Francisco and Los Angeles? I appreciate your responses.

not that i know of, except the baseball teams

The Dodgers and Giants hate each other with a passion. in terms of the cities, the SF population generally doesnt like LA, and they are raised that way and LA residetns look at SF as a nice little town up north. i think the LA indifference towards SF is what kills the SF residents.

A slight one. Has anyone heard of the fake documentary "In Smog and Thunder, the Great War of the California's"?

http://www.insmogandthunder.com/

There certainly is a rivalry.

I don't think there's one as much as one would expect. It's no Houston/Dallas...

at one time the rivalry was huge (one of the biggest) and not just in sports (BTW, 49ers-Rams had a lot of the passions of Giants-Dodgers).

I've always had this feeling like people from so cal felt they were maybe better than Nor Cal. Just because they basically have the best weather in almost the whole word and maybe some other things too.

Nor Cal has great weather too but it's just a few degrees cooler in the winter. I love going down there but yes, i've always had some sort of thing about Nor Cal vs. So Cal.

I've always had this feeling like people from so cal felt they were maybe better than Nor Cal. Just because they basically have the best weather in almost the whole word and maybe some other things too.

Nor Cal has great weather too but it's just a few degrees cooler in the winter. I love going down there but yes, i've always had some sort of thing about Nor Cal vs. So Cal.
i just came from northern cal, i went to cresant city then mt shasta then sacramento then san fran, truly amazing state!

Are you serious?

Will Rogers once said, "children in San Francisco are taught two things: love the Lord and hate Los Angeles."

I've always had this feeling like people from so cal felt they were maybe better than Nor Cal. Just because they basically have the best weather in almost the whole word and maybe some other things too.

Nor Cal has great weather too but it's just a few degrees cooler in the winter. I love going down there but yes, i've always had some sort of thing about Nor Cal vs. So Cal.

Nor Cal, I always associated a condecending attitude being more SF on LA than the reverse. That is in terms of LA is LA, but SF is "The City"

Nor Cal, I always associated a condecending attitude being more SF on LA than the reverse. That is in terms of LA is LA, but SF is "The City"

That sounds right to me.

I don't even consider So Cal a part of California. It seems like a totaly different state. I'm sure some of them feel the same about Nor Cal.

In think its always appeared that if your from southern california your a surfer freak who gets stuck in traffic and tends to run into palm trees due to the effects of your botox injections. While if your from northern california your an up-tight liberal who hates cars (but drives them anyways) and only wants nature to be preserved even if it means tearing down your house.

Stereotypes, but none are true...for the most part.

"For the most part"
:rofl:
I loved that!

In think its always appeared that if your from southern california your a surfer freak who gets stuck in traffic and tends to run into palm trees due to the effects of your botox injections. While if your from northern california your an up-tight liberal who hates cars (but drives them anyways) and only wants nature to be preserved even if it means tearing down your house.

Stereotypes, but none are true...for the most part.

we surf up here too, it just colder and shark ridden ... by the way up-tight and liberal are oxymorons (or is that what you were going for)

In think its always appeared that if your from southern california your a surfer freak who gets stuck in traffic and tends to run into palm trees due to the effects of your botox injections. While if your from northern california your an up-tight liberal who hates cars (but drives them anyways) and only wants nature to be preserved even if it means tearing down your house.

Stereotypes, but none are true...for the most part.

Wow, SoCal is better than NoCal

Wow, SoCal is better than NoCal
thats your opinion ... but its wrong :|

lol :)

we surf up here too, it just colder and shark ridden ... by the way up-tight and liberal are oxymorons (or is that what you were going for)

Glad you caught that ;)

Thats true, LA has never seemed like the typical "city"

It's always seemed mostly like one big suberbia type with buildings in clusters all over the place. Not a focused "city"

Dont get me wrong that I like to go there and visit my family a few times a year but there are definately things I dont like about it.


The freeways down there are awesome, the size and all the complex things that dont exist elsewhere interest me.

Up here in Nor Cal, yes we do surf, the waters colder, but we have some of the biggest waves in the world at "Maverics" which has a competition usually once every year in which the top surfers from around the world are given 24 hours to fly here and compete when we get the really big waves (up to 100 feet I think)

Anyways so yea, and it's true that most of us are liberal.. which I dont really like so much because a lot of liberal people seem to have that sorta stuck up attitude like their better than you.. Not all, but it seems like I run into that from time to time.


So theres basically things I like and dont like about both.

thats your opinion ... but its wrong :|

You're wrong too.

I don't agree with Nor Cal either

No, cause LA is the best

No, cause LA is the best

That's right. :D

SF and rest of bay area are best in NoCal.

Well I can finally give my opinion in a thread related to LA; I went there last weekend for the final night of Dead End at the ahmanson theater, the city is ok but it just doesn't feel like a city of that size should feel IMO...Like sometimes people compare it to NY and I can't find anything else similar between the two cities other that its size...
On the other side...San Francisco has Soo many things to do and see in such a small space :cheers: :cheer:

What bothers me is California is the only state in the country that cities in the same damn state rival each other and is a popular one; like San Francisco and Los Angeles. Im from L.A. I like both cities respectfully and I think I has somthing to do with baseball In my opinion. But back to the hatred between the two cities, most cities in other states have respect for each other no matter which is better. But the point is, there both great cities.

I dunno--- I mean Houston/Dallas, Miami/Orlando, New York/the rest of New York State, Vegas/Reno... L.A/SF isn't the only instate rivalry in the US.

^^ I agree. There are several States where there are 2 (or even more) cities vying to be the belle of the ball. And I don't thing SF & LA downright hate each other. Some sort of rivalry, yes. But outright hatred ... no.

Ha, perhaps that's just me speaking for myself (respect it, envy it for the weather and some other features, but wouldn't want to live there). :angel:


P.S. @Ita: and how do you know LA is the best??????

^^ I agree. There are several States where there are 2 (or even more) cities vying to be the belle of the ball. And I don't thing SF & LA downright hate each other. Some sort of rivalry, yes. But outright hatred ... no.

Ha, perhaps that's just me speaking for myself (respect it, envy it for the weather and some other features, but wouldn't want to live there). :angel:


P.S. @Ita: and how do you know LA is the best??????
LA is a huge world, i love it :)

The Dodgers and Giants hate each other with a passion. in terms of the cities, the SF population generally doesnt like LA, and they are raised that way and LA residetns look at SF as a nice little town up north. i think the LA indifference towards SF is what kills the SF residents.


I would have to agree with the above statement, but other than sports, i can't think of anything else?
I do know that many people native to the bay area or northern california, per capita, would rather not venture down to the southland, mentioning smog, freeway traffic, and endless suberbs, as reasons for staying away.

I myself, like all major cities, becouse each of them are unique. and different from one another in every way, but for the most part, how, and what each city represents to it's location.

@ Ita :wave:

Leipzig & LA ... what a difference! :)

@ Ita :wave:

Leipzig & LA ... what a difference! :)
:cheer:
Yeah, Leipzig is OK, a bit provincial, but if i could compare it with LA, it would be like day and night :)

Yeah, I think there is a rivalry. I have co-workers from the Bay Area and none of them like LA. It's not just the Bay Area either, I have relatives in San Diego and they don't like LA either. It seems that nobody in CA likes LA except for the people that live there. I know people in LA, and they don't seem to care what anyone thinks.

^ exactly right! Everyone in California hates LA and LA doesnt really care about the rest. Ive Noticed San Diego is catching up to SF, still a ways to go, but its getting there.

I think that the rivalry has died down a bit. I remember one year my dad was transferred up to San Jose. We lived there for about a year, but after a month or so we stopped telling people we were originally from Los Angeles, because people would start acting very rude to us once we did. These days when I go up to visit in Sacramento and San Francisco, people don't seem to care as much.

I don't understand rivalries all that much. I love all of California and think all of the major cities have great things to offer. I wouldn't mind living in most of them.

Other California cities are probably hating on L.A. because a lot of cities are upset that L.A. is the biggest city in California and L.A. gets more attention as a city than any other city in the state of California. Im not say this is true maybe its the reason I don't know. I think one the other reasons is L.A. is very different from other cities in CA too. Basically the whole world hates L.A. because of Hollywood. Im pretty sure if Hollywood wasn't in L.A. people would love L.A. If im not mistaking L.A. is probably one the most hated city in the world. But whats interesting about L.A. is L.A. hates the rest of California because I always hear, "Im not in California; im in Los Angeles"!

The reason people get mad at LA is because its LA. Big, Loveable, Annoying, Glamorus, Media Hog....everything under the sun. And why? Because its THAT big!

LANAtive,

To say that Los Angeles is the most "Hated City in the World" is a rather sweeping statement that I don't agree with. Of course if you've based your opinion on statements made on this forum I can see where you might have been led astray.

In general, I think that people are curiously fascinated with Los Angeles. L.A's image is a diverse mixture of glamour (Hollywood), excessive consumption ( Rodeo Drive), gang wars ( Bloods and Crips ) and a host of other components that make Los Angeles such an interesting city.

I've lived in San Francisco all of my life and yes, there are people here who don't like L.A. But, by the same token, there are quite a few people who genuinely like Los Angeles.

