Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Why not? What city would you nominate for the 3rd position?
Well if the purpose of the thread was to identify the top three cities or the third most important city on the west coast, I would agree with you. But it's not. It is to determine "the principal" west coast city. Do you really think Seattle belongs in that conversation?
LOL the funny thing is that LA people in general don't ever think about norcal or especially the PNW, the fact that people up there still think about us down here even though it might be in a negative light still shows insecurities.
Not really... I said that due to the size of the West Coast and the distance to LA from the rest of the major cities further north it doesn't have the same level of influence that New York has in a very dense and closely packed area like the Northeast. Southern California is it's own unique area that's in some ways atypical from the rest of the West Coast. Most people from the Northwest or transplants to Seattle and Portland from other parts of the country just aren't that concerned with Los Angeles--it just doesn't come up in discussion that much. There's not as much in terms of economic or cultural ties with the area--in some ways due to historical migration patterns and in part due to distance.
Los Angeles is considered the principal West Coast city due to size and it's cultural imprint, I'm just saying that it's feels less crucial to the rest of the regions of the West Coast than others might think.
Not really... I said that due to the size of the West Coast and the distance to LA from the rest of the major cities further north it doesn't have the same level of influence that New York has in a very dense and closely packed area like the Northeast. Southern California is it's own unique area that's in some ways atypical from the rest of the West Coast. Most people from the Northwest or transplants to Seattle and Portland from other parts of the country just aren't that concerned with Los Angeles--it just doesn't come up in discussion that much. There's not as much in terms of economic or cultural ties with the area--in some ways due to historical migration patterns and in part due to distance.
Los Angeles is considered the principal West Coast city due to size and it's cultural imprint, I'm just saying that it's feels less crucial to the rest of the regions of the West Coast than others might think.
This is a good point. People in Seattle/Portland are not dependent on LA. We go down there for weekend getaways. Distance does play a role - people state that the PNW is isolated, and I suppose distance wise it is. Even LA is quite a ways away (not too bad by air). I don't think even the strongest Seattle homer out there would think it is the principal West Coast city. Pacific Northwest city, yes. LA is obviously it for most things, though SF is it for banking.
LOL the funny thing is that LA people in general don't ever think about norcal or especially the PNW, the fact that people up there still think about us down here even though it might be in a negative light still shows insecurities.
I moved here to Los Angeles from Seattle and honestly there are a ton of angelenos who migrated to the Seattle area over the past 3 decades. There was even a segment about it on 60 Minutes a few years ago. I sold homes and condos to former LA residents. I think they're connected more than people think.
But on that note LA is definately theprincipal west coast city.
Not really... I said that due to the size of the West Coast and the distance to LA from the rest of the major cities further north it doesn't have the same level of influence that New York has in a very dense and closely packed area like the Northeast. Southern California is it's own unique area that's in some ways atypical from the rest of the West Coast. Most people from the Northwest or transplants to Seattle and Portland from other parts of the country just aren't that concerned with Los Angeles--it just doesn't come up in discussion that much. There's not as much in terms of economic or cultural ties with the area--in some ways due to historical migration patterns and in part due to distance.
Los Angeles is considered the principal West Coast city due to size and it's cultural imprint, I'm just saying that it's feels less crucial to the rest of the regions of the West Coast than others might think.
I can understand this, I just don't see the animostiy towards LA, usually when another city is mentioned here you will find people saying nice things about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pwright1
I moved here to Los Angeles from Seattle and honestly there are a ton of angelenos who migrated to the Seattle area over the past 3 decades. There was even a segment about it on 60 Minutes a few years ago. I sold homes and condos to former LA residents. I think they're connected more than people think.
But on that note LA is definately theprincipal west coast city.
Many people have moved from CA to TX so that has nothing to do with anything, all I'm trying to say is that LA is its own world, you have tons of stories over here, some stories are local, some make it national, and some even make international headlines, people out here are not ignorant of other cities but you usually don't see too many people trashing other cities out here, it's of no concern to us.
I think Los Angeles has had the largest impact worldwide, mostly due to its ties with the entertainment and media industry. However, San Francisco + the Bay Area is very prominent in technology and its development. Seattle has its pros as well, but it probably wouldn't equate to LA or SF.
Not really... I said that due to the size of the West Coast and the distance to LA from the rest of the major cities further north it doesn't have the same level of influence that New York has in a very dense and closely packed area like the Northeast. Southern California is it's own unique area that's in some ways atypical from the rest of the West Coast. Most people from the Northwest or transplants to Seattle and Portland from other parts of the country just aren't that concerned with Los Angeles--it just doesn't come up in discussion that much. There's not as much in terms of economic or cultural ties with the area--in some ways due to historical migration patterns and in part due to distance.
Los Angeles is considered the principal West Coast city due to size and it's cultural imprint, I'm just saying that it's feels less crucial to the rest of the regions of the West Coast than others might think.
What a ridiculous argument considering that LA may influence the entire world!
much less a small relative unimportant city such as Seattle, in one way or another due its entertainment industry and lifestyle trends and regional economic muscle LA's reach is far and wide etc, what would make anyone think that Seatlle was not influenced unless it was located in another planet?
