just curious; what is the wierder Cal city? SF or LA?

[vash]

great threads today! i see why some folks in the rest of the country thinks the two big metro-cities in california are wierd. (and NYC). i dont take it personal at all. just wondering which city draws the bigger negative feedback.

i love it here.

i think SF is wierder purely on the quality of our homeless folks.

[nostatic]

I've lived in both. SF proper is quite small, so it wins in weirdness density/concentration. "LA" is huge depending on how you define it, and wins on breadth.

[Heel n Toe]

Originally Posted by vash

i think SF is wierder purely on the quality of our homeless folks.

Are you sure "quality" is the word you want to use?

[speeder]

Weird question.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by nostatic

I've lived in both. SF proper is quite small, so it wins in weirdness density/concentration. "LA" is huge depending on how you define it, and wins on breadth.

Funny you say that. I grew up near LA and went to school in the Bay Area.

I would say that SF has a longer "weirdness tolerance" lineage than LA, especially within ten miles of all bridge on/off ramps leading into the City.

My perception is colored by many generations of Bay Area relatives that, in the 60's, viewed LA as common and provincial, the place where they made movies and little else.

They then looked upon the great City's faults as a plus.

[HardDrive]

I find LA far weirder than SF. By a wide margin. SF has gays and some punks kids, and that makes it 'weird'? Give me a break. Most of the folks that live in SF are normal working folks, many of them quite affluent. Its an expensive town to live in.

LA has an odd distorting affect on peoples personalitys. I guess living in a showbiz town will do that to ya.

[speeder]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

My perception is colored by many generations of Bay Area relatives that, in the 60's, viewed LA as common and provincial, the place where they made movies and little else.

I think that stereotype was truer in the 1960s than today, but still not a completely accurate picture of L.A. It's more interesting and diverse by an order of magnitude today than 40 years ago.

My neighborhood is supposedly the most diverse neighborhood in the country. At least according to Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koreatown,_Los_Angeles,_California

[nostatic]

LA has gotten less "provincial" and the bay area has gotten more "boring". Palo Alto is essentially the same as any number of suburban areas down in LA except for a weather difference. "The City" is still odd, but it has lost a step. For instance it frankly isn't #1 choice for restaurants that it once was - LA passed it some time back, not only in quality but in number and diversity. Of course SF isn't that big, so as LA grew it was somewhat inevitable. And perhaps not a fair comparison.

It is also funny because up north there is a strong anti-LA (SoCal actually ) rivalry. And down here people really don't care...it is one of those very one-sided "competitions." Just as long as we get your water

[legion]

Originally Posted by nostatic

It is also funny because up north there is a strong anti-LA (SoCal actually ) rivalry. And down here people really don't care...it is one of those very one-sided "competitions." Just as long as we get your water

Kind of like Canada and the U.S., eh?

[vash]

i bring this up because a recent thread reminded me of a story:

i used to hang out with this older rancher dude. he would let me chase critters on his colorado property. i told him i got hired, and was moving to california. he said (exact quote), "i dont know how you can live there because of all that filth."

"filth? i was just there, i didnt think the place was that dirty".

he looked me in the eye, and said, "i am talking about the HUMAN filth."

i like to think he was talking about the homeless folks, but i dont think so.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by speeder

I think that stereotype was truer in the 1960s than today, but still not a completely accurate picture of L.A. It's more interesting and diverse by an order of magnitude today than 40 years ago. [/url]

No question...I remember school trips to Olvera Street as a kind of cultural excursion in the 60's. Being half Spanish on my mom's side, my Mother always volunteered as chaperon.

Originally Posted by nostatic

LA has gotten less "provincial" and the bay area has gotten more "boring". Palo Alto is essentially the same as any number of suburban areas down in LA except for a weather difference. "The City" is still odd, but it has lost a step. For instance it frankly isn't #1 choice for restaurants that it once was - LA passed it some time back, not only in quality but in number and diversity. Of course SF isn't that big, so as LA grew it was somewhat inevitable. And perhaps not a fair comparison.

It is also funny because up north there is a strong anti-LA (SoCal actually ) rivalry. And down here people really don't care...it is one of those very one-sided "competitions." Just as long as we get your water

Agreed. My family still has a big footprint in the Bay Area and the force of the anti-LA contingent is still strong. I heard it all my youth. When I went to Cal the family matrons all felt I had come home, had broken the surly bonds of the SoCal

[varmint]

i live in hollywood, and have a high tolerance for vermin. but dated a girl who lived near 5th and natoma in san francisco. what a disgusting city.

[legion]

Originally Posted by Seahawk

No question...I remember school trips to Olvera Street as a kind of cultural excursion in the 60's. Being half Spanish on my mom's side, my Mother always volunteered as chaperon.

I remember going to Olvera Street in the 80's for a field trip.

Okay, so I don't remember Olvera Street (which I called Allo Vera Street) so much as the long bus ride there and back and getting truckers to blow their horns on the interstates. I was 5. Trucks were more exciting.

[vash]

5th and natoma is cleaning up. still, crazy hood.

[Seahawk]

Originally Posted by vash

i bring this up because a recent thread reminded me of a story:

i used to hang out with this older rancher dude. he would let me chase critters on his colorado property. i told him i got hired, and was moving to california. he said (exact quote), "i dont know how you can live there because of all that filth."

"filth? i was just there, i didnt think the place was that dirty".

he looked me in the eye, and said, "i am talking about the HUMAN filth."

i like to think he was talking about the homeless folks, but i dont think so.

Part of my family were ranchers in Stockton and Bakersfield. They didn't like anyone over the passes to the coast, either way, west or southwest.

When I became a white water rafter in the Sierras in the mid to late 70's, I'd take my rafting buddies by for a visit after floats, usually Monday on our way back to Sac for restock.

I'll have to find the pics

[jyl]

San Francisco seems weirder on a surface level, e.g to a tourist or casual visitor. Because you tend to spend more time moving around on foot or metro/BART, and in the process you encounter more "characters" - weirdos, homeless, etc.

In Los Angeles, the visitor spends his time in the car cocoon, and then at the place you drove to - which presumably doesn't feel weird since you chose to go there. You are more insulated from the weirdness.

However, I think that, if you live there and get a deeper knowledge of the city, Los Angeles is the stranger, weirder city by far.

That is what I thought, anyway. I lived in LA (metro LA, not always the "City" of LA) for 14 years and in SF (again, SF and East Bay) for 12 years.

[varmint]

Originally Posted by vash

5th and natoma is cleaning up. still, crazy hood.

nice to hear. her family owned a building, otherwise she'd never have gone near there. she wouldn't walk outside unless i was visiting.


los angeles has it's problems. but in san francisco i saw beggars who'd been on the same patch of sidewalk for thirty years. nothing can compare to that.

[RWebb]

L.A. is not a city

it is 600 small towns in search of a center.

[Hugh R]

LA county actually has something like 66 cities in it.

[beasty]

sf is way weirder, trust me, im there all the time. some places are way to creepy, others way to friendly, some just odd. sf is an odd city...