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.
Location: Midwesterner living in California (previously East Coast)
296 posts, read 437,980 times
Reputation: 598
Advertisements
On paper, LA should blow SF out of the water.
Nearly unmatched ethnic diversity with strong representation from 6 continents
Superb branding/name recognition worldwide
"agreeable" weather
multiple top notch universities (USC, Caltech, UCLA, Claremont Colleges)
Despite all of these strengths, something just feels off about LA.
The lack of mass transit. The lack of walkable, urban feeling areas was a factor. I got sick of being stuck in traffic driving everywhere.
I find SF to be geographically and architecturally more beautiful.
I also prefer SF climate. Not too cold, but barely hot enough to break a sweat.
San Francisco is not perfect, but it has more of the things that would make me happier in terms of city living.
It also doesn't hurt that SF is also fairly diverse (not on LA level, but still)
So you're talking about the Historic Core of DTLA, the most historically intact pre-ww 2 downtown in the country. No one has offered a answer to this for San Francisco, just vague referrals to its "core" without defining it. Are you saying the skyscrapers in San Francisco are pre-war? Otherwise they have the same hybrid of new and old structures.
Speaking of garbage, you can literally see INCHES of garbage piled up on benches in the central parks of San Francisco, right in what I would assume to be high rent areas. You won't see that in Griffith, Topanga, or Runyon Canyon Park (btw which are much more impressive parks than anything in the entire Bay Area, all in L.A. city limits).
"Classically urban"=copy east coast cities.
Los Angeles is a singularly unique urban environment, and has been for over 100 years. An ecotone of wilderness, high rises, and strikingly unique residential architecture.
The French Quarter in New Orleans is far more "historically intact" than anything in Downtown LA. Hell the Tenderloin is pound for pound more "historically intact" than the "Historic Core of DTLA". Even the most "historically intact" part of downtown LA has plenty of crappy postwar, post white flight scars.
While there aren't many but unlike LA, SF actually allowed prewar skyscrapers! No they don't have the same type of skyscrapers at all. You don't see stuff like this in downtown SF.
"Griffith, Topanga, or Runyon Canyon Parks" aren't "central parks" at all. They're large mostly wilderness parks off of suburban parts of LA. Hardly comparable! LA doesn't actually have any significant, large central urban park like Golden Gate Park, Central Park, or Balboa Park, etc.. at all. Maybe MacArthur Park qualifies but yeah lets talk about that clean gem of a park lol.
LA definitely is a "unique urban environment" but not in a good way for the most part lol.
I have nothing against San Francisco; I thought it was a beautiful city when I visited and think it's a really dynamic city, but in my nearly two years of living in LA, I still don't understand why people from SF take so much time to say (and type) stuff like this.
In my experience, you ask someone in LA what they think of SF and it's almost always positive reactions, but it's the opposite from what I've seen posted by people from SF.
Doesn't needlessly tearing down another city to make yours appear superior get tiring?
I provided a response to what I felt what a rather offbase/delusional critique/comparison. It's not like it came out of nowhere.
Yeah Angeleno's either like SF or are indifferent while San Franciscan's are mostly negative towards LA, whether its warranted or not. I get it.
LA has its strengths against SF but the urban core isn't one of them imo. LA can be superior in many ways to SF but urban form generally is not one of them, unless you have some weird fetish for that hybrid suburban/urban form LA possesses.
The French Quarter in New Orleans is far more "historically intact" than anything in Downtown LA. Hell the Tenderloin is pound for pound more "historically intact" than the "Historic Core of DTLA". Even the most "historically intact" part of downtown LA has plenty of crappy postwar, post white flight scars.
While there aren't many but unlike LA, SF actually allowed prewar skyscrapers! No they don't have the same type of skyscrapers at all. You don't see stuff like this in downtown SF.
"Griffith, Topanga, or Runyon Canyon Parks" aren't "central parks" at all. They're large mostly wilderness parks off of suburban parts of LA. Hardly comparable! LA doesn't actually have any significant, large central urban park like Golden Gate Park, Central Park, or Balboa Park, etc.. at all. Maybe MacArthur Park qualifies but yeah lets talk about that clean gem of a park lol.
LA definitely is a "unique urban environment" but not in a good way for the most part lol.
Griffith, Topanga and Runyon you mentioned? Griffith is an urban park with hiking and equestrian trails, a zoo, a merry go round, pony rides for kids, a golf course, the Greek Theater for year around concerts and an observatory.
I see you didn't mentioned the 32 acre Los Angeles State Historic Park.
Or Echo Park.
Or Vista Hermosa Park
Or Elysian Park.
And speaking of ugly buildings, San Francisco has quite a few of its own including this god awful crap.
I provided a response to what I felt what a rather offbase/delusional critique/comparison. It's not like it came out of nowhere.
Yeah Angeleno's either like SF or are indifferent while San Franciscan's are mostly negative towards LA, whether its warranted or not. I get it.
LA has its strengths against SF but the urban core isn't one of them imo. LA can be superior in many ways to SF but urban form generally is not one of them, unless you have some weird fetish for that hybrid suburban/urban form LA possesses.
Basically.
LA has it's strengths vs SF but as far as urban cores that people enjoy being in goes, San Francisco absolutely *destroys*crushes*kills* Los Angeles. It isnt even a question.
