What is the "grit capital" of the West Coast?
 

So we always hear about the Rust Belt and many East Coast cities containing that lovely grittiness factor (which I personally don't care for). But what about on this side of the country? For me, I know many view the Bay Area as being exclusively wealthy and pristine, but I actually find many of the urban areas, in particular Oakland, Berkeley, and San Francisco anything but "sparkly", especially when compared to places like Manhattan, Vancouver, or San Diego. There seems to be a widespread view that SF is only neighborhoods like Pacific Heights or Telegraph Hill, but places like Daly City, South San Francisco, Protrero Hill and The Mission seem kind of reminiscent of the working class urban neighborhoods one could find in say, Pittsburg.

My friend from NYC who recently moved here has pointed out by how much dirtier and run down SF is compared to Manhattan.

I've also heard that many people find Seattle to be dingy and downtrodden looking, so I'm just curious as to what some of you grit-aficionados think is the grittiest urban area on the West Coast...

Central Valley cities most likely. All those I5-99 places like Modesto, Stockton, Fresno...

There's definitely loads of East Coast-style grit in the Bay Area. Vallejo and Richmond spring to mind.

Bakersfield.

I doubt any other West coast city has anything that is comaprable to Vancouver's Downtown Eastside, but I could be wrong.

I think the Tenderloin in SF might be worse...

L.A. seems to have this grit that only a city where it doesn't rain much would have. Lots of oil stains, old dirty street surfaces that have been around forever - rarely subjected to freeze/thaw, etc...L.A. is a weird one though, in that it seems gritty and yet not at the same time. I don't know what to think. A movie like Falling Down portrays this hot, gritty, dirty world, yet when I visited it seemed like almost the opposite to me. It was quite cool compared to the midwest, and cleaner than I imagined. Admittedly it was a short and geographically limited visit.

LA's Skidrow?

This movie shaped my image of LA more than anything else for a solid decade.

Vancouver's Downtown East Side is by far, hands down, the grittiest I have ever seen (people walking around with needles sticking out). Nothing anywhere else compares (although I stumbled on a block or two in SF that were incredibly bad too).

My understanding is that there is more violent crime in the Tenderloin but there are more drug users in Vancouver's DTES. Both places are pretty unpleasant and the hardcore parts of the DTES have very little in the way of redeeming features.

I find the Bay Area in general has a lot more interesting "gritty" urban areas than Vancouver. Unsurprising given that SF is much older and much larger. The Mission is, I think, a good example of a neighbourhood that's at in great sort of spot where it is colourful and yet not horribly crime-ridden (although places like Valencia a couple blocks away are pretty nice and I'm sure a crappy Mission apartment still costs a fortune). Vancouver has a bit of that in areas like Commercial Drive but mostly there's just a small core of high-end stuff and then suburbia with some rapid transit lines and pods of highrise condos.

:previous:For me, New Westminster fits that description, gritty (with a good deal of history and an interesting urban form) but still relatively safe and clean.

The Bay Area by far, in my experience. It has been a long time since I have been to Vancouver though, but I remember the majority of it being pretty clean and sterile.

SF has the Tenderloin, one of the grittiest urban neighborhoods anywhere in the West. And there are many other areas like large swaths of SoMa, the Mission, and much of the Southern parts of the city. Large parts of the East Bay are very gritty too. There are other cities in the West with pockets of grit, but not to the same degree.

Tacoma and the eastern side of DT Vancouver, in that order. Parts of LA like old warehouse districts along I-5 are nasty too. Parts of the Bay Area are dingy too.

To me it seems like every major metro on the west coast has some pretty bad spots, except maybe San Diego? I've only been there once in my life so I don't know, maybe it has some 'Navy Grit'. Portland 20 years ago was pretty gritty, but determined effort at urban renewal has changed a lot of that, now the buildings and streets are clean... but the people don't know what a shower is :).

Tacoma to me, if you take it the mountains and hills away, could be any gritty Great Lakes city.

I don't think many people would describe SF as "dirty and rundown", but the area that always surprises me is that total decrepitude in that stretch along Market near the Civic Center.

That looks like some 70's time capsule of U.S. urban decay, and it's especially shocking in the very core of such a prosperous city. Not a huge area, but very, very central. I guess it's where the city has most of its homeless service providers?

I am not sure how working class Potrero Hill and The Mission are nowadays. That Whole Foods in the former, and all of the hipsters/precious cupcake shop shit and Dolores Park/Valencia areas don't scream "working class," IMO. Parts of them? No doubt. However, the levels of gentrification present make it difficult to characterize them as being entirely "working class."

Anyways, Downtown LA, The TL/Mid-Market, and Vancouver's DTES all take the cake, IMO. Shout out to Richmond, too.

Vancouver's Downtown East Side, for sure.

The west side of LA is pretty clean and nice, but most of the basin is gritty, or at least really ugly.

Never been to the East Side of Vancouver, but I've been to the big cities on the West Coast, and I'll say LA.

"To Live and Die in LA" also showcases a lot of the Southland's grit, from the ports of LA and Long Beach, South Central and parts of Downtown and Boyle Heights.

http://bluraymedia.ign.com/bluray/im...40121_640w.jpg

I learned a lot about LA's grit from Escape from LA.