For my part, I have great respect for the City and people of Los Angeles. There is so much to see and do in Los Angles that I don't understand how people can disregard such a vibrant and diverse city.

Californians are so lucky to live in such a wondrous state. Not only do we have great cities that we can visit ( S.F, L.A, San Diego, Sacramento, San Jose, Oakland, etc...) but we also have great towns and lovely scenery to be proud of.

Cheers!!

I personally LOVE LA (I'm from SD). I'm fascinated by the city and I envision this diverse megalopolis resembling Tokyo in the future. That's a compliment!

One reason why LANAtive and many others from LA feel that their city is the most hated (which it isn't) is because people make assumptions about the place. In movies, the world sees LA as being Beverly Hills, Venice Beach, and Santa Monica. Glitz & glam, celebrities everywhere, Pamela Anderson on the lifeguard tower, palm trees and blue skies. Everyone outside SoCal seesLA as the ultimate paradise.

But we all know that LA is a lot more than that. And when people get there they just can't accept it: the huge hispanic and asian population & influence, the traffic jams, the little homes sprawling across the basin and the valley. It's not what they expected, so in turn they tend to get confused about what LA is all about. This is even true for San Diegans even if they're only a 1 1/2 hour drive away. But don't worry Angelenos, your city truly unique and cosmopolitan in a SoCal kind of way.

And it has the most potential, more than any other city in the Americas.

Oh, about the LA-SF rivalry, there isn't one. . . . .

Here's one way to test the rivalry issue. Maybe some Angelenos can respond to the following:

How does the Dodger-Padre rivalry compare to the Dodger-Giant rivalry?

Even weakened by the move to Anaheim, wasn't there a time when the old Ram-49er rivalry was huge?

The giants and Dodgers rivalry has cooled a little, since we havent faced each other in the playoffs for years. But my favorite games to go to are giants - dodgers games, same with most of my friends.

Dodgers - padres is picking up a little steam, mostly in SD, cause they hate the fact that 50 percent of the crowd is wearing dodger blue in SD. There have been some nice battles recently between the two and hopefully it will be LA vs sf/sd in the playoffs soon, although with the two idiots running the dodgers i doubt it.

Rams/49ers was a big rivalry when the Rams were in Socal, no matter which city, LA or anaheim. it died when they moved to ST louis.

edit

Padres-Dodgers Rivalry?

Hmm its small, I mean when it comes to hated teams in SD its mostly the raiders and chiefs in the NFL. We don't think much about that with baseball. At least thats what I get from it.

But like some have said, it is picking up some steam here.

OH YEAH!

They are both beautiful cities, but have very different personalities. One is superficial and socially offensive, the other is sophisticated and socially evolved. I won't say which is which.

They are both beautiful cities, but have very different personalities. One is superficial and socially offensive, the other is arrogant and insecure. I won't say which is which.
I fixed that for you.

I don't think there's one as much as one would expect. It's no Houston/Dallas...in prison amongst latinos i hear its alot worse ...matter of fact its deadly

there's hella rivalry! hahaha, but since we're both in california so there's not really a loser :)

The Dodgers and Giants hate each other with a passion. in terms of the cities, the SF population generally doesnt like LA, and they are raised that way and LA residetns look at SF as a nice little town up north. i think the LA indifference towards SF is what kills the SF residents.

Actually,
it has nothing to do with LAs perceived indifference. What the local snob crowd feels for LA is more pity then anything else. The way a taxpayer views a tax evader or a dissapointed parent to a child whose spent their entire trust fund. Hard to explain.

I personally dont have any ill will towards LA at all, in fact I like it there a lot and would have no qualms about living there again. But many of my neighbors have been there and think its really a sad place, totally dislike it and avoid it like the plague-but dont feel too bad Angelenos, we look down on every city, not just yours. A dated provincialism that will probably die with the baby boomers.

You just happen to be the closest Major City so you bare the brunt of our ire.

Padres-Dodgers Rivalry?

Hmm its small, I mean when it comes to hated teams in SD its mostly the raiders and chiefs in the NFL. We don't think much about that with baseball. At least thats what I get from it.

But like some have said, it is picking up some steam here.

:lol: Good joke! I HATE the Dodgers, and a ton of my friends do too. I HATE the Raiders even more.:)


One of the main reasons I hate them so much is that people here in San Diego think they are so cool by wearing LA and Raiders stuff so they can look "gangsta" and think they are so cool. (I emphasized "cool" on purpose.):)

There has been and will always be a rivalry between Los Angeles and San Francisco. But that's okay. San Diego, Chicago, and New York City are also our rivals. We fare well against all of them though.

They are both beautiful cities, but have very different personalities. One is superficial and socially offensive, the other is sophisticated and socially evolved. I won't say which is which.

Superficial and socially offensive? Maybe the people on that stupid new show called Sunset Tan or whatever, but don't be so quick to generalize a population of 18 million and on top of that, sound so declarative about it.

So you think LA is superficial and socially offensive? I didn't indicate which one is which, but you seemed to know right away. Perceptions and stereotypes exist because they often mirror reality.

Of course they are generalizations. I didn't argue that they weren't. LA is physically beautiful, but other aspects of it are not at all.

It ain't a mystery which city you were referring to as we get that a lot. No, Los Angeles isn't a superificial town. The media without a doubt controls LA's global image. It capitalizes on the wealth and exclusivity of communities like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Malibu, disregarding completely the whole other side of Los Angeles. Shows like Laguna Beach, The OC, Sunset Tan, and Dr. 90210 draw viewers because they expose the lives of the upper tiers of society, lifestyles that are somewhat envied and looked at in amazement. It creates this sort of fantasy world we all are or have been interested in in at some point. And that's just what it is - a fantasty. I've lived in Los Angeles my whole life. I don't know anyone who has had plastic surgery, anyone who is in or has been in a gang, or anyone who aspires to be an actor/actress/model. The real Los Angeles is not what's put out there and thank god it isn't.

The rivalry is mainly one way. San Franciscans tend to dislike LA; they accuse us of stealing their water which isn't true. (We steal the water from the Owens Valley which the northern Californians would like to steal for themselves but we got there first.) Los Angeles is very disorienting for San Franciscans, Remember they can themselves "the city" even thought hey are about the same size as Disney world and are very confused when they have to deal with a really big city.

Southern Californians on the other hand, tend to really like San Francisco, considering it a nice little town to getaway for the weekend much like Santa Barbara or Monterey.

LOL.

San Francisco accuses LA of stealing water when they get theirs from Yosemite via Hetch Hetchy. I guess crossing lines of longitude is not as bad as stealing north-south.

They also accuse LA of building concrete over everything, which is why they need to bring in water to begin with. I find this ironic because San Francisco gets about 0% of its water from the ground and the city is obviously much more dense (they brag about it.)

The NorCal/SoCal debate is childish. SF should just move on.

I find it fascinating that everyone is focusing on the issue like it's a straighforward SF-LA thing which it is not. It's about Northern California and Southern California, it's about the fact Norcal was settled first and was the state for sixty years. LA became another foci only after the 1906 quake in SF, which coincided with the invention of the refrigerated railroad car which in turn turned LA into citrus capital it once was. It's about supposed polar opposite philisophies: the hippies v Hollywood fakeness; green and environmental Norcal v paved-over Socal; natural beaches v overly-developed ones; and I could go on...

I went to school in San Luis Obispo which is kinda like a divide since half the people there are from the Socal and the other half from Norcal. I can tell you there are many differences...but they really are superficial ones. Overall we all tend to LOVE the outdoors and we tend to be open to and even inviting of foreign cultures if only because we love to have food from all over the world. :) We also all dislike Texas hahaha

The media without a doubt controls LA's global image. It capitalizes on the wealth and exclusivity of communities like Hollywood, Beverly Hills, and Malibu, disregarding completely the whole other side of Los Angeles. Shows like Laguna Beach, The OC, Sunset Tan, and Dr. 90210 draw viewers because they expose the lives of the upper tiers of society, lifestyles that are somewhat envied and looked at in amazement. It creates this sort of fantasy world we all are or have been interested in in at some point. And that's just what it is - a fantasty.

That's what drew me to LA. I opted for UCLA over Berkeley because I wanted to get outta town and growing up, LA was shown to be Cannes West. Actually going there and spending years there was a different story altogether.

People in Metro LA and The Bay Area are extremely similar in how they live and where they shop, eat, play, etc-except there are less tropical-themed landscaping(also I think LA homes usually have more meticulous landscaping) up here.

But I swear The OC outside of The Coast looks just like Fremont and Redwood City. The East Bay Hills could literally double for the Hollywood Hills and so on.

but dont feel too bad Angelenos, we look down on every city, not just yours. A dated provincialism that will probably die with the baby boomers.

San Francisco is actually one of the many cities that carry this sort of superiority complex. You can't deny that the same provincialism exists in cities such as San Diego, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. Essentially, each city believes they rule the country and the entire world.

San Diego - It has a superiorty complex toward Los Angeles and it embraces its moniker of "America's Finest City."

Chicago - Civic pride at its best. I've seen lots of Chicagoans on here assert their city as being the greatest thing the world has ever seen. Additionally, many Chicagoans pride themselves on not being New York City.

New York City - New Yorkers really do believe their city is the "Capital of the World," "Center of the Universe," etc. To them, nothing else matters to them.

