Why do some people say that SF is provincial? (Los Angeles: credit, home)

[gone down south]

People aren't using the word 'provincial' in the sense of being a small town with little to offer, but in terms of how locals often have a highly exaggerated sense of just how unique and wonderful the area is.

SF tends to attract a lot of young people who haven't necessarily experienced a lot of the world - either driven tech/finance/legal types who come here straight after graduating, or counterculture types who don't quite fit in wherever they come from. The Bay Area is really a self-contained island of near perfection for either of those two groups, so they tend to forget that, say, you can get good food somewhere else.

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by tstieber

It's true that we aren't close to other major metro areas (although I believe LA is actually 375 mi from SF and 330 mi from Silicon Valley, and certainly an easy six-hour drive), but is that the main factor? Is DC cosmopolitan because it's less than an hour to Baltimore? I wouldn't think that makes much of an impact. DC is cosmopolitan because it's one of the world's (arguably THE world's) biggest political hub, and NYC is cosmopolitan in its own right too. I think metro areas needn't necessarily be near each other to make them worldly. SF is, in fact, a very cospomolitan place, and to call it provinical is strange when you consider the major international cultural influences and residents who call it home. We are a major melting pot and a major gateway to Asia. But there are certain people with provincial attitudes, like anywhere.

I don't think thats what's meant by provencial. I think people use that word (as well as the idiotic Balkanized) because they don't know another word to use. Also, being isolated doesn't mean a metro won't be cosmopolitan. I'm not sure what happened while you were reading to make you say that as I said no such thing in my post. Also I used 400 as a ballpark figure. Either way nit-picking aside it's still the second most isolated metro. This doesn't mean the things you said. What it means is that there are certain idiosycracies the bay area evolved decades ago before people were so interconnected that still persist today. Despite all the transplants, the bay area still has a very large number of natives.

[04kL4nD]

Originally Posted by gone down south

People aren't using the word 'provincial' in the sense of being a small town with little to offer, but in terms of how locals often have a highly exaggerated sense of just how unique and wonderful the area is.

THIS!

SF is obviously a global city, but people in SF can sometimes act like it's the greatest place in the universe. It's not.

SF is a wonderful city with lots to offer, but a small, vocal minority of people can really leave a sour taste in your mouth if you strike up a conversation with them and they find out that :gasp: you don't live in the city proper.

[peninsular]

I believe the answer to the original question has to do with the fact that there is no objective measure of provincialism. Just about any place in the world may be put in a context where their residents will appear unsophisticated, narrow-minded or having a blind spot to something very apparent to the rest of the world. Yes, San Francisco and the Bay Area are in a bit of a bubble, a self-contained microcosm if you will, which can be partially explained by geography, cost of living and other factors. Does that make it provincial? In my opinion, not really, but I see how this point can be made in some context.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

The isolation factor is it. Only the Seattle area is more isolated. Think about it; the nearest major metro is LA, 400 miles south. To the east it's Salt Lake City and north is Seattle. Sacramento isn't a major metro. Along the east coast you basically have a megapolis from DC to Boston. The Midwestern metros generally aren't very far apart.

I wouldn't really call SF the 2nd most isolated metro. (or Seattle a definitive 1st, because even that's pretty close to Vancouver BC.) Pretty much any metro west of Chicago is going to be at least ~300 miles from each other. SF, LA, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and Denver -- none of these are exactly a hop, skip & jump from each other.

[04kL4nD]

ABQ, SLC, and Denver are the only ones on that list that are really isolated.

Seattle is like 2.5 hours from Portland and not that far from Vancouver

LA is near SD, etc

[Gentoo]

Originally Posted by Radical347

I wouldn't really call SF the 2nd most isolated metro. (or Seattle a definitive 1st, because even that's pretty close to Vancouver BC.) Pretty much any metro west of Chicago is going to be at least ~300 miles from each other. SF, LA, Salt Lake City, Portland, Seattle, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and Denver -- none of these are exactly a hop, skip & jump from each other.

I mentioned major metros and was speaking about US ones. Some of the ones you listed are not really major metros but I digress.

[Radical347]

Originally Posted by Gentoo

I mentioned major metros and was speaking about US ones. Some of the ones you listed are not really major metros but I digress.

Ok, then we'll leave out Vancouver. But the Salt Lake City metro, which you mentioned in the previous post, is smaller than the rest on the list except ABQ, so which ones do you consider "major" metros? (And if we take out ABQ, then Phoenix & Denver become more isolated too.)

[mayorhaggar]

Originally Posted by tstieber

It's true that we aren't close to other major metro areas (although I believe LA is actually 375 mi from SF and 330 mi from Silicon Valley, and certainly an easy six-hour drive), but is that the main factor? Is DC cosmopolitan because it's less than an hour to Baltimore? I wouldn't think that makes much of an impact. DC is cosmopolitan because it's one of the world's (arguably THE world's) biggest political hub, and NYC is cosmopolitan in its own right too. I think metro areas needn't necessarily be near each other to make them worldly. SF is, in fact, a very cospomolitan place, and to call it provinical is strange when you consider the major international cultural influences and residents who call it home. We are a major melting pot and a major gateway to Asia. But there are certain people with provincial attitudes, like anywhere.

When you're in the South or the Midwest or the Northeast, there's just this sense that you're in a big conglomeration of people that stretches over a really long distance. The West is just empty by comparison, which is largely its charm. The Bay Area just doesn't feel connected to anything south of Santa Cruz or east of Sacramento or north of, I dunno, Santa Rosa, it's very self-contained in a way that you don't really realize until it sneaks up on you and then you take it for granted. In the Eastern US you're a 2 hour flight from pretty much anywhere, and you can drive a few hours and still be in the same megalopolis. To get that from the West Coast you really need to make an effort. It's a subtle distinction and maybe doesn't seem that relevant, but it's there and I think it's always in the background coloring life in urban California compared with life in the eastern 1/3rd of the US.

If anything it's remarkable that SF and the Bay Area aren't more provincial and localist than they are. But those aspects are still there lurking around.

[Bunjee]

It's true the Bay Area tends to have exaggerated local pride. That's not a bad thing. It exists everywhere. But there is a bigger tendency to vocalize pride without real awareness. Yes, actually City X you're talking about does have great ___. No, City Y is indeed pretty well reknowned for ___. It's preening fueled blissfully by half-knowledge, the soul of provincialism, and it comes off as naive. However, the youthful enthusiasm is the Bay Area's draw; it can just be a huge drawback too.