Eastern suburbs v. Western suburbs (Los Angeles, Pasadena: apartments, crime, home)

[Roark25]

Neither Ladera Heights nor Harlem are in the SFV. They aren't in the SGV, either, and so have no relevance whatsoever to this topic.

[cynsis]

Originally Posted by JeffSanDimas

Both urban ghettoes

How old are you?

[JeffSanDimas]

Originally Posted by cynsis

How old are you?

Senior at cal state, in my early 20s.

[Trae713]

Originally Posted by JeffSanDimas

Senior at cal state, in my early 20s.

Senior?

That is scary.

[Roark25]

Not sure where the moderators are, but I'm sure most of the board membership would appreciate it if the personal attacks/discussions between individual members are handled via the medium of private messaging.

Now, back to the actual topic at hand.

I think several members hit the nail on the head by mentioning that one big difference between the SFV and the SGV is that the SFV has that added aspect of "LA culture"—especially with the entertainment world. I've noticed that many of my friends/acquaintances in the SGV aren't familiar with many LA establishments, neighborhoods, or areas. My observation is that many tend to stay local, perhaps due to the fact that it is away from the "city" of LA. However, many people in the SFV (present company included) tend to spend a lot of time in LA and are more well-acquainted with various areas, stores, or restaurants in the city. It might be the fact that the SFV is a lot closer to LA than the SGV (with the exception of Pasadena - I guess I'm referring more to the eastern areas of Walnut, Rowland Heights, etc.) means that the SFV is a lot more connected to mainstream LA culture.

[cynsis]

Originally Posted by Trae713

Senior?

That is scary.

Nah it makes perfect sense. Kid has never experienced anything in life. He sounds extremely sheltered.

[ASensiblePerson]

Originally Posted by cynsis

Nah it makes perfect sense. Kid has never experienced anything in life. He sounds extremely sheltered.

On another post in another forum, he has just inquired about life in Alabama if he were to move there - so "the kid" obviously knows he's "sheltered" and wishes to continue being "sheltered" from...something or other.

[cynsis]

Originally Posted by ASensiblePerson

On another post in another forum, he has just inquired about life in Alabama if he were to move there - so "the kid" obviously knows he's "sheltered" and wishes to continue being "sheltered" from...something or other.

Err. I don't really understand this.

[ASensiblePerson]

Originally Posted by Roark25

I think several members hit the nail on the head by mentioning that one big difference between the SFV and the SGV is that the SFV has that added aspect of "LA culture"—especially with the entertainment world. I've noticed that many of my friends/acquaintances in the SGV aren't familiar with many LA establishments, neighborhoods, or areas. My observation is that many tend to stay local, perhaps due to the fact that it is away from the "city" of LA. However, many people in the SFV (present company included) tend to spend a lot of time in LA and are more well-acquainted with various areas, stores, or restaurants in the city. It might be the fact that the SFV is a lot closer to LA than the SGV (with the exception of Pasadena - I guess I'm referring more to the eastern areas of Walnut, Rowland Heights, etc.) means that the SFV is a lot more connected to mainstream LA culture.

I think for a long time, residents of the San Fernando Valley looked at LA "proper" with some insecurity. They moved here wanting to live Westside or in the Hills, but ended up in SFV instead - or moved to SFV after living in LA and running out of money. It was not their first choice. They considered it a downgrade. Now, LA "proper" is so pricey, it's not really considered a "downgrade" to move to SFV, and SFV is getting its own stores and bars and restaurants, so there is less need to become familiar with and hang out in LA as much.

One can make the comparison to Manhattan and the other four boroughs - some people in the boroughs grew up aspiring to live "in the city" (below 96th) for the longest; and people moving from other parts of the US only wanted to live in Manhattan. Now, the prices have made Brooklyn and Queens and upper Manhattan fine places to live.

With the San Gabriel Valley, I've never gotten the impression that many people cared too much about LA "proper" life and celebrity life. It's not their thing. They are suburban people who look for homes and schools in the suburbs. They're looking to shop at Target, department stores, Costco, and eat at Houston's (yum!) or The Cheesecake Factory on a weekend.

When they want to do something fancy or take guests somewhere, they travel to Pasadena. They also like the various inexpensive ethnic food choices in SGV, whether they represent their own ethnic background or not. They might have a work or family connection in LA and wish to live nearby for those reasons, but LA itself as a glamour capital holds no interest for many of them.

[Roark25]

I think you hit the nail on the head, ASensiblePerson! Very good and interesting points!

This makes perfect sense, since I haven't really gotten a glitzy or glamorous vibe from many shopping areas in the SGV. It's a lot more suburban, and I've noticed most of my friends from there are just fine with eating at chain restaurants or (usually) ethnic restaurants. This is different from the SFV, where I've noticed the "outdoor cafe" type of establishment has become a common sight in certain areas—especially in Encino, Woodland Hills, and Sherman Oaks.

I guess the main cultural difference is that connection/aspiration with the Westside that exists in the SFV. Add to this the fact that many celebrity types have been moving to the southern hills, and the connection becomes even stronger. SGV doesn't seem to have that connection.