Boston - This has always struck me as an elite town, with a definite elitest attitude towards New York City.

All the above cities are extremely stuck up and there's no doubt that San Francisco should be mentioned along with them.

San Francisco is actually one of the many cities that carry this sort of superiority complex. You can't deny that the same provincialism exists in cities such as San Diego, Chicago, New York City, and Boston. Essentially, each city believes they rule the country and the entire world.

San Diego - It has a superiorty complex toward Los Angeles and it embraces its moniker of "America's Finest City."

Chicago - Civic pride at its best. I've seen lots of Chicagoans on here assert their city as being the greatest thing the world has ever seen. Additionally, many Chicagoans pride themselves on not being New York City.

New York City - New Yorkers really do believe their city is the "Capital of the World," "Center of the Universe," etc. To them, nothing else matters to them.

Boston - This has always struck me as an elite town, with a definite elitest attitude towards New York City.

All the above cities are extremely stuck up and there's no doubt that San Francisco should be mentioned along with them.


Oh and don't forget to add Los Angeles to that list as well. LA thinks it is the epitome of "cool" and use Hollywood to those means.

^What's "cool" is entirely subjective. The biggest difference between Los Angeles and those cities is that Los Angeles lacks any sort of civic pride. Some Angelenos don't even respect their own city!

That's what drew me to LA. I opted for UCLA over Berkeley because I wanted to get outta town and growing up, LA was shown to be Cannes West. Actually going there and spending years there was a different story altogether.

But I swear The OC outside of The Coast looks just like Fremont and Redwood City. The East Bay Hills could literally double for the Hollywood Hills and so on.

Lucky you don't have overbearing parents. Sometimes, I swear to god...

Anyway, what you mentioned is probably true of many suburbs throughout California, if not the entire USA. Suburbs get to a point when they all kind of look like one another... I don't get the hate between SF and LA. I certainly don't think SF is better or worse than LA...

Perhaps it's because I'm not entirely a native (I lived in Hong Kong until I was about 9 before I moved to SF)

Can't we all just be Californians?

^^ Exactly what I was thinking. What do L.A. and San Francisco have in common? Were both Californians.

The NorCal vs SoCal crap is played out already.

Both cities are unique in their own way. SF is geographically at an advantage. LA is huge, once something is done for one part of the city the other parts fall behind. In SF, everything is invested within the peninsula...they can only build up. That is a good thing. But I think pound for pound, LA has more to offer than any other city. I realized this when I moved away for a few months. True Angelinos love complaining about our city that we love but get pissed when outsiders complain. In La you hear alot of crap coming from transplants from other cities. I always ask them "if the city you came from is so great, why are you here?" They usually have no answer.

La is known to be superficial but much of that is due to the media. All you hear about is OC, Beverly Hills, snobs, paris hilton...etc Do you ever hear about our cultural history and tolerance....rich diversity. Even talk to the people living in poor areas (south central, east la, compton, long beach...) They will tell you they are down for their city. Trust me!

Here's one way to test the rivalry issue. Maybe some Angelenos can respond to the following:

How does the Dodger-Padre rivalry compare to the Dodger-Giant rivalry?

Even weakened by the move to Anaheim, wasn't there a time when the old Ram-49er rivalry was huge?



I'm kind of OK with the Padres but the other team you mentioned...ahhhh.........GIANTS SUCK! Can't stand them. I hope the organization suffers......THINK BLUE

I'm kind of OK with the Padres but the other team you mentioned...ahhhh.........GIANTS SUCK! Can't stand them. I hope the organization suffers......THINK BLUE

I sense some envy...possible because you don't have Barry?? :banana: Let's not forget a lot of our rivalry comes from back East where we were also rivals. MLB just moved the rivalry out West!

To further expand on the point that it's North vs South, not just SF vs LA:
Sharks - Ducks
Earthquakes (RIP) - Galaxy
A's - Angels
Raiders - Chargers
Kings - Lakers (formerly)

To further expand on the point that it's North vs South, not just SF vs LA:
Sharks - Ducks
Earthquakes (RIP) - Galaxy
A's - Angels
Raiders - Chargers
Kings - Lakers (formerly)


Kings lakers was never a rivalry. For it to be a rivalry both teams have to beat eachother. the kings never beat the lAKES in a series.

I sense some envy...possible because you don't have Barry?? :banana: Let's not forget a lot of our rivalry comes from back East where we were also rivals. MLB just moved the rivalry out West!


typical giant fan. All you do is swing from Barry's nuts because your team is in last place. what else do you have to cheer for? You guys are so preoccupied with this barry stuff, you forget your team underachieves and is overpaid........like the media down here with Kobe...real Laker fans are more concerned that the team is losing rather than what is going on with Kobe

Don't put the two in the same sentence. LA is not worthy.

Don't put the two in the same sentence. LA is not worthy.

Says the guy that has a hard on for Phoenix.

In La you hear alot of crap coming from transplants from other cities. I always ask them "if the city you came from is so great, why are you here?" They usually have no answer.

This happens all the time for San Jose too :/

La is known to be superficial but much of that is due to the media. All you hear about is OC, Beverly Hills, snobs, paris hilton...etc Do you ever hear about our cultural history and tolerance....rich diversity. Even talk to the people living in poor areas (south central, east la, compton, long beach...) They will tell you they are down for their city. Trust me!

Oh I trust you because I know first hand this is true. I'm not poor, but grew up poor, and came from south central LA. All of friends I know from these area have a lot of pride about LA. Thats why its a bit surprising to hear people say LA lacks pride about their city, or hate it. Its not that some will complain about certain things they don't like, but that any city. Overall many of these residents love their city, and woundn't want to live anywhere else outside this region. The most negative remarks I hear about the city/metro are more so from whites. They seem to care more about what others think, where as minorities (rich or poor) don't give a crap and know LA in spite of its problems is one of the best and most exciting cities to live in.

Don't put the two in the same sentence. LA is not worthy.


Trolls are like roaches, and rats, they come out of the wood work when they think no one is around.

When LA is mentioned they come out like a rat when he smells cheese. To bad that cheese isn't on a trap to snap their ass and get rid of them forever off this forum. :banana:

typical giant fan. All you do is swing from Barry's nuts because your team is in last place. what else do you have to cheer for? You guys are so preoccupied with this barry stuff, you forget your team underachieves and is overpaid........like the media down here with Kobe...real Laker fans are more concerned that the team is losing rather than what is going on with Kobe

Typical baseball fan, trash-talking about Barry but when you analyze the stats objectively this 42-year-old is still one of the top hitters in the majors. I dare you to name any player on your current roster who hits as well as Barry.
And of course we're concerned about losing, but much like politics what can the everyday fan do?? All we can do is hold on to the good parts and try to forget the bad.

PS. We have one of the top pitching rotations in the Majors; the reason they arent as good as they can be is because the team doesnt reallly score. They may have weak winning percentages but are otherwise solid starters. Zito has been so-so, alternating between brilliant and crap starts.

This happens all the time for San Jose too :/
Red Wings fans, especially...

Don't put the two in the same sentence. LA is not worthy.

Idiot.

Actually, Los Angeles is the clear dominant city of the Western US. To say that Los Angeles is not worthy is complete bullshit on your part considering just how much more a global phenomenon we are compared to San Francisco.

LA truly is the premier city 'round these parts. I think that's what drives the hate from the North.

LA proper vs SF proper, SF wins hands down. What Southern California sells is an image and lifestyle, nothing else. Dont get me wrong, I love Los Angeles proper and most of the cities in the basin (I hate the Valley) because I just love the atmosphere; but let's not kid ourselves and say LA's image is not meticulously sculpted by Hollywood.
All in all we offer two different things, but not too deep down we all agree California, Über Alles (to quote Jello Biafra).

^All cities "sell" their own "things." Los Angeles sells its image. San Francisco sells its charm. New York City sells its energy. Those are all conveyed through the media.

So essentially you're saying that under the image created by Hollywood, Los Angeles is just fluff? There's more to Los Angeles than what's put out there by Hollywood. So in that sense, San Francisco doesn't win "hands down." They both have something unique to offer. Los Angeles has tons of enclaves, many of which boast ethnic and cultural diversity. In addition, there are tons and tons of museums, cultural events, and nightlife options. It's this diversity that seperates Los Angeles from all other cities and puts it up there with New York City and London.

^All cities "sell" their own "things." Los Angeles sells its image. San Francisco sells its charm. New York City sells its energy. Those are all conveyed through the media.

So essentially you're saying that under the image created by Hollywood, Los Angeles is just fluff? There's more to Los Angeles than what's put out there by Hollywood. So in that sense, San Francisco doesn't win "hands down." They both have something unique to offer. Los Angeles has tons of enclaves, many of which boast ethnic and cultural diversity. In addition, there are tons and tons of museums, cultural events, and nightlife options. It's this diversity that seperates Los Angeles from all other cities and puts it up there with New York City and London.

Sure, sounds great but name me one other city in the WORLD with a propaganda machine even remotely reaching the size and influence of Hollywood. And I never said that what LA sells is "fluff." Never.

Los Angeles has tons of enclaves, many of which boast ethnic and cultural diversity. In addition, there are tons and tons of museums, cultural events, and nightlife options. It's this diversity that seperates Los Angeles from all other cities and puts it up there with New York City and London.