I know that Seattle is an isolated and provincial town, but I am 100% sure that trends thar started in LA have reached even such remote third cathegory cities such as Seattle.
Although L.A. is undoubtedly the principal West Coast city based on population alone, L.A. and SF aren't even remotely comparable in many ways. Comparing L.A. and SF is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all, SF is much more urban than L.A. Los Angeles is big and spread out with highways and sprawling suburbia. Hollywood and a huge chunk of the American entertainment industry is based in L.A. Because of this, all facets of L.A. culture from Compton to Beverly Hills are a huge part of the collective consciousness of the world. On the otherhand, the true personality and culture of SF is neutered by the media because SF's major industry is tourism. Unlike Compton and South Central, most people from outside of the Bay Area are unfamilar with places like Sunnydale, Lakeview and Hunter's Point because we didn't have Hollywood and Priority records shining a spotlight on the lifestyle and artistic byproducts of these places like the wealthy White-owned entertainment industry did with the ghettos of L.A. If it weren't for Jerry Heller, hardly anyone outside of metro L.A. would have ever heard Straight Outta Compton. Ironically, the more popular L.A. rappers from NWA to Snoop Dogg were undoubtedly inspired by a rapper from Oakland named Too Short who sold music out of the back of his trunk independently. This is not worth arguing because Snoop Dogg would tell you that Too Short was his influence, himself. Although Too Short was born in L.A., he represented nowhere but Oakland and the Bay Area. Eazy E was doing his best Too Short impression on his song "Boyz N The Hood".
If it weren't for Aaron Spelling and the Fox network, American people might not equate affluence specifically with Beverly Hills.
I will give it to Los Angeles that L.A. does beat SF in terms of fashion and cultural influence. Although the latter is even arguable seeing as SF has been a hub of culture for generations being the epicenter of the Hippie movement which defined a generation being a place where the Beatles made pilgrimages as well as the pioneer in fighting for Gay rights as well as being the historically most important city in the Asian American experience. But L.A. surely does not beat SF in every category by a long shot.
Millions of people worldwide consider SF to be the most beautiful city in America and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. L.A. rarely makes these most beautiful cities lists; especially when it comes to global rankings. And when it does, SF beats L.A. by a landslide in terms of beauty based on popular opinion of people all over the world. In terms of sheer beauty, SF is uttered after the likes of Paris, Venice and Milan. L.A. is not.
SF has ranked as the first American city on international "must visit" cities lists. SF ranks even above NYC on this list by US News. Los Angeles ranks all the way down the list at number 24 while SF tops the list. DC ranks way above L.A. on this list for god's sake:
L.A. and SF aren't even remotely comparable in many ways. Comparing L.A. and SF is like comparing apples to oranges. First of all, SF is much more urban than L.A. Los Angeles is big and spread out with highways and sprawling suburbia. Hollywood and a huge chunk of the American entertainment industry is based in L.A. Because of this, all facets of L.A. culture from Compton to Beverly Hills are a huge part of the collective consciousness of the world. On the otherhand, the true personality and culture of SF is neutered by the media because SF's major industry in tourism. Unlike Compton and South Central, most people from outside of the Bay Area are unfamilar with places like Sunnydale, Lakeview and Hunter's Point (the latter which is historically arguably worse than anywhere in L.A.) because we didn't have Hollywood and Arista records shining a spotlight on the lifestyle and artistic byproducts of these places like the wealthy White-owned entertainment industry did with the ghettos of L.A. If it weren't for Jerry Heller, hardly anyone outside of metro L.A. would have ever heard Straight Outta Compton. If it weren't for Aaron Spelling and the Fox network, American people might not equate affluence specifically with Beverly Hills.
I will give it to Los Angeles that L.A. does beat SF in terms of fashion and cultural influence. Although the latter is even arguable seeing as SF has been a hub of culture for generations being the epicenter of the Hippie movement being a place where the Beatles made pilgrimages as well as the pioneer in fighting for Gay rights as well as being the historically most important city in the Asian American experience. But L.A. surely does not beat SF in every category by a long shot.
Millions of people worldwide consider SF to be the most beautiful city in America and one of the most beautiful cities in the world. L.A. rarely makes these most beautiful cities lists; especially when it comes to global rankings. And when it does, SF beats L.A. by a landslide in terms of beauty based on popular opinion of people all over the world. In terms of sheer beauty, SF is uttered after the likes of Paris, Venice and Milan. L.A. is not.
SF has ranked as the first American city on international "must visit" cities lists. SF ranks even above NYC on this list by US News. Los Angeles ranks all the way at number 24 while SF tops the list:
you are putting way to much importance into the media and entertainment industry. Yes they put LA on the map but are hardly the only reason why Los Angeles is world renowned and grew to the stature that it did.
I'll agree that SF is more beautiful than LA, but so is Santa Barbara, it is pretty irrelevant in this discussion.
I think SF and LA are very comparable, and I would definitely argue (as it has been many a time) that SF is not "much more urban" than LA. My vote is LA as the most important city.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
