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

[Docere]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Most people i know who live in Cali love both cities. Not really a radical idea!

They are both quintessentially Californian so why not?

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by Eightball

Most people i know who live in Cali love both cities. Not really a radical idea!

"Most people love both cities". Actually not. Most San Franciscans I've run into seem to have a visceral dislike of L.A. (although they do visit Disneyland & other places). In contrast, most L.A. people seem to enjoy San Francisco (but not the Giants). In any event, over time central LA at least seems to be becoming denser and more San Francisco-like, with better transit and cleaner air, so there is some convergence. L.A. has a nice mountain backdrop better than most cities, but cannot duplicate S.F.'s wonderful setting. San Francisco has also regained its mojo the with growth of the massive tech industry in recent decades.

It is also amusing & ironic & a tad hypocritical that Bay area people complain of L.A. "stealing our water" and the "pillage of the Owens Valley" when San Francisco continues to take water from a dam smack in the middle of Yosemite National Park. The construction of Hetch Hetchy dam by the city of San Francisco broke the heart of John Muir.

In any event. I don't live in either city. Everyone knows San Diego is California's finest city, and I do love both L.A. & S.F., but I choose to live in San Diego Cheers

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by dc_denizen

this reminds me of the old life is hell cartoon:



link

Or that episode of South Park...

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by mhays

Locals do the same in my area. It's still a big cohesive metro.

If you're suggesting that the Bay Area isn't pretty cohesive economically, for sports teams, for the job market, etc., then you're not paying attention.

What is the conversation about? Is it the Greater LA area and the Bay Area or LA and San Francisco? Generally in my experience, when people speak of San Francisco, they just mean the city itself, perhaps occasionally lumping in Daly City or a city just to the south (the Warriors used to play there) but if we're to take what you said above as true, then the thread should be titled "LA vs. Bay Area."

You can get away with that with LA, many suburbs/exurbs are part of the urban fabric and culture of LA but while most places in the Bay Area have a connection to San Francisco, they are in no way shape or form San Fran.

Originally Posted by austlar1

Trust me on this, if you live in the city of San Francisco, you are very likely to consider Sausalito, Marin County, Berkeley, Oakland, Contra Costa County, northern and central San Mateo County, and most of the rest of the East Bay to be part of the San Francisco package. These areas are connected by rail and road with San Francisco at the center of that network. Things are a bit less clear cut when you get down past Palo Alto into Santa Clara (San Jose area) County.

See above, it's not that they don't have a bond with SF but they just aren't the same. Like I said, if that was the intention, then the thread should have been titled differently to reflect that comparison.

I get where you guys are coming from but when I clicked on the thread that's what I thought of. If you mean Bay Area, then say it, most people know that's headlined by San Francisco.

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by ThePhun1

What is the conversation about? Is it the Greater LA area and the Bay Area or LA and San Francisco? Generally in my experience, when people speak of San Francisco, they just mean the city itself, perhaps occasionally lumping in Daly City or a city just to the south (the Warriors used to play there) but if we're to take what you said above as true, then the thread should be titled "LA vs. Bay Area."

You can get away with that with LA, many suburbs/exurbs are part of the urban fabric and culture of LA but while most places in the Bay Area have a connection to San Francisco, they are in no way shape or form San Fran.



See above, it's not that they don't have a bond with SF but they just aren't the same. Like I said, if that was the intention, then the thread should have been titled differently to reflect that comparison.

I get where you guys are coming from but when I clicked on the thread that's what I thought of. If you mean Bay Area, then say it, most people know that's headlined by San Francisco.

There is much truth here. Most of the suburban bay area might as well be Canoga Park or Mission Viejo. Livermore looks like Newhall. The difference is Livermore is one hour from San Francisco, the penultimate beautiful city this side of Paris. San Francisco mystique--part climate (love the fog), part hills, part compactness, part parks, part bay, part bridges, part people (Chinatown etc.), part architecture, part history, part urbanity, part museums, part food. Did I leave anything out? Some of this can be replicated by other cities, some can't. Central L.A. will never be on a bay--but San Diego is

[mhays]

The same would then apply to anyplace with big lakes, bays, etc. Seattle certainly. New York certainly. But I live in Seattle and still use "Seattle" to mean the whole region. San Francisco or "the San Francisco area" is a fine term for the Bay Area.

