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.
Yes, SF and the Bay Area has an inferiority complex when it comes to L.A. The Bay Area isn't even on the radar here in L.A. County; just San Diego, Tijuana, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, and for occasional weekend trips, New York. I'm not saying the L.A. perspective is good or bad, it just is what is.
I'd be very concerned to live in a place in which major American cultural hubs such as SF, Chicago, Boston, DC, New Orleans, Miami, Denver, Seattle, etc. aren't "on their radar". Not to mention international cities.
Sounds very provincial, like a lot of people grew in in SoCal, only know people from SoCal and rarely travel outside of SoCal.
I and most people I know in the SF Bay regularly travel between the coasts, Chicago, etc., which keeps their neighborhoods, culture, food, trends, etc. "on our radar".
People in LA tend to get stuck in the neighborhoods due to the 24/7 traffic patterns. I know friends that won't ever leave the West Side during the weekends, simply because it's too much of a pain to make it to DTLA, Silver Lake, etc.
LA is definitely more provincial than the Bay Area where people bounce around a lot more. There's much more of a variety of things to do here (wine country, the City, Marin Co, Tahoe, Monterey/Big Sur, etc), whereas LA has a greater concentration of the same things (theme parks, beaches, shopping malls, etc).
I know it bugs some people in LA, but it's just not on the level of SF these days. There's Hollywood and those who are in the biz, and everyone else. The tech scene is improving, but it's a joke compared to SV/SF.
Yes, SF and the Bay Area has an inferiority complex when it comes to L.A. The Bay Area isn't even on the radar here in L.A. County; just San Diego, Tijuana, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, and for occasional weekend trips, New York. I'm not saying the L.A. perspective is good or bad, it just is what is.
I do give the Bay Area props for fostering a more intellectual and "worldly" climate up there, as it is a nice change sometimes from L.A., in my opinion. In fact, it is one of the few places I can safely go in the U.S. and have an intelligent conversation with Joe Q. Smith in Peet's Coffee; honestly, try that in L.A. or San Diego... This is even reflected in local news broadcasts (i.e., NBC Bay Area, Channel 7, KRON 4), the relative lack of infotainment that passes for news, at least relative to most other markets in the U.S. and certainly L.A. (They're still no BBC, NHK, or DW.) However, sometimes some people really amplify or exemplify their intellectualism, or pseudo-intellectualism, to the point of obnoxiousness and lacking social graces.
Native middle- and older-aged Bay Areans, as well as Filipino immigrants, are generally likable people, while their younger generation (like most places in this country anymore) and tech migrants have more of a 'tude. Don't forget all the transplants that move there to work $50k/year non-profit jobs but think they are God's gift to man for doing "God's (or Buddha's, or Gandhi's, or Malcolm X's)" work. Yeah, I've seen that, too. At the end of the day, however, SoCal and Bay (sans SF, which is its own bubble) people aren't that dramatically friendlier, nicer, meaner, or ruder; their "presentations" are just a little different, that's all.
Between L.A. and S.F., obviously the anchor/flagship cities of their ends of the state, I prefer L.A. by far. Not that L.A. is my "end all, be all" city, but some of the rudest people I've met internationally have been in S.F. Between San Diego and Sacramento (the "stepchildren" of their larger, anchor cities), I give the nudge to San Diego, though I actually like its North County area better than SD city proper. As for Orange County and San Jose, similar in demographics, development and economic health, it's about a tie. Between Long Beach and Oakland, the more "forgotten" cities close to their anchors, while Long Beach is cool, "I Hella Love Oakland," as the shirt says. In fact, Oakland is my favorite major city in all of California. If only bored social justice nuts could quit protesting and destroying property in Oakland, though...
Truth be told, I actually like the Bay Area. But living there can pretty abruptly teach one which circles to avoid if there is a lack of personal comfortability.
Oakland's development pattern has been a lot like LA's. The classic street car strip development pattern with later infill. Then the automobile influence was heavily superimposed from the mid 20th Century through the late 20th. Heavy / urban commuter rail (in this case BART) was late to the scene, superimposed on the automobile oriented pattern that had displaced the streetcars.
