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.
It's Los Angeles of course just because of its size. But I don't consider it 'principal' in the sense of typifying the West Coast as a region. The Northwest has nothing to do with LA and the northern part of California has little to do with LA.
If you consider the greater Bay area, then SF has an argument, but overall I think LA is the principal city of the West Coast. It is the largest of the three, has the biggest economy and has a ton of influence b/c of all the media that is there.
Seattle represents the Pacific Northwest, but it isn't on the same level.
Los Angeles is the principal West Coast city because of it's huge size and cultural visibility. But as far as influencing the rest of the West Coast, it has much less influence than most outsiders would probably imagine. I grew up in Northern California and have lived in the Pacific Northwest for the majority of my life--and Los Angeles is pretty much an afterthought. Growing up near the Bay Area as a kid LA was something for sports rivalries or jokes about smog and gangs and traffic, it was never considered a desirable place to live or visit--people looked forward to trips to Santa Barbara or San Diego, but LA was rarely talked about that much--and if it was it was seen as something that you didn't want your city to become. I think LA influenced the nearby Southwest in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix more so than it did in the Pacific Northwest, which had more influence from San Francisco and Northern California. In Portland and Seattle these days I hear more people talk about connections to New York than Los Angeles.
I like LA now after having visited more recently, and can appreciate a lot about a city that I never really explored in depth growing up. LA isn't the same to the West Coast as New York is to the Northeast--the West Coast is just too big and spread out.
Los Angeles is the principal West Coast city because of it's huge size and cultural visibility. But as far as influencing the rest of the West Coast, it has much less influence than most outsiders would probably imagine. I grew up in Northern California and have lived in the Pacific Northwest for the majority of my life--and Los Angeles is pretty much an afterthought. Growing up near the Bay Area as a kid LA was something for sports rivalries or jokes about smog and gangs and traffic, it was never considered a desirable place to live or visit--people looked forward to trips to Santa Barbara or San Diego, but LA was rarely talked about that much--and if it was it was seen as something that you didn't want your city to become. I think LA influenced the nearby Southwest in places like Las Vegas and Phoenix more so than it did in the Pacific Northwest, which had more influence from San Francisco and Northern California. In Portland and Seattle these days I hear more people talk about connections to New York than Los Angeles.
I like LA now after having visited more recently, and can appreciate a lot about a city that I never really explored in depth growing up. LA isn't the same to the West Coast as New York is to the Northeast--the West Coast is just too big and spread out.
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 don't understand why Seattle is in the title of this thread. It makes it sound stupid.
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.