Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


LA is the number-one relocation city for fleeing San Franciscans.
July 24, 2001 12:13 PM   Subscribe

LA is the number-one relocation city for fleeing San Franciscans. Has the world turned upside down? The L.A. Examiner has the summary. And the complete story can be found, for now, on the LA Business Journal front page.
posted by josholalia (34 comments total)

 
They're just all fleeing back to the evil town from which they came...
posted by ph00dz at 12:16 PM on July 24, 2001


Heh! It's like Seattle all over again.
posted by josholalia at 12:18 PM on July 24, 2001


I guess they miss the gangs
posted by Postroad at 12:20 PM on July 24, 2001


It does not sound like they were true San Franciscans. San Francisco is my home, but I just have not lived there in nearly 8 years. I could never bring myself to live in Lost Angeles.
posted by vanderwal at 12:28 PM on July 24, 2001


"Urinating and defecating on the sidewalk are now acceptable behavior in a city once considered the most civilized in the nation"

Sorry, but I really have no sympathy for those who deprive the homeless of adequate facilities for basic living and then complain about their behaviour.

These same people are the ones who want to give themselves huge tax breaks all the while getting handouts from the government for their corporate enterprises that they would term "socialist" if the beneficiary was anyone other than themselves.

You know what? You make a mess, you get to live in it.
posted by muppetboy at 12:35 PM on July 24, 2001


I guess they miss the gangs

If you live someplace in the Bay Area that doesn't have any gangs, I'd like to know where it is; Atherton, Woodside, or some other little enclave of noveau-riche snobs who have their neighborhoods patrolled by cops in Volvos perhaps?

Both LA and SF have their share of filthy, high-crime areas. The only advantage that I can see to living in LA is that the housing is somewhat more affordable and believe it or not, they have a lot more going on culturally (theater, opera, museums) than the Bay Area does.
posted by MrBaliHai at 12:58 PM on July 24, 2001


if i lived in SF, i could never move to LA. i like the giants better than the dodgers. but if i had to live anywhere on the west coast, it would have to be seattle.
posted by moz at 1:07 PM on July 24, 2001


Having lived here for what-- 10 years? I can say honestly that the city is cleaner and nicer than it's ever been in my experience. I remember when you didn't go walking on any part of market street, not just the 6th street ghetto. Market was one long garbage dump from the embarcadero nearly to castro, and the tenderloin reached up to bush street.

If morons want to come to san francisco, move into the mission or that haight to the tenderloin and then are shocked that there is vomit or poop on the sidewalk; they don't know how to check out a neighborhood, and they'll probably move to the worst part of LA and condemn that city too.

People are moving to LA? good. maybe rents here will come down a bit.
posted by christina at 1:49 PM on July 24, 2001


Goodbye dotcom yuppie gold-diggers! Adios get-rich-quick make-money-on-the-internet stock-bubble-bursting nitwits! Back to the land of silicone and snake oil for you!

I'll stay put right here, thanks. Don't let the door hit you in the ass on your way out.

-- Derek

ps - This is easily the most snarky thing I've ever posted in MeFi. I blame my LA upbringing. God bless San Francisco....
posted by fraying at 1:56 PM on July 24, 2001


Been to SF twice - dirtiest city I've ever seen, including Chi-town and NY, would never go there again unless necessary. Moved to LA 2 yrs ago, not paradise or hell. Biggest peeve - tons of traffic that will. not. move.
posted by owillis at 2:20 PM on July 24, 2001


Dirtiest city you've ever seen? We're both from Maryland -- did you forget about Baltimore or SE DC?
posted by jragon at 2:28 PM on July 24, 2001


Heh. I'm fleeing to Portland, Maine, where people are friendly and rent is reasonable. San Francisco is pretty, but very, very uncaring. It's much worse than DC, New York, or Boston (the three biggies that I have personal experience with). People are mean and self-absorbed here. They can have it.
posted by rusty at 2:40 PM on July 24, 2001


Jeez, Rusty. That's harsh. You shoulda come visited me in Cole Valley more often. I guess living that close to the Haight would make anybody hate San Francisco.

The thing to remember about SF is that it's hugely diverse. I avoid going downtown like the plague for all the reasons mentioned here. But I love the castro for all its positivity and friendliness, the mission for the tasty mexican funk, and Cole Valley is just an oasis of small town charm.