Uhh, not to add fuel to the fire here... but everything mentioned above also applies to SF, except in SF's situation it is easier to get from one enclave to another due to SF's density. I still think SF public transit is crap, but it is better than LA's.

Uhh, not to add fuel to the fire here... but everything mentioned above also applies to SF, except in SF's situation it is easier to get from one enclave to another due to SF's density. I still think SF public transit is crap, but it is better than LA's.

Sure, but Los Angeles brings all those things to a whole new level. ;)

I still think SF public transit is crap
It pretty much is. The whole system is "We can take you anywhere on Market Street." Going anywhere else is a bitch.

hell yea

LA is the armpit of california...Why is this even being debated?????

^:lol:

LA is the armpit of california...Why is this even being debated?????

Oh no, it looks like we have another troll on our hands. The armpit of California...how sweet. We're the most important city in the most important state in the most important country in the world. That's not too shabby a title buddy. ;) It seems as if you feel threatened by Los Angeles, so much so that you have to put it down using lame metaphors. Though judging from your location, I would expect such a thing from a douchebag like you.

Moron.

Los Angeles most certainly is not the most important city in world.

Los Angeles most certainly is not the most important city in world.

Most important city in California, which is the most important state in the United States, which is the most important country in the world. Read carefully.

My apologies! Sorry. :(

Los Angeles most certainly is not the most important city in world.

That's not what he said, read it better.

Let me list some great things about LA: UCLA, Ports of Long Beach & Los Angeles, La Brea Tar Pits, etc.

That's not what he said, read it better.

Let me list some great things about LA: UCLA, Ports of Long Beach & Los Angeles, La Brea Tar Pits, etc.




My apologies! Sorry. :(




Read posts more carefully.

Let me list some great things about LA: UCLA, Ports of Long Beach & Los Angeles, La Brea Tar Pits, etc.

- 5th busiest airport in the world
- 5th busiest port in the world
- More musuems than any other city in the US
- Home to UCLA, USC, and CalTech
- Birthplace of the internet
- Entertainment industry
- Media industry
- Fashion industry
- Aerospace industry
- Telecommunications industry
- Largest manufacturing center in the US
- Contemporary art capital
- Largest Asian-American population

Read posts more carefully.

You posted it a 7:12, I did at 7:13, your post wasn't even there when I started to reply. :bash:

The Angelinos are boasting again!

Yep... and Los Angeles is indeed one of the most important city in the world...

Angelenos can't boast for a great city?

Yep... and Los Angeles is indeed one of the most important city in the world...


^^ Exactly that's why everyone wants to come here... for those who claim they don't, are lying!

That's not what he said, read it better.

Let me list some great things about LA: UCLA, Ports of Long Beach & Los Angeles, La Brea Tar Pits, etc.

funny, i always thought UCLA was in brentwood...

5th busiest airport in the world that must suck
- 5th busiest port in the world whoopty freakin whoo
- More musuems than any other city in the US okay, pretty cool
- Home to UCLA, USC, and CalTech cool
- Birthplace of the internet really?? hmmm...:nuts:
- Entertainment industry stolen from norcal, btw. thieves.
- Media industry eww, keep it
- Fashion industry second-tier
- Aerospace industry yes, build me bombs to kill people
- Telecommunications industry ummm, get working on teleportation asap
- Largest manufacturing center in the US manufacturing consent
- Contemporary art capital where'd you hear this??
- Largest Asian-American population not percentage-wise

funny, i always thought UCLA was in brentwood...
You're thinking of Westwood. Both are neighborhoods within Los Angeles city.

5th busiest airport in the world that must suck
- 5th busiest port in the world whoopty freakin whoo
- More musuems than any other city in the US okay, pretty cool
- Home to UCLA, USC, and CalTech cool
- Birthplace of the internet really?? hmmm...:nuts:
- Entertainment industry stolen from norcal, btw. thieves.
- Media industry eww, keep it
- Fashion industry second-tier
- Aerospace industry yes, build me bombs to kill people
- Telecommunications industry ummm, get working on teleportation asap
- Largest manufacturing center in the US manufacturing consent
- Contemporary art capital where'd you hear this??
- Largest Asian-American population not percentage-wise

Jealous much?

Los Angeles is composed of neighborhoods, such as Hollywood, Silver Lake, San Pedro, etc. Westwood, where UCLA is, is one of the neighborhoods of Los Angeles. Come on, I mean, it is called University of California LOS ANGELES.

Edit.

- Entertainment industry stolen from norcal, btw. thieves.

Um, no.

- Fashion industry second-tier

Actually, not really. True, NYC is the fashion capital of the United States but Los Angeles represents contemporary fashion. All the major designers are choosing to locate their flagship boutiques in LA and NYC. In addition, Juicy Couture will have their world flagship on Rodeo Drive, which is appropriate considering it began at FIDM Los Angeles. Other brands that began in Los Angeles are Guess, Von Dutch, 7 For All Mankind, Citizens of Humanity, and Rock and Republic.

- Contemporary art capital where'd you hear this??

The artists themselves. There is a huge influx of young, contemporary artists moving into Los Angeles, many of whom label Los Angeles as the contemporary art capital of the world. We will have more gallery space dedicated to contemporary art than any other city in the world once the Broad Center opens up at LACMA. In addition, dozens and dozens of galleries have recently opened up in Downtown and Culver City and BusinessWeek named Los Angeles as the best place for artists.

Can't all of us Californians just get along?!?

As far as the internet from what I've read, both regions developed it in its earliest stages. Even before the military bought into the concept, scientists from Berkeley and UCLA were swapping lab results through their computers. . .the earliest forms of email.

Now let's kiss and make up ok? BEEEOTCHEZ!

Yep... and Los Angeles is indeed one of the most important city in the world...

It is one of the most important cities. Thanks for saying "one of". But that's not why everyone wants to go there. I don't want to go there. :)

People want to come to Los Angeles because it represents opportunity more so than any other city on the West Coast. It is the epitome of the word multicultural and just about anyone and anything can be found here. Also, being the chief city of the sixth largest economy in the world makes it a global center. There ya go. ;)

It is one of the most important cities. Thanks for saying "one of". But that's not why everyone wants to go there. I don't want to go there. :)

Haha. Yeah, but plenty of other people want to. Must explain why we had only a population of 100,000 back in 1900.

The Angelinos are boasting again!

Were not boasting L.A., we are defending our city because some of the morons here are always bashing L.A. and always making false bullshit about the city.

And this thread should be closed. This thread its turning into city vs city thread.

It is one of the most important cities. Thanks for saying "one of". But that's not why everyone wants to go there. I don't want to go there. :)


Yeah... because I don't think there is one single city that anybody can say with certainty it's "the most important" in the world. There is of course a group of cities that are considered the most important in the world.
BTW I never said that everybody wants to come to LA... However I would have to say there is a lot of people wanting to move out here to the point that this metro area is expected to surpass the 24 million people within the next 30 years.:|
And thanks for not wanting to come over here we don't need anymore anyways.

Can't all of us Californians just get along?!?

Now let's kiss and make up ok? BEEEOTCHEZ!


Exactly why are we fighting omung us Californians, so some are more privilege than others. We're still in the same state, right?

LA is the armpit of california...Why is this even being debated?????

You want to explain how L.A. is a armpit of California? I bet you can't explain because you know its bullshit.

Nudepirate? Where in the hell did you get your screename from? A low budget porno movie you were watching on Saturday night?

I forever call this so-called "armpit" my home, troll.

^That guy more than likely made a second account just to troll. Lame.

^That guy more than likely made a second account just to troll. Lame.

And he's from New York of all places.

You're thinking of Westwood. Both are neighborhoods within Los Angeles city.

i was...my bad. it's all OJs fault!

:grouphug:

THREAD CLOSED http://www.harvestcollege.com/img_logo/def_forum_lock.gif

Yeah... because I don't think there is one single city that anybody can say with certainty it's "the most important" in the world. There is of course a group of cities that are considered the most important in the world.
BTW I never said that everybody wants to come to LA... However I would have to say there is a lot of people wanting to move out here to the point that this metro area is expected to surpass the 24 million people within the next 30 years.:|
And thanks for not wanting to come over here we don't need anymore anyways.

You didn't say that.

^^ Exactly that's why everyone wants to come here... for those who claim they don't, are lying!

This guy did. Read previous posts.

And you're welcome. I stay away from LA as much as possible.:banana:

^yes I did read the previous posts... but your answer was aimed at me...

and instead of just staying away as much as possible... why don't you just stay away completely? We would be so much happier.:banana: :banana:

Dude what the hell.

I didn't even know this whole area over here existed!

Can we at least keep this one rowdy thread open? I vote to keep it unlocked!!! I love love city vs. city crap especially when it's SF or Chicago or even SD vs. LA, Nothing like a little healthy city pride!

All you haters out there are completely ignorant. If you want to come to the table with facts and well-informed opinions, I would love nothing more than to debate SF vs. LA with you.

I love both cities from the bottom of my heart, but SF in my mind is completely culturally irrelevant compared with LA. The smartest SF-er's I know agree. That doesn't mean there's nothing happening there, but all-in-all it is a narrow-minded city compared with LA. If you can't see that, you have blinders on.

