Shevory, Kristina. "Health Costs of California Air Pollution." The New York Times. The New York Times, 12 Mar. 2010. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
Storper, Michael. "Why San Francisco's Way of Doing Business Beat Los Angeles'" Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 23 Oct. 2015. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
Ulloa, Jazmine, and Melanie Mason. "Texas Was Obama's Chief Antagonist. In Trump's America, California Is Eager for the Part." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 17 Nov. 2016. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
US Census Bureau Public Information Office. "Growth in Urban Population Outpaces Rest of Nation, Census Bureau Reports - 2010 Census - Newsroom - U.S. Census Bureau." US Census Bureau Public Information Office. N.p., 26 Mar. 2012. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
"Immigrants in California." Immigrants in California (PPIC Publication). N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
"The Five Themes of Geography." The Five Themes of Geography. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
"What Are the Challenges?" EPA. Environmental Protection Agency, n.d. Web. 19 Nov. 2016.
Saturday, November 19, 2016
Region
Like touched upon on the previous section, Los Angeles is seemingly bound by an attachment to the limelight. Los Angeles has become a city where more than likely more people could identify the Kardashians than the Mayor. This culture is what bound much of Southern California together, because there's some aura in the air that makes you feel as if anything is possible in LA; no matter what, you shouldn't ever be discouraged from chasing your dreams. So yeah, a lot of the people may all be narcissistic and only care about themselves, but deep down they're chasing the same dream you are, so judgment and put-downs are out the door.
Honestly, that is a unique aspect that bound much of California together. Even though San Francisco and Los Angeles butt heads sometimes, they both radiate acceptance. This acceptance I speak of too encompasses everything, from encouraging dream chasing, to just being comfortable in your own skin. California as a whole is proud of their diverse population, and is the state that undoubtedly respects LGBTQ+ rights the most. San Francisco for one elected their first openly gay politician in 1977, reflecting that they have been predecessors to the Gay Rights movement for quite some time. San Francisco continues to be leaders in the Gay Rights movement and have reflected this with election of officials who will continue to fight the equal rights battle (i.e. Gavin Newsom) and also by holding public events like the annual Pride Festival.
Much like San Francisco, Los Angeles also holds a Pride Festival where all people who identify as LGBTQ+ gather (along with many heterosexual people who advocate for their rights) and celebrate their individuality while also spreading information on what must be done throughout the rest of the country in order to ensure citizens of other states are not shunned. Along with this cultural aspect, LA and SF have also found agreement in the political realm, especially after the presidential election.
It really shouldn't be any news that California is a liberal state, a very VERY liberal state in that, so after this past election there was huge outrage over the outcome. The common theme that unites the state is fear that "one election [may] reverse generations of progress" (Ulloa and Mason, paragraph 3). California is a state which is very proud of their minority makeup, so when the Trump Campaign promised to get rid of all illegal aliens (after calling them "rapists and criminals" among other things), and vowed to defund Planned Parenthood and enact conversion therapy for the LGBTQ+ community, it's no wonder the state went crazy when he won. California stands against everything Trump advocates for, so even though a secession will never happen, you can expect State Legislation to throw him a lot of curveballs.
Although San Francisco and Los Angeles have their fair shares of differences, they are united by both culture and politics as a singular region. California is the Golden State, and I can assure you that as a proud citizen of the State, WE are not going to let one extremely delusional politician ruin the amazing thing we've got going.
 |
| http://cdn.funcheap.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/san-fran-gay-parade1-45p-bw-1024x6131.jpg |
Much like San Francisco, Los Angeles also holds a Pride Festival where all people who identify as LGBTQ+ gather (along with many heterosexual people who advocate for their rights) and celebrate their individuality while also spreading information on what must be done throughout the rest of the country in order to ensure citizens of other states are not shunned. Along with this cultural aspect, LA and SF have also found agreement in the political realm, especially after the presidential election.
