the public, and a large community college that’s often served as a springboard to top schools, so there’s a large student population that helps make it lively and keeps shops busy. That and the fairly well-heeled communities in the area keeps a lot of retail and entertainment going especially in Old Town Pasadena. There’s also the Norton Simon Museum and Pacific Asia Art Museum which both feature great collections with rotating exhibits and Huntington Library and Garden close by. The Pasadena Playhouse is a fairly well-known small theatre company and performs in Pasadena. There are also a lot of historic houses and estates to visit.
Burbank is less exciting as a downtown area though it’s trying, but it’s sometimes fun to tour production studios or to be part of a taping. Catching a performance at Starlight Bowl is a lot of fun. Burbank Arts Festival in downtown can be pretty notable as a lot of animators have their own work that seldom makes it to popular media. There’s also antiquing and odd shops in Magnolia Park.
The thing with WeHo and Beverly Hills is that they’re pretty far out from downtown LA in the context of the size of San Francisco and how few cities and municipalities in the Bay Area really feel like they have much of a local center or character to me. WeHo and Beverly Hills are both pretty distinct as are multiple places previously mentioned, but their distance from downtown sort of make themselves their own centers. This makes sense given how much downtown LA often gets ding’d for not being as strongly a center for the greater region, which I agree it is not, but also means that places that are several miles or more out from downtown LA have their own pull.
How is that any different than places like Palo Alto? You think Pasadena is the only suburb with museums and theater? Most large metros will have some version of Pasadena.
Lots of suburbs have art festivals... Seems like every other suburb here has a yearly "Art and Wine Festival". That's not "notable" at all imo. Stick with the beaches if you want something unique....
Well given the spread out nature of LA I'm not really sure what is so "notable" about WeHo and BH being so far from downtown.
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.