To me, it's like this: I'm in LA because I want to be a force of change in the world. I want to have an impact, and the best way to do this is for me to keep my finger on the world's pulse. Maybe once I get old and tired and don't want to keep fighting and pushing and living in total awareness I'll move up to that adorable little provincial bay. SF just might be the best place to raise kids or retire, because there is nowhere more beautiful in the entire world, and there is nowhere that offers more pleasures to the hedonistic self-centered elitist liberal in me...

^yes I did read the previous posts... but your answer was aimed at me.

Actually the entire post was directed at the other guy. Don't make assumptions buddy.:banana: :banana: :banana:

I stay away from LA as much as possible.:banana:

You stay in that little bubble of yours. I'll take a global city over a resort town that's developing into a condo-park. And don't show your hate just because San Diego isn't, has never been, and will never be the chief city of Southern California. You can go on about how "nice" your city is and how "clean" it is but I don't really care. I'd take energy over cleanliness anyday. ;)

edit

You stay in that little bubble of yours. I'll take a global city over a resort town that's developing into a condo-park. And don't show your hate just because San Diego isn't, has never been, and will never be the chief city of Southern California. You can go on about how "nice" your city is and how "clean" it is but I don't really care. I'd take energy over cleanliness anyday. ;)

Wow. When the fuck did I say any of that. I just don't like Los Angeles. Enough said. Keep making your little assumptions. They are funny.

LOL, the fact that you have to chime into this thread and add your little two cents speaks volumes. This thread is about Los Angeles and San Francisco, not San Diego. But if the question had been posed, "Has there been or is there a rivalry between San Diego and LA?" then yes, I would definitely expect to see you in this thread.

You don't like LA. Congrats. I don't care. But stop putting it down. It says a lot. ;)

Wow. When the fuck did I say any of that. I just don't like Los Angeles. Enough said. Keep making your little assumptions. They are funny.

If you don't like Los Angeles and you want to stay away from L.A. as much as possible, do the L.A. forumers a favor and stay out of here.

If you don't like L.A. and you want to stay away from L.A. as much as possible, do the L.A. forumers a favor and stay out of here.

He can't. Some San Diegans must travel all the way up to Los Angeles just to catch a flight out of LAX. Though thanks for boosting our numbers. :lol:

LOL, the fact that you have to chime into this thread and add your little two cents speaks volumes. This thread is about Los Angeles and San Francisco, not San Diego. But if the question had been posed, "Has there been or is there a rivalry between San Diego and LA?" then yes, I would definitely expect to see you in this thread.

You don't like LA. Congrats. I don't care. But stop putting it down. It says a lot. ;)

I didn't, somebody else did. Maybe look back a few pages and read what other people posted before making more assumptions. You guys are good at that.

He can't. Some San Diegans must travel all the way up to Los Angeles just to catch a flight out of LAX. Though thanks for boosting our numbers. :lol:

Wow. Excellent comeback.

I didn't, somebody else did. Maybe look back a few pages and read what other people posted before making more assumptions. You guys are good at that.

First example...

It is one of the most important cities. Thanks for saying "one of". But that's not why everyone wants to go there. I don't want to go there. :)

...second example...

I stay away from LA as much as possible.:banana:


And you also provoked a flame in an LA thread in the City Photos forum at SSP a while back, adding another one of your smart comments. You like to troll when it comes to LA, just face it.

Examples of what? And no, I didn't start a flame in a City Photos thread at SSP. What are you smoking?

Actually the entire post was directed at the other guy. Don't make assumptions buddy.:banana: :banana: :banana:


^ What other guy?

Hehe, Ferney is the perfect guy to start a flame war with derek, you'll love him.

So back to San Francisco, I'm jealous that they have the all-star game. When will LA get it again?

^ What other guy?

At you. But I'm over it.



I don't think LA will get another All Star Game until they build a new stadium. Dodger Stadium is a great place to watch a game, but it's getting old quickly. I hope LA finds a way to get a new baseball stadium.

I love both cities from the bottom of my heart, but SF in my mind is completely culturally irrelevant compared with LA. The smartest SF-er's I know agree. That doesn't mean there's nothing happening there, but all-in-all it is a narrow-minded city compared with LA. If you can't see that, you have blinders on.

To me, it's like this: I'm in LA because I want to be a force of change in the world. I want to have an impact, and the best way to do this is for me to keep my finger on the world's pulse. Maybe once I get old and tired and don't want to keep fighting and pushing and living in total awareness I'll move up to that adorable little provincial bay. SF just might be the best place to raise kids or retire, because there is nowhere more beautiful in the entire world, and there is nowhere that offers more pleasures to the hedonistic self-centered elitist liberal in me...

Good job exemplifying why so many people put down LA. The city itself is fine, it's people like this ^^ that give LA a bad rap.

At you. But I'm over it.



I don't think LA will get another All Star Game until they build a new stadium. Dodger Stadium is a great place to watch a game, but it's getting old quickly. I hope LA finds a way to get a new baseball stadium.

It is not getting old fast. They are upgrading it every season, and I think that the Dodgers are going to get the same deal that Kansas City got. McCourt has a lot of things planned, but I don't think he's going to start them unless he gets a promise from Bud Selig that they will get the all-star game for it.

The big thing that the stadium needs is a way to get there without a car. I've heard of a chair lift from the Chinatown Gold Line station and even light rail, but what the stadium really needs is an outdoor mall so that there is not the rush which causes all of the traffic before and after the games.

Good job exemplifying why so many people put down LA. The city itself is fine, it's people like this ^^ that give LA a bad rap.

umm.. I'm pretty sure LA's reputation has never been based on people like me.

When was the last time you heard a joke about LA people being arrogant about their city's cosmopolitanism? Maybe you're confusing LA with New York??

umm.. I'm pretty sure LA's reputation has never been based on people like me.

When was the last time you heard a joke about LA people being arrogant about their city's cosmopolitanism? Maybe you're confusing LA with New York??
Or even San Francisco...

It is not getting old fast. They are upgrading it every season, and I think that the Dodgers are going to get the same deal that Kansas City got. McCourt has a lot of things planned, but I don't think he's going to start them unless he gets a promise from Bud Selig that they will get the all-star game for it.

The big thing that the stadium needs is a way to get there without a car. I've heard of a chair lift from the Chinatown Gold Line station and even light rail, but what the stadium really needs is an outdoor mall so that there is not the rush which causes all of the traffic before and after the games.

Actually it is getting old fast, no matter how many improvements are being made. It feels like you are walking into a prison or something everytime you walk in it, with its huge chainlink fences.

Actually it is getting old fast, no matter how many improvements are being made. It feels like you are walking into a prison or something everytime you walk in it, with its huge chainlink fences.

I go there all the time and it looks better all the time. Go back to your pet store that you call a baseball stadium.

HAHA! You guys up in Los Angeles have the greatest comebacks!


I'm very jealous.

Good job exemplifying why so many people put down LA. The city itself is fine, it's people like this ^^ that give LA a bad rap.

The people? Um, San Francisco and San Diego are filled with uber SNOBS.

Haha, yes. Dodger Stadium is an older stadium than Petco...which is what I prefer. I will always prefer the older, more classic stadiums of yesteryear than to one that was built just yesterday. This pretty much speaks to how everything in San Diego is "new material."

Los Angeles is filled with plenty of snobs, too. Every place in the world is.

LOL, do you see us putting down other cities while simultaneously boasting to the world about how great we are? I've seen this phenomenon occur in San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, and NYC - all of which are rivals of Los Angeles.

SF- Better skyline, much more urban, more important, better sports, better people, better weather, better scenery.

LA- More starbucks, wannabe celebs. :banana:

LOL, do you see us putting down other cities while simultaneously boasting to the world about how great we are?

Actually I do see that a lot.

LOL, do you see us putting down other cities while simultaneously boasting to the world about how great we are? I've seen this phenomenon occur in San Diego, San Francisco, Chicago, and NYC - all of which are rivals of Los Angeles.

youre doing it right here!! putting down SD, SF, Chi, and NYC while claiming your city is better by not engaging in such behavior. ESSSSNAP.

San Francisco isn't more important than Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the primary city of the Western US, period. We are ranked as an alpha city while San Francisco ranks as a beta city.

Better sports? Isn't Los Angeles the only city in the US to have hosted the Olympics twice? Also, didn't the Lakers win three consecutive championships?

Better people? How so? What's your methodology? Please, do explain.

Better weather? Los Angeles is known for its great weather and its why we developed as the hub of the film industry.

You're an idiot. Your crap is easily, which you don't even back up, is easily refutable. I still am laughing at the fact that all of this is coming from a Phoenix humper, the king of suburban sprawl with an office park as its downtown! :lol: Congrats on your city being the fastest growing city in the US! I'm going to let you have your moment of glory because I don't want to spoil this "special" time for you. ;)

Actually I do see that a lot.

That only comes after someone bashes Los Angeles. Usually it's always a San Diegan, San Franciscan, Chicagoan, or New Yorker who's the first to make a flame-provoking comment. Usually it's them who needs to make such comments in order to convince themselves that they're city is better and it's usually the one that starts the city vs. city nature. You won't find me entering a San Diego related thread adding trollish comments to it like you've done here. And please look at nudepirate's only comment (lame). We Angelenos would never make a comment like that unless it's in Los Angeles' defense. I'm afraid you're mistaken.

