Can a person love both Los Angeles & San Francisco--I say yes! - Page 4

ThePhun1 · #61 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 11:38 AM**

My only interest in Vegas (and Laughlin) is to stay at each hotel. Been there, done that.

Crawford · #62 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 1:50 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

As a part time SoCal resident over the years, I thought Hollywood was a joke when I went as a tourist for the first time a few years ago. Beverly Hills was nothing more than a really rich group of subdivisions with a really expensive shopping district nearby. I asked myself "this is what people think LA is all about when they visit?"

There's about 50 things in and around LA I'd rather do than than that touristy crap people think the area is about, not including Vegas and Laughlin, which I've been to countless times.

I don't see what's so bad about Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Hollywood is (arguably) the best, most complete urban neighborhood in LA. Beverly Hills has a very nice, iconic shopping district. Both places are internationally famous.

Not sure what Vegas has to do with LA, and no idea what Laughlin even is. Had to google it and still don't understand relevance.

Crawford · #63 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 1:55 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by LA21st

That's fine.
I dont see whats so great about Times Square when I visited after all the hype it gets. I got bored quickly and went to lower Manhattan. Many NYers and tourists think TS is a joke.
The Las Vegas strip can get tired if you're not into clubbing and gambling.

I think you just have unusual tastes.

Times Square, while extremely annoying for locals, is probably the most popular/iconic location on the planet. The Vegas Strip is also globally iconic and wildly popular.

Lower Manhattan is largely a collection of office buildings, and one of the least loved NYC neighborhoods, BTW. There are individual points of interest but probably overall the least interesting Manhattan neighborhood.

Crawford · #64 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 2:07 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by fflint

So then, using the "CSA" or "MSA" as a proxy for the center cities in question, shouldn't the thread really be entitled "Can a person love both the indistinguishable suburban sprawl of Los Angeles and also love the indistinguishable suburban sprawl the Bay Area? I say yes!"

Problem is, nobody "loves" the indistinguishable suburban sprawl of either area. Nobody "loves" the indistinguishable suburban sprawl of one, but not the other. Nobody "loves" that shit and argues over that shit, period.

So we are not really talking about anything anymore, if we are going to define San Francisco and Los Angeles in such terms.

I don't think anyone wishes to characterize either city by "indistinguishable suburban sprawl". I think, rather, the comments are an attempt to have an apples-to-apples comparison, and to look at the metros in their totality, rather than cherrypicking.

Saying "SF is do different from LA because the Mission is so different from Irvine" seems to be a bit disingenuous. Yeah, SF clearly has an unmatched West Coast urban core, but the metros, overall, seem to have general similarities, at least from an outsiders perspective.

JManc · #65 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 2:12 PM**

Times Square is fun to photograph.

LA21st · #66 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 2:47 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I think you just have unusual tastes.

Times Square, while extremely annoying for locals, is probably the most popular/iconic location on the planet. The Vegas Strip is also globally iconic and wildly popular.

Lower Manhattan is largely a collection of office buildings, and one of the least loved NYC neighborhoods, BTW. There are individual points of interest but probably overall the least interesting Manhattan neighborhood.

I didnt mean the fd, i meant south of 14th st.
I dont find wall street that imteresting eiither.

BrandonJXN · #67 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 3:11 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what's so bad about Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Hollywood is (arguably) the best, most complete urban neighborhood in LA. Beverly Hills has a very nice, iconic shopping district. Both places are internationally famous.

Not sure what Vegas has to do with LA, and no idea what Laughlin even is. Had to google it and still don't understand relevance.

Think of Vegas as a extremely distant suburb of LA. A lot of people from SoCal moved to Vegas and visit quite often. That 4 hour trek up the 15 freeway goes by very fast. Laughlin is a lesser Vegas.

ThePhun1 · #68 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 8:03 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Crawford

I don't see what's so bad about Hollywood and Beverly Hills. Hollywood is (arguably) the best, most complete urban neighborhood in LA. Beverly Hills has a very nice, iconic shopping district. Both places are internationally famous.

Not sure what Vegas has to do with LA, and no idea what Laughlin even is. Had to google it and still don't understand relevance.

Vegas, Laughlin and the State Line (i.e. Primm) have long been a favored weekend getaway of people in and around LA. My grandfather used to join the slot clubs and would get free rooms. We used to go all the time before Vegas became extremely mainstream.

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Think of Vegas as a extremely distant suburb of LA. A lot of people from SoCal moved to Vegas and visit quite often. That 4 hour trek up the 15 freeway goes by very fast. Laughlin is a lesser Vegas.

This, you just beat me to it. Vegas is like a colony of LA, with a ton of SoCal transplants. I'd compare to Atlantic City or the Hamptons for NYC. A nice little weekend getaway.