[dimondpark]

Originally Posted by mhays

The same would then apply to anyplace with big lakes, bays, etc. Seattle certainly. New York certainly. But I live in Seattle and still use "Seattle" to mean the whole region. San Francisco or "the San Francisco area" is a fine term for the Bay Area.

Yeah people in online forums get really anal about this for some reason.

I spend much of my time abroad and when asked where I live, I say San Francisco.

[ozone]

A funny quirk a many suburban Bay Area'ians is that no matter how far they live from The City and the actual SF Bay, and no matter how utterly mundane and unappealing their suburban town may be, they'll still claim to be from "the bay" and cop a wholly underserved attitude towards places like Sacramento and LA.

Those who say both cities are more alike than they are different do not know what they are talking about frankly.
Very different cities, but I like them both exactly for those differences. It not fair to lump suburban SF with the city since there is a clear distinction. However, huge sections of the LA are no different from the surrounding suburbs. In this way San Francisco represents the older, traditional city and Los Angeles represents, indeed is the epitome of, the post-WWII Sunbelt metropolis.

[Leo the Dog]

I say yes as well!

I also love NY, so it's possible to love LA and NY despite being drastically different from one another.

[tech12]

Originally Posted by ozone

It not fair to lump suburban SF with the city since there is a clear distinction.

Why not? They're the same metropolitan area, and SF is the undisputed main center of the entire thing (Oakland and SJ are the the other two big centers of activity, obviously, but are secondary to SF).

What is it with some people trying to pretend that everything within SF city-limits exists in a magic bubble and has no economic/social/cultural interaction with the rest of the Bay Area?

Originally Posted by ozone

However, huge sections of the LA are no different from the surrounding suburbs.

SF's southern suburb of Daly City could easily be mistaken for a neighborhood of SF. Oakland has areas with density and/or architecture that are very reminiscent of SF too, as do multiple suburbs. The main distinguishing factor in those cases is the lower population density. But I would say that the majority of SF's suburbs are more reminiscent of LA than SF city-proper.

[Quixote]

Originally Posted by ozone

In this way San Francisco represents the older, traditional city and Los Angeles represents, indeed is the epitome of, the post-WWII Sunbelt metropolis.

No, that distinction goes to Houston/Dallas/Phoenix. LA's "coming of age," if you will, was in the 20s and 30s -- big difference.

That's not to say that LA isn't post-war in character, however.

[artest1]

love both

[ozone]

Regarding San Francisco

SF's southern suburb of Daly City could easily be mistaken for a neighborhood of SF. Oakland has areas with density and/or architecture that are very reminiscent of SF too, as do multiple suburbs. The main distinguishing factor in those cases is the lower population density.

Aside from much of Daly City and a few parts of Oakland I think it would be really stretching reality quite a bit to say multiple (Bay Area) suburbs are reminiscent of San Francisco. I can't think of any actually. In many ways San Francisco DOES exist in a magic bubble. But no one is saying that it doesn't have any economic, social or cultural interaction with the rest of the Bay Area.

Regarding Los Angeles being a post-war sunbelt metropolis:

No, that distinction goes to Houston/Dallas/Phoenix. LA's "coming of age," if you will, was in the 20s and 30s -- big difference.

Yeah you're right. I will concede that the population of Los Angeles in 1940 far surpassed that of Houston, Dallas and Phoenix. After I wrote that I expected someone to point this out. But for good or ill so much of LA's past has been obliterated and replaced by post-war development.

This goes to my point. The bulk of the City of Los Angeles is (physically at least) more like the rest of LA Area than San Francisco is like the rest of the SF Bay Area. Therefore, I think it's wrong to include the suburbs in debate.

I grew up in Southern California and have lived in San Francisco and the East Bay as an adult and now happily reside in Sacramento. So I don't harbor any provincial prejudices. I love both cities.

[SLO]

Originally Posted by ozone

Regarding San Francisco


Aside from much of Daly City and a few parts of Oakland I think it would be really stretching reality quite a bit to say multiple (Bay Area) suburbs are reminiscent of San Francisco. I can't think of any actually. In many ways San Francisco DOES exist in a magic bubble. But no one is saying that it doesn't have any economic, social or cultural interaction with the rest of the Bay Area.