San Francisco isn't more important than Los Angeles. Los Angeles is the primary city of the Western US, period. We are ranked as an alpha city while San Francisco ranks as a beta city.

Better sports? Isn't Los Angeles the only city in the US to have hosted the Olympics twice? Also, didn't the Lakers win three consecutive championships?

Better people? How so? What's your methodology? Please, do explain.

Better weather? Los Angeles is known for its great weather and its why we developed as the hub of the film industry.

You're an idiot. Your crap is easily, which you don't even back up, is easily refutable. I still am laughing at the fact that all of this is coming from a Phoenix humper, the king of suburban sprawl with an office park as its downtown! :lol: Congrats on your city being the fastest growing city in the US! I'm going to let you have your moment of glory because I don't want to spoil this "special" time for you. ;)

Actually I'm from Miami. So what if I like Phoenix more than LA, if you ever got off this board you'd realize I'm FAR from the only one. My "crap" that I don't back up? Perhaps you should read over your replies ass hat. Now I'll let you get back to rubbing your pecker to photos of LA.

better skyline
yes
much more urban
yes
more important
nope
better sports
they have only two major teams...perhaps down to one in a couple years
better people
not in my experience
better weather
put down the bottle
better scenery.
depends on what you like, but it is nice

your doing it right here!! putting down SD, SF, Chi, and NYC while claiming your city is better by not engaging in such behavior. ESSSSNAP.

Um, no. I'm calling all of those cities out on their snobbery and apparent lack of respect for other cities, primarily Los Angeles.

I've encountered plenty of San Diegans, San Franciscans, Chicagoans, and New Yorkers who troll in LA related threads, intentionally bringing about dissension. I'm not one to put down cities unless it's purely in LA's defense. Go back and check the first flame-provoking comment by FLscraper who sides with San Francisco.

your doing it right here!! putting down SD, SF, Chi, and NYC while claiming your city is better by not engaging in such behavior. ESSSSNAP.

Exactly.

Actually I'm from Miami. So what if I like Phoenix more than LA, if you ever got off this board you'd realize I'm FAR from the only one. My "crap" that I don't back up? Perhaps you should read over your replies ass hat. Now I'll let you get back to rubbing your pecker to photos of LA.

yea thats what im talking about!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! now u can talk as much crap as u want.

people he's FROM MIAMI so we could leave him alone, its k for him to talk crap

Actually I'm from Miami. So what if I like Phoenix more than LA, if you ever got off this board you'd realize I'm FAR from the only one. My "crap" that I don't back up? Perhaps you should read over your replies ass hat. Now I'll let you get back to rubbing your pecker to photos of LA.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

whats so funny about that

Actually I'm from Miami. So what if I like Phoenix more than LA, if you ever got off this board you'd realize I'm FAR from the only one. My "crap" that I don't back up? Perhaps you should read over your replies ass hat. Now I'll let you get back to rubbing your pecker to photos of LA.

I could give a crap whether you like Phoenix more than LA. You're welcome to do so my friend! Yes, ain't my little thread something special? I always enjoy how we celebrate our city through photography. It's our little moment to truly appreciate the city.

Um, no. I'm calling all of those cities out on their snobbery and apparent lack of respect for other cities, primarily Los Angeles.

I've encountered plenty of San Diegans, San Franciscans, Chicagoans, and New Yorkers who troll in LA related threads, intentionally bringing about dissension. I'm not one to put down cities unless it's purely in LA's defense. Go back and check the first flame-provoking comment by FLscraper who sides with San Francisco.

What kind of holier-than-thou attitude is this??? Ohhh, my bad, people from LA NEVER disrespect other cities unless some hot-shot from one of America's Beta Cities disses LA first. Face it, youre like the rest of us! And I didnt find FLscraper's post to be "flame-provoking." He was stating his opinion; just because you happen to disagree with his opinion doesnt make it vitriolic. Chill and accept that at least ONE person in the world doesnt think LA is the best city to ever exist.

Hey! Make that two people right here. Which was the only thing I stated in the first place. I stated that I didn't like LA then some Angelino had to tell me how great it is.

What kind of holier-than-thou attitude is this??? Ohhh, my bad, people from LA NEVER disrespect other cities unless some hot-shot from one of America's Beta Cities disses LA first. Face it, youre like the rest of us! And I didnt find FLscraper's post to be "flame-provoking." He was stating his opinion; just because you happen to disagree with his opinion doesnt make it vitriolic. Chill and accept that at least ONE person in the world doesnt think LA is the best city to ever exist.

I don't think Los Angeles is the best city to ever exist. Stop putting words in my mouth. I think New York City and London are. And believe it or not, I think San Francisco is one of them as well. And why is all of this coming from you? You're not even a resident of San Francisco. ;)

This Forum is getting worse.
There are so many people that if you don't agree with them.
They either insult you or talk crap about your city.

Just like someone said somewhere in this forum. People here think NY is God and they think everyone should like NY, Chicago and LA.

We all have different opinion. I know this thread is about SF and LA.
I will take SF over LA a million time, but that is me.

Some people love LA just like I love Phoenix. Some people like the Beach, I like the mountains.
This is what make America great. and people should learn to respect people opinion.

I have been to NY and I will never live there, however some people will do anything to live there. and I respect them, The same goes for LA.
I know people who love LA and people won don't.

So let's respect each other opinion

Hey! Make that two people right here. Which was the only thing I stated in the first place. I stated that I didn't like LA then some Angelino had to tell me how great it is.

No Angeleno did such a thing. The boosterish comments came before your trollish comments.

- 5th busiest airport in the world
- 5th busiest port in the world
- More musuems than any other city in the US
- Home to UCLA, USC, and CalTech
- Birthplace of the internet
- Entertainment industry
- Media industry
- Fashion industry
- Aerospace industry
- Telecommunications industry
- Largest manufacturing center in the US
- Contemporary art capital
- Largest Asian-American population

You did it yourself!

You did it yourself!

It's called nudepirate and something about Los Angeles being an "armpit."

SF- Better skyline, much more urban, more important, better sports, better people, better weather, better scenery.

LA- More starbucks, wannabe celebs. :banana:

That your delusional opinion, and it sucks ass.

As usual, its okay for people here to troll and put down L.A., but when we defend our city we are automatically the bad guys? WTF???

I never seen Angelenos ramdomly put down other cities unless its in defense of our city.

I don't expect you to share my love for LA (I would never say it is a "great" city.. Greatness is reserved for places with civic pride and grand public institutions.. Greatness is also irrelevant these days and is pretty much an obsolete term in a globalized, multicultural world).

However, I do want you to know what Los Angeles actually is before you bash it. I never would have known how amazing LA is unless idiots from SF and SD hadn't told me how superficial and ignorant I apparently was, just because I was from LA. It was completely due to a-hole insecure california teens, and then later a-hole insecure arrogant east-coast college students, that I started looking at what LA really is. After years of studying LA I can objectively state that

PEOPLE DON'T KNOW SHIT ABOUT LA

It is by far the most misunderstood city in world. I feel no hesitation making a statement like that, because I've studied this. I've read books on LA urban sociology written by new yorkers, chicagoans, Londoners, angelinos, etc. and the established and agreed-upon diagnosis of LA is that it is the metropolis that best epitomizes contemporary global culture. It is exceptionally diverse (in most of the literature I've read, it is regarded as the most diverse collection of humans in the history of the world), fractured, globally influenced, culturally fluid, amorphous, and incredibly incredibly hard to understand.

The whole "New Urbanist" movement is a quaint and ridiculous last-ditch effort to impose some sort of american protestant norman rockwell idealism on a rapidly changing volatile world (and America). I agree that LA will need to make drastic changes in order to stay liveable by American standards, but I see this as an opportunity, not a dead end.

To make Chicago work, or San Francisco, or whatever, is completely irrelevant in the grand scheme of global urbanism. Cities all over the world take the form of LA now, they are not centralized coherent euro-centric heirarchical simple systems anymore.

If you make a change in LA, there are immediate applications to other new cities that have seen their populations outgrow their infrastructure. You influence LA, and you influence the world.

LA is by far the most densely-populated urban region in the US, and does not follow the urban-suburban model that everyone in America and Europe still believes is the "holy system," a system that is actually unsustainable and, ultimately, exclusive. Some academics have started calling LA "the american dream 2.0" because it is our only hope for establishing a new, denser immigrant metropolis, one that doesn't promise a home in the suburbs, but an attractive condo or other sustainable living unit.

The crazy thing is, 99% of all Angelenos don't know shit about any of this. They don't know that academia the world over sees hope, not failure in LA.

They don't even know that our city is regarded as a literal encyclopedia of modern architecture, that we represent the transition from the modern to the postmodern, or even that we have the most-talked-about contemporary art scene in the world.

While many of the other cities in America have taken to resting on their laurels, it's LA's turn to shine.

So go get yourself educated about LA, and then come back to the table. Then you can tell me why you don't like LA.

This Forum is getting worse.
There are so many people that if you don't agree with them.
They either insult you or talk crap about your city.

Just like someone said somewhere in this forum. People here think NY is God and they think everyone should like NY, Chicago and LA.

We all have different opinion. I know this thread is about SF and LA.
I will take SF over LA a million time, but that is me.

Some people love LA just like I love Phoenix. Some people like the Beach, I like the mountains.
This is what make America great. and people should learn to respect people opinion.

I have been to NY and I will never live there, however some people will do anything to live there. and I respect them, The same goes for LA.
I know people who love LA and people won don't.

So let's respect each other opinion

the most constructive post u ever made in SSC, congrats man, this is a fantastic post, i agree with u 100% it was about time u said something that was worth reading!!!!!!!!!!!!

edit

I only ever respect informed opinions.

I only ever respect informed opinions.

informed= accepting that la is at the head of a new pattern of human civilization, not chained by old-world, euro-centric, protestand-based patterns of development like nyc or sf; accepting that la is the heart of the world: any change to it necessarily affects the whole world; accepting that la is the new american dream which does not include a house in the burbs but rather dense, inner-city housing the likes of which exist nowhere else; accepting that the smartest people in the world hold los angeles as an example and beacon for the future.
this is waht i interpret you as saying. honestly. i have no problem with la, i like the place. all of it. from the hills to the sea. i happen to like where i live more but thats my right, innit? i dont live there because i dont like the size, the highways, the concrete, the need for a car, the traffic. i have my reasons. it is AMAZING that even the slightest criticism of los angeles illicits accusations of being uninformed, arrogant, snobish, inferior, and others. i can criticize where i live, can you??

"LA is by far the most densely-populated urban region in the US"

Where the heck are you getting this from? Also I don't quite understand how LA is any more diverse than SF.

Also let me say I don't hate LA by any means, but in terms of urban planning I think it leaves much to be desired. Honestly between SF and LA, I don't know which one was designed worse... in both cities a car is a must. My personal opinion is that SF has a lot more character to it and better density, but LA offers more options in terms of what to do. It might take 90 minutes to get to where you want to go, but there are definitely more options. As for people, between SF and LA both are equally arrogant =) So SF vs. LA, who cares, Dubai is putting both to shame.

informed= accepting that la is at the head of a new pattern of human civilization, not chained by old-world, euro-centric, protestand-based patterns of development like nyc or sf; accepting that la is the heart of the world: any change to it necessarily affects the whole world; accepting that la is the new american dream which does not include a house in the burbs but rather dense, inner-city housing the likes of which exist nowhere else; accepting that the smartest people in the world hold los angeles as an example and beacon for the future.
this is waht i interpret you as saying. honestly. i have no problem with la, i like the place. all of it. from the hills to the sea. i happen to like where i live more but thats my right, innit? i dont live there because i dont like the size, the highways, the concrete, the need for a car, the traffic. i have my reasons. it is AMAZING that even the slightest criticism of los angeles illicits accusations of being uninformed, arrogant, snobish, inferior, and others. i can criticize where i live, can you??

When people come in here and call Los Angeles an armpit we have a duty to come in here and defend the city. When someone like Derek comes in here and says we're being the bad guys, we have a duty to defend ourselves. Come in people. it's not that hard. Los Angeles is not an armpit, the people from LA are not bashing other cities; they are simply defending the city. All we ask is respect, not juvenile comments.

People say nothing about comments by nudepirate and derek except for people from Los Angeles, but right when we come to defend the city, we are hassled. Where's the justice?

"LA is by far the most densely-populated urban region in the US"

Where the heck are you getting this from? Also I don't quite understand how LA is any more diverse than SF.

Also let me say I don't hate LA by any means, but in terms of urban planning I think it leaves much to be desired. Honestly between SF and LA, I don't know which one was designed worse... in both cities a car is a must. My personal opinion is that SF has a lot more character to it and better density, but LA offers more options in terms of what to do. It might take 90 minutes to get to where you want to go, but there are definitely more options. As for people, between SF and LA both are equally arrogant =) So SF vs. LA, who cares, Dubai is putting both to shame.

Dubai is certainly not putting us to shame. Both are real cities, Dubai is a madman's dream.

Anyway, look up this in google. The most densely populated metropolitan regions in the United States. You'll be intrigued by what you find.

When people come in here and call Los Angeles an armpit we have a duty to come in here and defend the city. When someone like Derek comes in here and says we're being the bad guys, we have a duty to defend ourselves. Come in people. it's not that hard. Los Angeles is not an armpit, the people from LA are not bashing other cities; they are simply defending the city. All we ask is respect, not juvenile comments.

People say nothing about comments by nudepirate and derek except for people from Los Angeles, but right when we come to defend the city, we are hassled. Where's the justice?

true true. i hate this thread..i'm out :bash:

LET US NOT FORGET THIS THREAD WAS STARTED BY A TEXAN TO FOMENT HATE BETWEEN CALIFORNIA. EFFIN TEXAN.

Dubai is certainly not putting us to shame. Both are real cities, Dubai is a madman's dream.

Anyway, look up this in google. The most densely populated metropolitan regions in the United States. You'll be intrigued by what you find.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_urban_areas

deceptive.

try these:
Cities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_densely_populated_administrative_units_in_the_world) (Scroll down to North America)

Subdivisions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_the_most_densely_populated_administrative_units_in_the_world)

There is definitely something deceptive with the way that data was organized.

Take a look of the list by city:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_selected_cities_by_population_density

I don't think it takes a genius to figure out that NY, SF, and Chicago are more dense than LA. If anyone's been to these cities it's pretty clear.

No, the link kevin22 provided is accurate with what I've seen in the past. Los Angeles ranks as the densest metro in the country because it maintains a consistent population density in its suburbs. NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago are denser cities, but once you get out of the city the density plunges.

No, the link kevin22 provided is accurate with what I've seen in the past. Los Angeles ranks as the densest metro in the country because it maintains a consistent population density in its suburbs. NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago are denser cities, but once you get out of the city the density plunges.

NYC wins by population in metro area, but LA has the density.

When people come in here and call Los Angeles an armpit we have a duty to come in here and defend the city. When someone like Derek comes in here and says we're being the bad guys, we have a duty to defend ourselves. Come in people. it's not that hard. Los Angeles is not an armpit, the people from LA are not bashing other cities; they are simply defending the city. All we ask is respect, not juvenile comments.

People say nothing about comments by nudepirate and derek except for people from Los Angeles, but right when we come to defend the city, we are hassled. Where's the justice?

Are you high? I didn't ever say LA was the bad guy. I said I didn't like LA. You guys went ape shit.

No, the link kevin22 provided is accurate with what I've seen in the past. Los Angeles ranks as the densest metro in the country because it maintains a consistent population density in its suburbs. NYC, San Francisco, and Chicago are denser cities, but once you get out of the city the density plunges.

I disagree. The LA stats dont include the Valley, which I consider part of the LA metro. The SF numbers meanwhile include Marin County and parts of the Penninsula. The SF-OAK metro is 1364 sq/miles while SF proper is only about 50...hmmmmm... The Bay Area is unique in that all of our density is near the Bay on a strip of land no wider than five miles but once you get out of that strip youre in almost complete nature with little housing, lowering our overall density. If youve been here you understand what Im trying to say (I hope!)

Are you high? I didn't ever say LA was the bad guy. I said I didn't like LA. You guys went ape shit.

And it seems you and other people here go ape shit when L.A. forumers defend our city.

You made your point that you hate L.A., stop repeating it. Would you like it if an L.A. forumer went into a San Diego thread that has nothing to do L.A and kept saying and repeats: "I don't like San Diego" or "I stay far away from San Diego as much as possible," thats trolling to me.

I would, if people stopped assuming shit about me.

I disagree. The LA stats dont include the Valley, which I consider part of the LA metro.

The San Fernando Valley?

Maybe it's Antelope Valley?

^^ maybe the death valley.

Back to topic! :ohno:

You know that there's a rivalry when fans in SF boo every single LA player during the all star game.

The rivalry between the Dodgers and the Giants stems not only from personal reasons but historical ones as well when the two teams were based in NYC before moving out to California. So if it makes you feel any better, it's not entirely personal. ;)

The rivalry between the Dodgers and the Giants stems not only from personal reasons but historical ones as well when the two teams were based in NYC before moving out to California. So if it makes you feel any better, it's not entirely personal. ;)

Don't worry about me, I know the history of the Dodgers. But you know that some of it is because of the LA-SF rivalry.

Don't worry about me, I know the history of the Dodgers. But you know that some of it is because of the LA-SF rivalry.

Of course it is. Wikipedia doesn't miss a beat to point out the rivalry between Los Angeles and San Francisco. ;)

I disagree. The LA stats dont include the Valley, which I consider part of the LA metro.
The San Fernando Valley? That's not only LA metro, it's LA city.

informed= accepting that la is at the head of a new pattern of human civilization, not chained by old-world, euro-centric, protestand-based patterns of development like nyc or sf; accepting that la is the heart of the world: any change to it necessarily affects the whole world; accepting that la is the new american dream which does not include a house in the burbs but rather dense, inner-city housing the likes of which exist nowhere else; accepting that the smartest people in the world hold los angeles as an example and beacon for the future.
this is waht i interpret you as saying. honestly. i have no problem with la, i like the place. all of it. from the hills to the sea. i happen to like where i live more but thats my right, innit? i dont live there because i dont like the size, the highways, the concrete, the need for a car, the traffic. i have my reasons. it is AMAZING that even the slightest criticism of los angeles illicits accusations of being uninformed, arrogant, snobish, inferior, and others. i can criticize where i live, can you??