I can't help it. I love this city.
posted by fraying at 2:57 PM on July 24, 2001


people either think sf is the center of the universe or despises it, for such a slow city it seems strange to have such extreme emotions. la and sf has this werid rivalry, i live up here and have always claimed to hate la. but in sf people seem to claim nativity a lot now because of the influx, and in la, they're used to that, at least a bit more so. it's ticking me off a bit.

as for dirtiest city... where were you looking, the stockton and broadway gutter?
posted by elle at 3:12 PM on July 24, 2001


I dunno...

I've lived in San Francisco, Seattle, DC, and New York, all for numbers of years long enough to enjoy and appreciate what each place has to offer.

And now I live in LA.

And, frankly, (making every effort not to be snarky) I've come to the conclusion that LA is everyone's favorite place to hate. It's as though we, as a nation, have succumed to a really bad case of Group Think. And that group think has dictated: LA is evil.

In LA I've found neighborhoods with a historical tapestry of personality rivalling any other city in the world. Culture and history as diverse (if not more diverse) than any. Arts, entertainment, -- and MUSIC... . I am not wanting for anything, if not more time to see and experience these the myriad worlds within this city.

New York import, Kit Rachlis, now the editor of Los Angeles Magazine offered this description:

"All cities have subcultures, but Los Angeles, I am convinced, has more than most. They are what make the city so resistant to generalization, and so surprising: the Ethiopians who have transformed lower Fairfax into a commercial center, the former Mississippians who host a cotillion every year, the Brits who congregate at Westside bars on Saturday mornings to watch their football teams on satellite TV. I could just as easily include the middle-aged members of the Sierra Club who have made Griffith Park their private jungle gym, the 12-year-old skateboarders who treat Venice as an Olympic-level obstacle course."


And on and on.

And as far as the traffic myth is concerned, I don't live it. I take wide open and empty surface streets to work everyday. I drive from West to East 15 miles in about 20 minutes. Has anyone been driving the freeways in Seattle or San Francisco lately? Bad traffic is ubiquitous.

That said, I think LA's weakest link is it's mass transit system, which is still predominantly busses. (How I miss subways...) Although, I read somewhere a few years back that LA has one of the most complex and thorough mass-transit systems anywhere.

Counterintuitive? It was for me.

For anyone who's made it this far, there's a great NPR commentary by Pat Morrison about the Myths of Los Angeles. It's a good listen.
posted by josholalia at 4:02 PM on July 24, 2001


My New York City pride won't let me believe that any part of San Francisco is dirtier than here. Are you sure? I'm sorry, that just can't be true. Don't tell people lies like that. New York City is filthy, dirty, rat-infested, disease-ridden, in a holding pattern for the plague, only one garbage strike away from being a fleabag nose-pinching town that even the roaches will move out of.

God or whoever's in charge knows we don't need any more newcomers at the moment...
posted by Mo Nickels at 4:07 PM on July 24, 2001


It really is *very* dirty here in SF. Very, very dirty. LA is much nicer. It's *very* clean in LA. Very, very clean. Go see for yourself. Buh bye.
posted by birdsong at 4:38 PM on July 24, 2001


lived here (sf) for a year now, in lower haight. originally from orange county (i know, you don't need to tell me!). Obviously sf was a bit of a change, especially the lower haight, but i had always loved it here and made the move asap. thus, i must agree that it is one of the more dirty cities i've encountered, especially my neighborhood, but the energy is just amazing.

i don't know about LA being more cultural either. i think SF definitely seems more cultural due to the population density and relatively small area it occupies.

and in regards to gangs, i've experienced SF to be incredibly safe compared to areas of southern california. i've walked home down market street at 3:00 AM with no hassles (knock on wood). everyone seems to mind their own business, except for the occasional drunk bum.
posted by physics at 4:59 PM on July 24, 2001


My personal favorite anecdote about SF:

Went down to a creperie that had just opened up. Inside there, dot-com scum and whatnot. Across the street, a veritable city of the homeless. I loves me some dichotomies.
posted by solistrato at 4:59 PM on July 24, 2001


jragon: in my experience. full disclosure - i've only flown through SE DC and all I can remember of Baltimore is the inner harbor... I do remember the Chesapeake being yuckola...
posted by owillis at 5:05 PM on July 24, 2001


The whole SF v LA thing has always intrigued me. Los Angelenos *love* San Francisco. All of them. Love to visit, eat good food, see the sites, etc. San Franciscans *hate* L.A. All of them. Even those that have never been there.