Regarding Los Angeles being a post-war sunbelt metropolis:


Yeah you're right. I will concede that the population of Los Angeles in 1940 far surpassed that of Houston, Dallas and Phoenix. After I wrote that I expected someone to point this out. But for good or ill so much of LA's past has been obliterated and replaced by post-war development.

This goes to my point. The bulk of City of Los Angeles is (physically at least) far more like the Greater Los Angeles Area than the City of San Francisco is like of the Greater Bay Area. Therefore, I think it's wrong to include the suburbs in debate.

I grew up in Southern California and have lived in San Francisco and the East Bay as an adult and now happily reside in Sacramento. So I don't harbor any provincial prejudices. I love both cities.

Not completely. I think all of the older towns in the bay area have the old Victorian development and town centers even if they didn't take off then. Ive been in Monterey and Pacific Grove before and thought, wow, this could have been another San Francisco. I agree the newer suburban development resembles nothing in San Francisco proper, but the older towns that were developed around the same time period do. Places like Richmond, Vallejo, Oakland. I mentioned Monterey but a lot of the older coastal towns have that same flavor.

[Centropolis]

santa barbara kind of has that vibe - i guess not having a good port really hurt development.

[ozone]

It's a distinction that is lost on most people. Idk maybe because in college I did a paper on the history of San Francisco's built environment I see it differently? I suppose a lot people see a row of Victorian houses in one town and maybe it reminds them of San Francisco. But in SF almost all of it's homes (Victorian and otherwise) are built cheek by jowl on narrow lots and of course often on a hill. It's density is one of SF's distinguishing features. I'm not talking about population psm but the way the city is built. So while other towns might have areas that remind one of San Francisco the city is pretty much a one-off IMO.

[dimondpark]

I think that the SF urban area is a pretty good comparison to the city of LA as far as size and population.

Los Angeles City
Land Area: 470 sq miles
2015 Population: 3,971,896
2010 Population: 3,792,621
2010-2015 change: +179,275
2010-2015 percent growth: +4.72%

San Francisco-Oakland UA
Land Area: 520 sq miles
2015 Population: 3,516,017
2010 Population: 3,281,212
2010-2015 change: +234,805
2010-2015 percent growth: +7.16%

[ThePhun1]

Originally Posted by SLO

Not completely. I think all of the older towns in the bay area have the old Victorian development and town centers even if they didn't take off then. Ive been in Monterey and Pacific Grove before and thought, wow, this could have been another San Francisco. I agree the newer suburban development resembles nothing in San Francisco proper, but the older towns that were developed around the same time period do. Places like Richmond, Vallejo, Oakland. I mentioned Monterey but a lot of the older coastal towns have that same flavor.

They could have been something special as well but the main charm of San Francisco is its setting between the ocean and the bay and its topography/streetscape and everything that comes with that (the views, climate, hills, need for bridges, etc...). You can't just find that anywhere.

[sopas ej]

I love both.

And in regards to LA, I think LA native and food critic Jonathan Gold has it spot on when he says this:

"Everybody in the world has an idea of what Los Angeles is. Everybody thinks they know what Los Angeles means, even if they've never been here. And, if you live in Los Angeles, you're used to having your city explained to you by people who come in for a couple of weeks, stay at a hotel in Beverly Hills, and take in what they can get to within 10 minutes of their rented car. The thing that people find hard to understand, I think, is sort of the magnitude of what's here, the huge number of multiple cultures that live in the city who come together in this beautiful and haphazard fashion. And the fault lines between them are sometimes where you find the most beautiful things."

[CaliNative]

Originally Posted by SLO

Not completely. I think all of the older towns in the bay area have the old Victorian development and town centers even if they didn't take off then. Ive been in Monterey and Pacific Grove before and thought, wow, this could have been another San Francisco. I agree the newer suburban development resembles nothing in San Francisco proper, but the older towns that were developed around the same time period do. Places like Richmond, Vallejo, Oakland. I mentioned Monterey but a lot of the older coastal towns have that same flavor.

Well some of the older cities in L.A. area have their old Victorian neighborhoods too. West Adams in L.A., old Pasadena, etc. And downtown L.A. and MacArthur Park itself has a great collection of pre-1930 office buildings. Travel down Broadway or Spring or Main & it looks like 1925. You almost can see Harold Lloyd dangling from a clock.