This is where these 2 cities are total opposites.
I don't even know why theyre disputing it? This is like me trying to argue that SF has as many freeways as LA. LOL
Griffith, Topanga and Runyon you mentioned? Griffith is an urban park with hiking and equestrian trails, a zoo, a merry go round, pony rides for kids, a golf course, the Greek Theater for year around concerts and an observatory.
I see you didn't mentioned the 32 acre Los Angeles State Historic Park.
Or Echo Park.
Or Vista Hermosa Park
Or Elysian Park.
And speaking of ugly buildings, San Francisco has quite a few of its own including this god awful crap.
LOL The 2nd pic actually looks like a planning blunder.
Nearly unmatched ethnic diversity with strong representation from 6 continents
Not really. The Bay Area has a higher percentage of foreign born residents from every region except Latin America.
Los Angeles CSA: 30.1% Foreign Born
Breakdown of Foreign Born Population:
56.8% From Latin America
35.1% From Asia
4.9% From Europe
1.6% From Africa
0.4% From Oceania
San Francisco Bay Area CSA: 30.0% Foreign Born
Breakdown of Foreign Born Population:
55.1% From Asia
31.7% From Latin America
8.4% From Europe
2.0% From Africa
1.2% From Oceania
Los Angeles CSA Racial Breakdown:
46.3% Hispanic
31.2% White
13.0% Asian
6.2% Black
2.3% Multiracial
0.2% Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander
0.2% Native American
0.2% Some Other Race
San Francisco Bay Area CSA Racial Breakdown:
39.6% White
25.6% Hispanic
23.7% Asian
5.6% Black
4.1% Multiracial
0.5% Native Hawaiian/ Pac. Islander
0.3% Some Other Race
0.2% Native American
Quote:
Superb branding/name recognition worldwide
I've lived on every continent except Antarctica and San Francisco is extremely well known everywhere.
Quote:
"agreeable" weather
The Bay Area has great weather.
Quote:
multiple top notch universities (USC, Caltech, UCLA, Claremont Colleges)
Stanford and Berkeley are in a league of their own on the West Coast.
Despite LA being the far larger metropolis, the Bay Area is the top west coast destination of the best and the brightest:
Ivy League Schools, Top 3 Alumni Concentrations
Harvard
1 Boston
2 New York
3 San Francisco
Yale
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Boston
Princeton
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Washington DC
Brown
1 New York
2 Boston
3 Providence
Columbia
1 New York
2 San Francisco
3 Washington DC
Penn
1 Philadelphia
2 New York
3 Washington DC
Dartmouth
1 Boston
2 New York
3 Washington DC
Cornell
1 New York
2 Ithaca
3 San Francisco
Related to that is data from this very interesting
article that is actually about LA, but reveals
extremely valuable insight on the geography of
where the alumni of our most prestigious schools
live. https://pando.com/2013/07/04/inside-...ent-conundrum/
Greater LA, it's not even close. Bay Area is too small to compare to a metro with 18.6 million people. In 100 years LA has gone from a metro with less than 1 million to 2nd largest population cluster in the US.
Compare Bay Area to mid sized niche metros. Boston, DC, Seattle. Sub 10 million metros with a specific industry guiding the region.
This is very fair. I maintain that the LA area would be hard to dispute vs. the Bay Area.
But, this is a comparison of city proper. The urbanality, saturation, neighborhoods, public transit, and views are simply better in SF. Those are my personal standards, and could very well understand if someones criteria were different. I mean, some people love Houston. Not to compare LA and Houston, but it shows the differing opinions on the desirable makeup of a city.
By the way, I saw someone mention that SF should be compared to cities of it's size. Another that said it's core is merely "classically urban" like the east coast cities. That doesn't make a lot of sense. The very definition of an urban city is pretty similar around the world. That said, am I the only one that sees some significant similarities between SF and Boston? There was a thread, SF vs. Boston, and I felt like people were talking in circles. The weather is the major difference, and the row houses/housing stock is quite different in most areas. But it feels like they are more sister cities than they are different in a lot of ways. Since moving back here, I can't help but see glimpses of SF everywhere I go.
Griffith, Topanga and Runyon you mentioned? Griffith is an urban park with hiking and equestrian trails, a zoo, a merry go round, pony rides for kids, a golf course, the Greek Theater for year around concerts and an observatory.
I see you didn't mentioned the 32 acre Los Angeles State Historic Park.
Or Echo Park.
Or Vista Hermosa Park
Or Elysian Park.
And speaking of ugly buildings, San Francisco has quite a few of its own including this god awful crap.
Sure if you consider Burbank and Glendale "urban" which I guess they kind of are but again in that weird dense suburban/urban hybrid model you see in LA. Much of it is mountainous as its part of the Santa Monica Mountains, that really ins't the same as something like Golden Gate Park, Central Park, Balboa Park, etc..
Yeah I didn't mention Los Angeles State Historic Park for good reason. It's a pretty new park bordered by ugly industrial buildings on one side.
The rest you listed, those are nice smaller neighborhood parks with the exception of Elysian Park, not really what I was talking about. The parking lot of Dodger Stadium probably comprises a third of the area of Elysian Park lol.
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.