SF is a dirty city. Denying it is foolish... The facts are piled up on the sidewalks throughout this town. There are places blissfully clean--typically where the upper-middle class live.

SF has a remarkable inability to take care of its own. I agree with the previous poster who claimed that it's silly to complain about the homeless, and their activities, when we, as a city, do so little to address it.

The dot com boom lead to an increase rudeness and abrasiveness that, I hope, subsides as the tide goes out. I remember, when first coming to SF, that it was a very friendly city. It'd be delightful to have that back.

I don't know if I buy the argument that L.A. has more culture. It's probably true that it scores better on the performing arts tip (all those actors!), and perhaps better with Big Museums, but SF has quality museums in its own right (SFMOMA is becoming a leading institution), a unparalleled film-going community, and supports avant-garde and oddball theater very well. SF's culture tends to be more "underground."

And, well, there's the restaurants. In that regard, SF is amazing.

LA is a perfectly fine place. I grew up in Santa Monica, and remember it fondly. L.A. is definitely tops in weather, I went to a good public school, and, for this boy, has a higher cute girl quotient. It's too car-centric for me, though, so I doubt I'd ever move back. But it's not hard to understand why people would want to move from SF to there, for perfectly good, other-than-money-grubbing reasons.
posted by peterme at 5:22 PM on July 24, 2001


I bet that my new adopted hometown, Philthadelphia, can outdo any major U.S. city in the trash department. Honestly, I know that I'm a bit more sensitive to this sort of thing coming from Portland, Oregon, but I've never seen so many random piles of rubbish on city streets.
posted by ph00dz at 5:26 PM on July 24, 2001


Noooo!

It's crowded enough here! We have traffice snarls that you wouldn't belive! And the hills, the hills are flammable! They go up like tinder if you just look at them wrong! And the mudslides! And there's open warfare on the streets! You need to be armed to the teeth just to go to the video store...which has nothing of cultural value. Nothing whatsoever. LA is a wasteland, and you're better off going, um, anywhere else.

Ah, man...why ruin a good thing? This city's becomining more and more livable all the time. We don't want your dot-com scum, San Francisco! We're already stoked to the rafters with Entertainment Scum. Send 'em to Sacramento! Send 'em to Salt Lake! Just don't send 'em south!

(And Bay Area elitism can go get stuffed. I just want to point out that within shouting distance of my apartment, I've got the Getty, In-N-Out, and Venice. 'Nuff said.)
posted by RakDaddy at 5:54 PM on July 24, 2001


Culture = DC! So you can all bow (except maybe NY, but you have the Giants so you lose too). :)
posted by owillis at 6:05 PM on July 24, 2001


This will all be moot, of course, when the Big One strikes and creates the cool expanse of Arizona Bay.
posted by holgate at 6:20 PM on July 24, 2001


I'm with Derek, Christina and Peter on this one.

I've lived in L.A. and S.F. (as well as New Orleans, Austin, Santa Barbara and some east coast destinations). S.F. wins hands down (but not against SB in some respects... :-)

Well except for the summer weather and the parking.
posted by fooljay at 6:36 PM on July 24, 2001


My favorite Baltimore story:

Both of my parents lived in NY for 13 years. They are used to big cities, and don't really make a distinction between "good" and "bad" neighborhoods.

So, they are traveling in Baltimore, and decide to go for a walk. Now, they must have been quite a strange sight, since my mother has scoliosis and my father wears rainbow striped shirts, and both are white Jews. Anyway, they are walking along, and take a turn down one of the wrong streets. And they keep on going. And going. Finally, they walk past a doorstoop, and a bunch of guys sitting there yell out, "You guys are from New York, aren't you?"

"Yeah... why?"

"(laughs) You don't wanna be walking down here."

