Maybe BADs can answer this: Why is it that Northern Californians (stereotypically) dislike Southern California? As a native Southern Californian, and in my personal experience, we hardly thought of San Francisco at all. When the subject came up, it was all about how nice it is up there. (Or “down there”, from my current locale. ) Is it all about the water? Or is it something else? Or is the stereotype completely wrong?
Oh yeah: There should have been a in my first post.
Johnny L.A., that is a stereotype, but it definitely has a very, very large grain of truth behind it. I’m one of those Northern Californians who don’t like the Southland. In my case, both of my parents are from LA (my mom is from Arcadia, my dad is from East LA), but settled in the Bay Area years before I was born, and my whole life I’ve heard them talk about how much nicer it is in the Bay Area and how glad they are to have left. I grew up in San Francisco and Sonoma County, but because most of my extended family still lives in Southern California, I’ve spent a great deal of time down there (I have a couple aunts in Orange County, and once of my aunts lives in Pasadena and used to live in Santa Monica). I am literally allergic to the air there - every time I visit I have a horrible allergic reaction. I don’t like the way it’s so spread out, with freeways and tract housing as far as the eye can see. Although others may disagree, I think the actual land is very ugly - chapparral isn’t my idea of natural beauty. I don’t like the pseudo-Spanish architecture of the endless suburbia - although to be fair, I hate the nondescript suburb here in Chicago as much as I do in LA.
I think the dislike is a little outdated. It may be about the water now, but the “rivalry” or dislike may have stared, or at least reved up, when LA (50s/60s) was over taking San Francisco as the capitol of the west. Maybe a little jealousy on the part of San Franciscans that another city was now number one. Then the trashing of LA seemed fashionable. The standard rip was that LA was nothing more than a giant suburb with no real culture.
I haven’t heard a San Franciscan speak badly of LA in many years. I’d say the city San Fanciscans now like to knock is San Francisco.
Eh, pretty much what Kyla said. What dislike I have of SoCal is really for the most part a fairly strong dislike of the Los Angeles Basin ( I also dislike cities like L. A., like Phoenix and on a smaller scale, Albuquerque ).
But I have no equivalent antipathy towards, say, San Diego or Santa Barabara and I like occasionally spending time in the desert. I’ll also agree with Kevja and say that it is probably a product of history, when in years past there was a greater north/south divide being played out in Sacramento, with NorCal feeling that it was consistently getting outvoted by the more populous south. The Peripheral Canal ( though it failed ) was probably the biggest symbol of that sort of regional politics. I do think that sort of sectionalism has faded a bit in recent years ( perhaps in part because NorCal politicians like Brown, Burton, Feinstein, and Boxer have become key power players in recent decades ).
For the record, I believe there are several distinct parts of California.
There is the South (LA, SB, and SD), the Central (wasteland of lettuce), the Mountains, North (SF and the greater Bay Area to Sac), and the Wilderness (everything north of Sac)
My family still owns farmland nears Oroville in the Wilderness. It is like a portal to West Virginia or something.
The scariest thing I remember seeing there was… OK, we were stopped at this mom and pop store that looked right out of the '30s… and this guy walks out wearing overalls with no t-shirt, barefoot, walks over to his car, grabs the roof, and jumps in through the window. It was like seeing a stereotype leap off the page and come to life before my eyes.
Wasteland of lettuce, indeed! We have asparagus. And rice. Actually we’ve got quite a range of crops. And nasty heat in the summer.
Ecologically, the Bay Area can be lumped in with the Delta. Sorry to hijack, but I’m curious about how far the news of our little levee break has spread. Is it only of interest near the Delta?
Most people don’t realize how much Delta land has been reclaimed with levees. Without the levees, the area would be one big wetlands.