People in LA tend to get stuck in the neighborhoods due to the 24/7 traffic patterns. I know friends that won't ever leave the West Side during the weekends, simply because it's too much of a pain to make it to DTLA, Silver Lake, etc.
LA is definitely more provincial than the Bay Area where people bounce around a lot more. There's much more of a variety of things to do here (wine country, the City, Marin Co, Tahoe, Monterey/Big Sur, etc), whereas LA has a greater concentration of the same things (theme parks, beaches, shopping malls, etc).
How is that any different than Angeleno’s going to wine country (Temecula/Paso Robles/SB), Big Bear/Lake Arrowhead, San Diego, Santa Barbara, Palm Springs/Desert, Colorado River, etc….
Also with the exception of the coast and SF I don’t really find too many people in the East Bay going to other parts of the Bay Area often at all like the Peninsula or South Bay as there really is no reason to seeing as they just have pretty much the same stuff.
Maybe it's just the people I know and hang out with. In my experience, people in LA and SoCal stay mostly within their own bubble/social circle, whereas my friends in the Bay Area are all over the place, all the time. Just my own opinion based on my experiences with family and friends who live sprinkled throughout SoCal. YMMV.
Oakland's development pattern has been a lot like LA's. The classic street car strip development pattern with later infill. Then the automobile influence was heavily superimposed from the mid 20th Century through the late 20th. Heavy / urban commuter rail (in this case BART) was late to the scene, superimposed on the automobile oriented pattern that had displaced the streetcars.
For that matter, most of the Bay Area is like this. The only exceptions are the older urban cores that developed during the late 19th century. But in reality, those are pretty limited given how small the overall Bay Area population was circa 1900. Like LA we had our own street car development boom during the 1910s and 1920s, that's when all the arterial areas developed. Then the infill after that especially after WW2. Interestingly, that pattern even exists within San Francisco proper, witness the Outer Lands, which were pretty desolate until WW2.
Maybe it's just the people I know and hang out with. In my experience, people in LA and SoCal stay mostly within their own bubble/social circle, whereas my friends in the Bay Area are all over the place, all the time. Just my own opinion based on my experiences with family and friends who live sprinkled throughout SoCal. YMMV.
I wouldn't use "provincial" to describe the way Angelenos hole up in their neighborhoods. I'd probably say "cloistered." LA is like a huge high school cafeteria with different tables for different subcultures. You stick to your own kind. The upside is that there is a lot less conformity in LA. People don't bother you if you're a freak, yet you can also get away with being completely bland and normal. There's a place for everyone. In SF, everything seems geared some vaguely hip, decently educated, affluent crowd, and if you're out of this range, you're either marginalized (Bible-thumpers, blue collar workers) or tokenized (transgender people, black San Franciscans).
I recently talked to a trans girl (in transition) who told me she much preferred LA because it was one of the few places where she could lead a normal life. In Texas, she was heckled; in New York, she was gawked at; in SF, she was fawned over: "Oh, you're so strong for what you've done! You're so cool! Go you! (The subtext: "Can I be your friend? I'm the last one at work without a transgender bff!) In LA, people couldn't care less. She lives a completely normal suburban life and is among the less unusual-looking people milling around her local supermarket in the heart of the Valley. You can even see this among the homeless people. They're far less agitated in LA than SF because everyone completely ignores them and they go about their business in peace, for better or worse.
It does, for the economy's sake, make me sad that LA has fallen a step behind NY/DC/SF in attracting ambitious, businessy people from elite East Coast schools, but let me tell you one thing, those sorts of people are the biggest conformists there are, if only because they're better at picking up on and following the unspoken rules that we're all meant to be conforming to. As a result, they can be real creativity buzzkills. I know because I went to one of these schools myself and spent four years around these people. A vital question: has San Francisco gotten less interesting or more interesting with the influx of this elite East Coast private school crowd? Remember, well-educated, ambitious people are YUPPIES (young urban professionals)! The Bay Area mainly attracts yuppie types at this point, and yuppies rarely rock the boat or go to extremes. They have too much to lose. Meanwhile, LA is siphoning off SF's (and NY's) art, film, and music communities, but you can't sustain an economy on artists. Which situation is better is a matter of personal preference.
But to get back to the original question. No, SF certainly does not have an inferiority complex toward LA. They're convinced they live in the loveliest, most enlightened, progressive, forward-thinking, prosperous place in the world, and in all honesty they probably do. SF is Switzerland. LA is Berlin.
Last edited by NIMBYS IN SPACE; 01-28-2015 at 06:38 PM..
Yes, SF and the Bay Area has an inferiority complex when it comes to L.A. The Bay Area isn't even on the radar here in L.A. County; just San Diego, Tijuana, Santa Barbara, Las Vegas, and for occasional weekend trips, New York. I'm not saying the L.A. perspective is good or bad, it just is what is.
I do give the Bay Area props for fostering a more intellectual and "worldly" climate up there, as it is a nice change sometimes from L.A., in my opinion. In fact, it is one of the few places I can safely go in the U.S. and have an intelligent conversation with Joe Q. Smith in Peet's Coffee; honestly, try that in L.A. or San Diego... This is even reflected in local news broadcasts (i.e., NBC Bay Area, Channel 7, KRON 4), the relative lack of infotainment that passes for news, at least relative to most other markets in the U.S. and certainly L.A. (They're still no BBC, NHK, or DW.) However, sometimes some people really amplify or exemplify their intellectualism, or pseudo-intellectualism, to the point of obnoxiousness and lacking social graces.
Native middle- and older-aged Bay Areans, as well as Filipino immigrants, are generally likable people, while their younger generation (like most places in this country anymore) and tech migrants have more of a 'tude. Don't forget all the transplants that move there to work $50k/year non-profit jobs but think they are God's gift to man for doing "God's (or Buddha's, or Gandhi's, or Malcolm X's)" work. Yeah, I've seen that, too. At the end of the day, however, SoCal and Bay (sans SF, which is its own bubble) people aren't that dramatically friendlier, nicer, meaner, or ruder; their "presentations" are just a little different, that's all.
Between L.A. and S.F., obviously the anchor/flagship cities of their ends of the state, I prefer L.A. by far. Not that L.A. is my "end all, be all" city, but some of the rudest people I've met internationally have been in S.F. Between San Diego and Sacramento (the "stepchildren" of their larger, anchor cities), I give the nudge to San Diego, though I actually like its North County area better than SD city proper. As for Orange County and San Jose, similar in demographics, development and economic health, it's about a tie. Between Long Beach and Oakland, the more "forgotten" cities close to their anchors, while Long Beach is cool, "I Hella Love Oakland," as the shirt says. In fact, Oakland is my favorite major city in all of California. If only bored social justice nuts could quit protesting and destroying property in Oakland, though...
Truth be told, I actually like the Bay Area. But living there can pretty abruptly teach one which circles to avoid if there is a lack of personal comfortability.
You're right.
And when people leave L.A., San Francisco isn't even a consideration:
Top Places people in LA County move to, 2010-2012
1. Orange County - 14,834
2. San Bernadino County - 11,441
3. Riverside County - 6,382
4. San Diego County - 4,885
5. Ventura County - 3,990
6. New York City 3,668
7. Las Vegas - 3,089
8. Phoenix - 2,350
On the other hand, Los Angeles is the #1 city people from SF move to when they leave the Bay Area:
Top Places San Franciscans move to, 2010-2012
1. San Mateo - 2,973
1. Alameda - 3,430
3. Santa Clara - 2,543
4. Los Angeles - 1,905
5. Contra Costa - 1,656
6. New York City - 1,350
7. San Diego -867
8. Marin - 845
So telling. Bad mouthing L.A. seems to be some sort of way for many people to convince themselves that they hate L.A. when so many of them secretly want to live there.
I wouldn't use "provincial" to describe the way Angelenos hole up in their neighborhoods. I'd probably say "cloistered." LA is like a huge high school cafeteria with different tables for different subcultures. You stick to your own kind. The upside is that there is a lot less conformity in LA. People don't bother you if you're a freak, yet you can also get away with being completely bland and normal. There's a place for everyone. In SF, everything seems geared some vaguely hip, decently educated, affluent crowd, and if you're out of this range, you're either marginalized (Bible-thumpers, blue collar workers) or tokenized (transgender people, black San Franciscans).
I recently talked to a trans girl (in transition) who told me she much preferred LA because it was one of the few places where she could lead a normal life. In Texas, she was heckled; in New York, she was gawked at; in SF, she was fawned over: "Oh, you're so strong for what you've done! You're so cool! Go you! (The subtext: "Can I be your friend? I'm the last one at work without a transgender bff!) In LA, people couldn't care less. She lives a completely normal suburban life and is among the less unusual-looking people milling around her local supermarket in the heart of the Valley. You can even see this among the homeless people. They're far less agitated in LA than SF because everyone completely ignores them and they go about their business in peace, for better or worse.
It does, for the economy's sake, make me sad that LA has fallen a step behind NY/DC/SF in attracting ambitious, businessy people from elite East Coast schools, but let me tell you one thing, those sorts of people are the biggest conformists there are, if only because they're better at picking up on and following the unspoken rules that we're all meant to be conforming to. As a result, they can be real creativity buzzkills. I know because I went to one of these schools myself and spent four years around these people. A vital question: has San Francisco gotten less interesting or more interesting with the influx of this elite East Coast private school crowd? Remember, well-educated, ambitious people are YUPPIES (young urban professionals)! The Bay Area mainly attracts yuppie types at this point, and yuppies rarely rock the boat or go to extremes. They have too much to lose. Meanwhile, LA is siphoning off SF's (and NY's) art, film, and music communities, but you can't sustain an economy on artists. Which situation is better is a matter of personal preference.
But to get back to the original question. No, SF certainly does not have an inferiority complex toward LA. They're convinced they live in the loveliest, most enlightened, progressive, forward-thinking, prosperous place in the world, and in all honesty they probably do. SF is Switzerland. LA is Berlin.
This is a solid piece of analysis.
DC is definitely attracting an uber-educated, ambitious set the last decade, but it's also becoming somewhat repetitive and bland. I still really like it as it is *extremely* liveable: great architecture, good bars, restaurants; dense, lively neighborhoods, etc. But, I understand the criticisms.
The same thing is happening in SF, though I would argue to a much lesser extent. And, there's always Oakland.
Quote:
You're right.
And when people leave L.A., San Francisco isn't even a consideration:
Top Places people in LA County move to, 2010-2012
1. Orange County - 14,834
2. San Bernadino County - 11,441
3. Riverside County - 6,382
4. San Diego County - 4,885
5. Ventura County - 3,990
6. New York City 3,668
7. Las Vegas - 3,089
8. Phoenix - 2,350
On the other hand, Los Angeles is the #1 city people from SF move to when they leave the Bay Area:
Top Places San Franciscans move to, 2010-2012
1. San Mateo - 2,973
1. Alameda - 3,430
3. Santa Clara - 2,543
4. Los Angeles - 1,905
5. Contra Costa - 1,656
6. New York City - 1,350
7. San Diego -867
8. Marin - 845
So telling. Bad mouthing L.A. seems to be some sort of way for many people to convince themselves that they hate L.A. when so many of them secretly want to live there.
Personally, I like LA. Its post-war structure, treeless streets and cement block apartment buildings may not be considered "attractive", but it has a certain bleak beauty that is hard to put a finger on. The film "Los Angeles Plays Itself" does a much better job describing what I mean than I ever could. It also is vibrant and lot of things of interest.
With that being said, those stats in no way indicate people from the Bay prefer LA. Everything on those lists fall into these categories: 1) suburbs, 2) NYC (people from all cities move to the most important metropolis in the nation, regardless of difficulty) and 3) cheaper places. That list simply reveals that people priced out of the most expensive real-estate market in the US (SF) relocate to the nearest large job market with cheaper housing (LA), just like people from LA move to Phoenix, San Diego and Las Vegas. In other words, the less successful are forced down the pecking order.
I much prefer the Bay Area because it has a more vibrant economy, more sophisticated culture, "real" cities (well, not San Jose, duh), lush countryside (not all desert), better wine regions, better beer, better food culture, fewer untraveled locals, etc.
I moved here from the east coast. If I wanted to move to LA, I could have. In ways, it would have been much easier. But, I'd rather shoot for the stars and settle for the moon if I ever get priced out!
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.