Lipani · #69 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 8:19 PM**

^ Very true about Vegas transplants. I work in Vegas 1-2 months out of the year and more than half of my colleagues there moved from LA County (mostly for more affordable housing).

ue · #70 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 8:21 PM**

My impression of the Hamptons was always that it was a place where people commuted to New York or, more likely, went there on the weekends while staying in the city during the week. Could be off-base here, but that fits the affluent stereotype.

Leo the Dog · #71 Posted **Dec 22, 2016, 9:09 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by BrandonJXN

Laughlin is a lesser Vegas.

With a river!

JDRCRASH · #72 Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 5:12 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by Leo the Dog

With a river!

And god-awful evening heat.

pdxtex · #73 Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 8:11 PM**

unless you are a provincial dick, of course you can love two cities. this thread is goofy.

Centropolis · #74 Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 8:13 PM**

OMG, can someone ACTUALLY love both PARIS and LONDON?

HOW COULD IT BE, THO

fflint · #75 Posted **Dec 23, 2016, 9:01 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by tech12

But there obviously is a collective identity to some extent, that you already mentioned. People do usually identify with their own city/town first (unless they're talking to someone who doesn't know it), but everyone also identifies as being from the Bay Area.

Yes, I identify as a San Franciscan and also as someone who lives in the Bay Area. No, they are not one and the same.

dktshb · #76 Posted **Dec 24, 2016, 5:21 PM**

Many people who live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles identify as from North Hollywood, Chatsworth, Northridge, Van Nuys, Sylmar, Pacoima, etc., to the point and degree that there are quite a few people that don't even realize that they actually live in Los Angeles... It's crazy.

austlar1 · #77 Posted **Dec 24, 2016, 7:42 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dktshb

Many people who live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles identify as from North Hollywood, Chatsworth, Northridge, Van Nuys, Sylmar, Pacoima, etc., to the point and degree that there are quite a few people that don't even realize that they actually live in Los Angeles... It's crazy.

But, it that person was visiting on the east coast or overseas and somebody asked them where they were from, they would likely say California and then probably Los Angeles.

dktshb · #78 Posted **Dec 24, 2016, 7:53 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by austlar1

But, it that person was visiting on the east coast or overseas and somebody asked them where they were from, they would likely say California and then probably Los Angeles.

Of course they would as people in general tend to identify the largest city they live near when asked that kind of question when they're far from home, but I am just saying some people are clueless that they actually really live within the city limits of Los Angeles and I am not sure that happens anywhere else.

ChrisLA · #79 Posted **Dec 24, 2016, 10:02 PM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dktshb

Of course they would as people in general tend to identify the largest city they live near when asked that kind of question when they're far from home, but I am just saying some people are clueless that they actually really live within the city limits of Los Angeles and I am not sure that happens anywhere else.

I have always found that puzzling, perhaps I'm the only person who can tell what is Los Angeles city and what's not. Even though much of the San Fernando Valley is suburban, it still has a look and feel that is definitely the city to me. The SFV looks and feels way different than even Burbank, and Glendale, which are separate cities in the SFV.

I just can't quite explain it, but LA city neighborhoods feels much busier and chaotic to me. I used to live in downtown Long Beach, and much of the surrounding neighborhoods were pretty dense and very walkable, plus with the waterfront nearby it was always something going on. Today I now live in Woodland Hills which is part of LA city in the SFV. Most will describe it as suburban, and I live in the section of the neighborhood that is known as the Warner Center which is sort of a downtown or business district. Yet it feels very LA in culture and look, and it definitely feels much more bustling than anything I felt in Long Beach, or any other city I live in around Southern California. To an outsider I can understand how some can make this mistake, but to a seasoned Angelino, no way. LA city is just so different in look and feel.

ThePhun1 · #80 Posted **Dec 25, 2016, 6:28 AM**

Quote:

Originally Posted by dktshb

Many people who live in the San Fernando Valley of Los Angeles identify as from North Hollywood, Chatsworth, Northridge, Van Nuys, Sylmar, Pacoima, etc., to the point and degree that there are quite a few people that don't even realize that they actually live in Los Angeles... It's crazy.

True but that's different than San Francisco. I don't think anyone would say they are from San Francisco unless they're from it or within walking/biking distance from the south. No one in Moraga is gonna say they are from San Francisco unless they moved from there.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dktshb

Of course they would as people in general tend to identify the largest city they live near when asked that kind of question when they're far from home, but I am just saying some people are clueless that they actually really live within the city limits of Los Angeles and I am not sure that happens anywhere else.

I'm sure it has historically happened to people not realizing they live in New York City, where every other borough can use their name as opposed to New York [City] as a mailing address. I suppose Manhattan can do so as well but this is rare in actual practice. Even neighborhoods of each borough can do so, such as Flushing and Jamaica, Queens. This also happens in "towns," which are further subdivided into villages and hamlets. Further, we see places that have a blur of what's really in the city and what isn't, including a sizable amount of Harris County, which carries a Houston mailing address regardless of if it's in the city limits or not.

It also makes me wonder if Georgetown can be used as a mailing address within Washington.