Heh, it sounds a lot better in person : )
posted by Ptrin at 6:56 PM on July 24, 2001


This thread is timely. I'm coming to visit SF next month. It's my first time west of Chicago (or Austin, TX....which is further west?) and I'm really looking forward to seeing the Pacific. Can any of you (SF natives or otherwise) suggest some interesting things to see and do? On the flip side, any warnings about specific neighbourhoods or places you'd avoid? Any and all information appreciated!
posted by jmcnally at 7:40 AM on July 25, 2001


I still remember when I lived on Nob Hill and was down at Polk street at a nice restaurant foolishly wearing high heels, drank too much wine and walked home barefoot without an incident. Of course this couldn't be done in the upper haight (or many other areas). But as a city, we are as dirty or clean as average.

Are we better than LA? who cares. That's like me telling you you must listen to Blink 182 and stop listening to that stupid jazz stuff. this is my city, for so very many reasons.



mini-tourist recommendations: Alcatraz yes, fisherman's wharf no. coit tower yes, upper height if you have to. Castro and market why not, lower market only if you have a burning need to shop at virgin and old navy. golden gate park definitely; rent bikes at stow lake and ride around. cable car is probably required. don't get on at the turnaround, unless you love lines, go up and grab it at union square in front of the Disney store. be sure to ride the Hyde line, it's got an amazing view as you come down Hyde Street to the bay.

You will want to go to the ocean I'm guessing, so be sure to explore the sutro ruins, check out the musee mechanique behind the cliff house and the best food I've found along that strip is at beach chalet. I personally like trying to grab a window in the cliff house bar around sunset if it's not foggy to watch the sunset with an irish coffee.

Food: there is no reason to eat badly in San Francisco. A little bit of research will take you a long way-- delfina, luna park, hyde street bistro, boulevard, cafe cuvee, chef jia, slow club, PBC, joe's cable car, absinthe, house, 2223, zarzuela, chava's, bizou, wan's won ton shop, and so many more....

whoops! that wasn't short!
posted by christina at 8:04 AM on July 25, 2001


Note to self: If you ever get bored, call Christina for activity recommendations...

Good list, CW. I might also add go to a Giants game at Pac Bell park and, if you do go to the Haight, take the time to walk (climb) up to the top of Bunea Vista Park (in "middle' Haight). It's beautiful. Fisherman's wharf is a tourist trap for no good reason, but North Beach (in line with the street car and Coit tower recommendations above) has great Italian food. Do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT eat at Fisherman's wharf unless you like paying ridiculously high prices for mediocre food...

Walking around downtown is kind of neat (in a "Hey it's downtown" sort of way), and the Metreon is kinda cool (as is Yerba Buena on a pretty day).

Walk along the Embarcadero. It's also novel for those out-of-town folks...
posted by fooljay at 1:37 PM on July 25, 2001


Hmm... museums??

sfMOMA is as good as the exhibits they are showing IMO, but their bookstore and their cafe are always great and you don't have to pay admission to access them. Though sfMOMA has a good but small collection, and the architecture is pretty impressive. Yerba Beuna across the street is greatly underrated, often has cool exhibits and shows films, admission included. I include these because they are right next to the metreon. Buy movie tickets from the machines upstairs at the metreon, rather than from the big ticket counter downstairs to avoid lines. Avoid Zeum-- it's too artsy for its own good and badly maintained. The exploratorium is much more fun.

Can you tell I play tour guide a lot?

LA folks-- what is required there? I've been thinking of heading down for a visit for awhile.
(btw, Texas is the number one importer/exporter of Californians)
posted by christina at 3:06 PM on July 25, 2001


Polk street ...... drank too much wine and walked home barefoot without an incident.

oh, right, near nob hill. beyond sutter or even california, you're in trouble
posted by elle at 4:36 PM on July 25, 2001


Oh also, the street car museum (on both Hyde/Powell and Mason/Powell lines) is pretty cool, and answers a lot of questions perpetually plaguing tourists...
posted by fooljay at 7:27 PM on July 25, 2001


This city is so damn crowded with fledglings. If the only people who lived in SF were locals (like myself), the population would drop to about 10%.

So, wherever you fledglings go--be it LA, Seattle, Portland, Nevada, etc.--may it be far, far away.
posted by Down10 at 4:43 PM on March 5, 2002


« Older University of Colombia, registrar of the ".co" ccT...  |  Do not pet the great white sha... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments