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.
This is very true. I guess I do consider Bakersfield to be part of Southern California and it really isn't that far away.
I went to the Los Angeles Medical Center this weekend for a clinic and there were people from Bakersfield there, and occasionally my wife has to go to benefit courts in Bakersfield for her job. So Los Angeles is the regional center for Bakersfield for sure.
I've always thought the northern border of San Luis Obispo-Kern-San Bernadino county lines made a good division between Northern California and Southern California. Though Fresno is sort of a DMZ in central California and the Owens Valley sort of an annex or colony of Southern California. Bakersfield always has felt more tied to Southern California than anywhere north and it's just a short distance from the Grapevine where you driveover the mountains right into the LA metro and the heart of SoCal.
Born in the Bay Area, moved to Los Angeles to attend college and stayed there for 20+ years and now back "home" in the Bay Area.
My comments:
Cities - SF is a real city
Better quality of life - The Bay Area has a much better employment market and the average salaries are higher, so the quality of life from this regard is better. But, I think LA has more things to do from a recreational aspect.
Lower cost of living - LA, for sure. The housing in LA is a bargain compared to the Bay Area.
Beaches - LA, for sure.
traffic/Public Trans - The traffic in LA is heavier for greater periods than your standard "rush hour" traffic jams. LA traffic can be bad 24/7, while Bay Area traffic is generally congested during rush hour periods. The Bay Area has better public transportation and is less "spread out" than LA is, so public transportation is more efficient and effective in the Bay Area.
Which has more Diversity? - Both are diverse. LA is more Hispanic in culture, while the Bay Area is more European and Asian in culture.
What's a real city, exactly? When I was in Tokyo, I was reminded of L.A. a lot. Tokyo and L.A. are basically lots of disparate dispersed villages sewn together by urban continuity. They both are also multi-core instead of just one centralized city core a la Manhattan. The main difference is that Tokyo's public transportation is far superior (both to L.A. and SF). L.A. has a lot of momentum with its public transportation and keeps getting better. L.A. also has a lot of walkable urban neighborhoods/municipalities that are either now, or will be, accessible by Metro. You don't need a car in L.A. to go from Downtown to Hollywood to Koreatown to Silverlake to Pasadena to Culver City to Long Beach to Disneyland (one bus, the 460, takes you straight to Disneyland)...soon enough to Santa Monica. All those places I mentioned are very walkable and/or bike friendly. So what makes L.A., not a real city?
Also, the greater L.A. area while having a large Latino populace is not necessarily more Hispanic culturally..., if anything it is much more fused, and the Asian population in L.A. is very important component of the culture down here. When my cousins from Mexico come, we spend the time eating Korean food, boba, visiting Little Saigon, the San Gabriel Valley, Thai town, Little Tokyo. Come on...even in food, L.A. is epitomized by the Korean Taco. The biggest foreign investors in Los Angeles right now are East Asians, particularly mainland Chinese, Koreans as well as some Japanese. You must not spend much time/know much about L.A. to say it is much more of a Hispanic culture. Have you ever been to Miami, San Diego, San Antonio, Santa Fe? Don't get me wrong, Mexican and Central American/Latino culture is a vital part of L.A. but not in the way it is in those other cities.
I do think you're right that San Francisco has more European influence due to both past migrations and how it currently attracts European talent.
What's a real city, exactly? When I was in Tokyo, I was reminded of L.A. a lot. Tokyo and L.A. are basically lots of disparate dispersed villages sewn together by urban continuity. They both are also multi-core instead of just one centralized city core a la Manhattan. The main difference is that Tokyo's public transportation is far superior (both to L.A. and SF). L.A. has a lot of momentum with its public transportation and keeps getting better. L.A. also has a lot of walkable urban neighborhoods/municipalities that are either now, or will be, accessible by Metro. You don't need a car in L.A. to go from Downtown to Hollywood to Koreatown to Silverlake to Pasadena to Culver City to Long Beach to Disneyland (one bus, the 460, takes you straight to Disneyland)...soon enough to Santa Monica. All those places I mentioned are very walkable and/or bike friendly. So what makes L.A., not a real city?
Also, the greater L.A. area while having a large Latino populace is not necessarily more Hispanic culturally..., if anything it is much more fused, and the Asian population in L.A. is very important component of the culture down here. When my cousins from Mexico come, we spend the time eating Korean food, boba, visiting Little Saigon, the San Gabriel Valley, Thai town, Little Tokyo. Come on...even in food, L.A. is epitomized by the Korean Taco. The biggest foreign investors in Los Angeles right now are East Asians, particularly mainland Chinese, Koreans as well as some Japanese. You must not spend much time/know much about L.A. to say it is much more of a Hispanic culture. Have you ever been to Miami, San Diego, San Antonio, Santa Fe? Don't get me wrong, Mexican and Central American/Latino culture is a vital part of L.A. but not in the way it is in those other cities.
I do think you're right that San Francisco has more European influence due to both past migrations and how it currently attracts European talent.
Well I guess you're entitled to your emotions, I never thought of LA when I visited Tokyo, it's dense, crowded, and reminded me of an Asian New York. Los Angeles has a suburban vibe, not a metropolis vibe. That's evident by the fact that it's suburbs are just 20% less dense than it's financial center/downtown. That's astounding. The L.A. basin is de-centralized, the Bay Area has three clear centralization areas (four if you count Downtown Berkeley), and the density is totally different from its suburbs to its city. Which is exactly what a city is like.
L.A. transportation is good, but only a measly 6 percent commute with it. Pretty strange for a city that investment in two different methods of rail transportation, heavy and light. Most of that ridership are buses anyways, 78% of public transit riders.
I know L.A. hates being called a giant suburb but that's really what it is, it's not a bad thing and it makes L.A. very unique, but it's not a metropolis in a bustling towers, vibrant core, speedy public transit sense. Los Angeles should be proud of that in many regards.
As for the Latino thing, yeah I think anyone who points that out as a detractor for LA is being ridiculous. The Latinos are a very diverse ethnicity, who can be of different races anyways. It's the closest mega-city to the border, it makes sense that there's a strong influence of that culture.
Well I guess you're entitled to your emotions, I never thought of LA when I visited Tokyo, it's dense, crowded, and reminded me of an Asian New York. Los Angeles has a suburban vibe, not a metropolis vibe. That's evident by the fact that it's suburbs are just 20% less dense than it's financial center/downtown. That's astounding.
Where did you get this statistic? And do you mean 20 percent less dense in terms of population density? Because that does not sound accurate all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by GalacticDragonfly
The L.A. basin is de-centralized, the Bay Area has three clear centralization areas (four if you count Downtown Berkeley), and the density is totally different from its suburbs to its city. Which is exactly what a city is like.
Hmm the bolded sounds just like Los Angeles with its clearly centralized business districts - Pasadena, DTLA, Santa Monica, Century City, Glendale, Long Beach etc. The urban fabric of the Bay Area and Southern California are nearly identical (especially those areas outside of San Francisco / Central LA) so to hear someone from the Bay Area speak of Southern California in this manner is pretty laughable. In fact (and I said this earlier in the thread) as a whole, I find Southern California to be a more urban place overall - where the Bay Area has LA beat is with San Francisco, which is more of an urban place than DTLA and environs are today.
BTW Los Angeles' transit share is 14%, not sure where you are getting any of these numbers.
I am a nor cal native and very proud of nor cal. I support all of the local pro teams and I could never see me living anywhere else. With that said, comparing us with so cal which has san diego makes it very hard to pick nor cal. San Diego is a very underrated but WONDERFUL city. Without San Diego, so cal would be a crap hole.
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.