Yes, I can and often do criticize where I live. Because it's not great yet. Like I said in my post. LA is pretty dystopian. But it's not fargone, and if you actually read my earlier post you'd get that I see LA as the most amazing opportunity any city affords for affecting change on the contemporary world.

Also, if you'd actually read what I'd written, you'll see that angeleno's themselves don't understand LA, so I'm not surprised that you don't either. You'll see that I'm not accusing you of being arrogant, snobbish, or insecure (never even mentioned anything about inferior).

But you will see that I am accusing you of being uninformed.

which you are

You don't like LA because you don't like

the size

LA's urbanized area is the densest in the US. So maybe you just mean population? Yes, LA has a very large population.

the highways

if you check this site http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm which happens to be a government site, you'll see that not only does LA have fewer miles of freeway miles per capita than the SF area, but that more people rely on freeways in SF than in LA.

the concrete
Don't really know what this means... since last time I was in the SF area I noticed plenty of things made out of concrete.

the need for a car
Not true. Yes, Angeleno's use cars more than they should. But they definitely don't need to. Plenty of Angeleno's get by without a car. Our subway and light rail system is not that great, but neither is SF's. We also have the second highest bus ridership of any american city. Also, if you live in the central core (an area about the same size as the city of SF but with 30% more people) a car is definitely not necessary. Visit Pico Union, Westlake, Koreatown, Melrose Hill, City West, East Hollywood, etc. and then tell me you need a car. If you don't know these areas, I'd gladly show you some pictures of their traditional urban streetscapes.


On the traffic point, you are correct. LA has the worst traffic. That's what you get when you have the highest amount of people per square mile coupled with drastically few freeway miles per capita.

I'm going to need to see those pictures regarding transportation. Again, I can't really agree with LA being that dense of a city. Dense suburbian sprawl maybe, but if you cut out all the crap area factored into NY, Chicago, and SF metros (all of the unusable land and "snob zoned" cities with 2 acre home sites that are factored into those statistics) then LA is clearly the least dense of them all. The statistics Arturo and I posted that compare each individual city I think are more relevant than the metros.

but if you cut out all the crap area factored into NY, Chicago, and SF metros (all of the unusable land and "snob zoned" cities with 2 acre home sites that are factored into those statistics) then LA is clearly the least dense of them all. The statistics Arturo and I posted that compare each individual city I think are more relevant than the metros.
Of course you can prove what you want by manipulating statistics. Respecting arbitrary lines does not make more sense than analyzing the whole, though.

Joshua-

Do you know the history of LA's city boundaries? They were drawn according to water rights. In San Francisco, the city boundaries were drawn according to the peninsula and the population living on it.

Like I already said, there is a central city area of LA that is the same size as SF, but has 30% more population. Imagine if the city of LA only presided over this area (Cities are governing bodies, first and foremost). Obviously, then the population density figures would be different.

Think about city boundaries as lines that people draw for political reasons and you'll start to understand what's going on here. Imagine if some crazy politician in SF decided to annex all of the peninsula down to San Jose. The total city pop would grow, but the density would decline.

There is an urban city center in LA.

I'll post some pics when I get a chance later today.

the highways

if you check this site http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/onh00/onh2p11.htm which happens to be a government site, you'll see that not only does LA have fewer miles of freeway miles per capita than the SF area, but that more people rely on freeways in SF than in LA.



I dont get those stats at all. 26,000 highway miles in LA? 9,000 in SF-OAK? I dont know about LA but the SF-OAK area has very few highways and that figure surprises me. I mean, the cities are only ten miles apart so I wonder how far north their urbanized study area goes. And caccording to the stats, San Jose is "denser" than SF-OAK!! Ha! There is no way that can be true unless the SF-OAK area includes some very very rural land like Marin or the Penninsula west of 680. But just from experience LA has waaaay more freeways, just look at a map! I'll look for a stat that proves my point!

And are we discussing LA v SF or Bay Area v LA Metro? It seems were focusing on whats convenient for whatever point we're making.

I was totally assuming this was LA metro vs. SF metro..

To try to do otherwise would be ridiculous, since individual city boundaries can be practically arbitrary when talking about urban experience and identity.

Also, in both of the urban cores in SF metro and LA metro there are basically 0 freeways (remember, the city of San Francisco just happens to be confined to the metro's urban core, not so in LA. If you want to compare oranges and oranges, SF's urban core and LA's urban core are very very similar, statistically)

Here's a couple pics of LA's urban residential core to give you a good idea of the area I'm talking about.

From Downtown:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/165/400174583_0743471b4d_o.jpg

Closer in:
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/151/400174568_a466a62917_o.jpg

By the way, in the first pic, you can see the area of the second pic.
It's directly above the helipad for the tower in the immediate left foreground.

If the core of Los Angeles metro is actually downtown Los Angeles, then yes, the 110 runs right down the middle of it. Can you expand your statement please?

Yeah, just like in SF the 80, 280, and 101 run through SF.
But very few people in either SF or the LA urban core rely on freeways, because they just pass through in very limited segments. I was just responding to the comment about not liking LA because of "the freeways."

And the core of Los Angeles Metro is not just downtown, just like the core of SF metro is not just downtown SF.

Ok. I just didn't know what you meant.

Yeah, just like in SF the 80, 280, and 101 run through SF.
But very few people in either SF or the LA urban core rely on freeways, because they just pass through in very limited segments. I was just responding to the comment about not liking LA because of "the freeways."

And the core of Los Angeles Metro is not just downtown, just like the core of SF metro is not just downtown SF.

I know you have but you sound like youve never been to SF. The highways all skirt SF and none go through the heavily populated areas. 280 is the ony one I'll consider as "going through" SF.

http://thomashawk.com/hello/209/1017/1024/The%20Streets%20of%20San%20Francisco.jpg

Arturo,
I don't know how to respond. You're saying the same thing as me.

All I was trying to say was that both LA and SF have urban cores that are not dominated by or dependent on freeways.

Here's maybe a better way to state what I'm trying to get at:

The actual built environment is very similar, statistically, in both the LA and San Francisco metro areas. The difference between the two metros is how they are used and perceived.

In LA, all eyes are not turned on the urban core. Unlike SF, our core has not been heavily gentrified. Or really gentrified that much at all. What has happened is that other dense settlements of activity have sprung up outside the core that have garnered more attention from the wealthy as well as the media: Santa Monica, Beverly Hills, Marina Del Rey, Venice Beach, Hollywood, Los Feliz/silverlake, West Hollywood, Miracle Mile, Pasadena, Glendale, even Long Beach.

Downtown LA is getting revitalized now and so has garnered some attention, but the large urban area to the immediate west of it, which includes the neighborhoods of Westlake, Koreatown, Pico Union, Melrose Hill, East Hollywood, and the Latino-Byzantine quarter, has remained completely unknown in the popular conscious.

If you don't like that all the attention in LA is on all the surrounding "mini-cities" that are outside of the urban core, then fine, I completely agree with you. Because it's this phenomena that leads people to think "you have to have a car in LA" and that "there's freeways everywhere."

It would be as if the only well-known areas of the SF metro were places like Redwood city, South San Francisco, Daly City, San Mateo, etc. and people just didn't know that the city of SF even existed, except for maybe the TransAmerica building and the SFMOMA.

It's hard to believe, I know. But that's seriously what it's like with peoples' perceptions about LA. Many Angelenos are like this, so it's not surprising that many other people don't get it. LA is many cities, with many local identities and stories. Unfortunately, the story that most often gets told about it is the white people living by the beach and driving everywhere on big freeways. And I'm always surprised at how many intelligent people continue to get duped by this..

Don't you get it?? You believe whatever they tell you!

Also, that's a cool picture. I think there's nowhere more visually appealing than the city of San Francisco.

But did you post it as a comeback? Because to me the pictures look awfully similar in terms of density, and it totally helps prove my point!

Also, that's a cool picture. I think there's nowhere more visually appealing than the city of San Francisco.

But did you post it as a comeback? Because to me the pictures look awfully similar in terms of density, and it totally helps prove my point!

no, not a come back...that would have been a terrible come back!
the pic you posted just reminded me of it

I'm going to need to see those pictures regarding transportation. Again, I can't really agree with LA being that dense of a city. Dense suburbian sprawl maybe, but if you cut out all the crap area factored into NY, Chicago, and SF metros (all of the unusable land and "snob zoned" cities with 2 acre home sites that are factored into those statistics) then LA is clearly the least dense of them all. The statistics Arturo and I posted that compare each individual city I think are more relevant than the metros.

Metro, not city. City-wise, NYC, Chicago, and SF are denser. Metro-wise, Los Angeles is the densest. And the city isn't like Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, or Atlanta. It's about 2.5 times denser than they are. Ahhh, using the excuse of the wealthy suburbs. Just know that Beverly Hills, one of the wealthiest areas in the country, has a density of 5,927. Apparently most of the rich who live there don't need acres and acres of land.

Versus threads are no longer allowed:

No City vs City threads of any kind, be it by direct comparison, implied comparison, or by way of a thread drifting off-topic.