It really shouldn't be any news that California is a liberal state, a very VERY liberal state in that, so after this past election there was huge outrage over the outcome. The common theme that unites the state is fear that "one election [may] reverse generations of progress" (Ulloa and Mason, paragraph 3). California is a state which is very proud of their minority makeup, so when the Trump Campaign promised to get rid of all illegal aliens (after calling them "rapists and criminals" among other things), and vowed to defund Planned Parenthood and enact conversion therapy for the LGBTQ+ community, it's no wonder the state went crazy when he won. California stands against everything Trump advocates for, so even though a secession will never happen, you can expect State Legislation to throw him a lot of curveballs.
Although San Francisco and Los Angeles have their fair shares of differences, they are united by both culture and politics as a singular region. California is the Golden State, and I can assure you that as a proud citizen of the State, WE are not going to let one extremely delusional politician ruin the amazing thing we've got going.
Movement
As we've already learned, Los Angeles and San Francisco are two of the most densely populated places in the US, and they really aren't showing signs of slowing down. Movement into the cities are extremely high with more and more immigrants finding California to be there home. Foreign-born residents comprise over 30% of the population in both San Francisco and Los Angeles counties, and half of all children in these counties have a foreign born parent. The figure below shows the levels of foreign-born citizens since 1870 to the present.
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258
For much of the state's history, foreign-born immigrants were comprised mostly of people from Latin America, however that is no longer the case. According to the US Census, Asians have surpassed Latinos as the prime migrators to California. The figure below illustrates the levels of Asians now calling California home:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258
Although both these counties can feel a growing Asian population, San Francisco is far ahead of Los Angeles. As of the 2010 US Census, San Francisco County had a population of 35.3% Asian, whereas Los Angeles County only reported 15%; the reason for this you may ask? Well, we must go back to the technology aspect of Northern California versus the more conservative Los Angeles business place. Asian-Americans have a tendency to pursue jobs in the IT field, so with Silicon Valley just to the south of Downtown San Francisco, it's no reason that many more Asian-American people are comfortable up north compared to in LA. This simple movement in technology has found a way to shape the demographics of a state which is very interesting to consider.
So San Francisco brings many people to its city limits with its alluring technological advancements, but what does LA bring to the table? Well, Los Angeles is obsessed with beauty and the spotlight, so many aspiring performers venture to the city to test their luck. This isn't exactly a concrete group of people per se, but the culture this creates is truly unparalleled. This movement has inherently created a pretty superficial and narcissistic culture, but hey, it's called Tinsel Town for a reason.
http://cdn5.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/NFE_portrait/2010/11/hollywood_a_p.jpg
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258
For much of the state's history, foreign-born immigrants were comprised mostly of people from Latin America, however that is no longer the case. According to the US Census, Asians have surpassed Latinos as the prime migrators to California. The figure below illustrates the levels of Asians now calling California home:
http://www.ppic.org/main/publication_show.asp?i=258
Although both these counties can feel a growing Asian population, San Francisco is far ahead of Los Angeles. As of the 2010 US Census, San Francisco County had a population of 35.3% Asian, whereas Los Angeles County only reported 15%; the reason for this you may ask? Well, we must go back to the technology aspect of Northern California versus the more conservative Los Angeles business place. Asian-Americans have a tendency to pursue jobs in the IT field, so with Silicon Valley just to the south of Downtown San Francisco, it's no reason that many more Asian-American people are comfortable up north compared to in LA. This simple movement in technology has found a way to shape the demographics of a state which is very interesting to consider.
So San Francisco brings many people to its city limits with its alluring technological advancements, but what does LA bring to the table? Well, Los Angeles is obsessed with beauty and the spotlight, so many aspiring performers venture to the city to test their luck. This isn't exactly a concrete group of people per se, but the culture this creates is truly unparalleled. This movement has inherently created a pretty superficial and narcissistic culture, but hey, it's called Tinsel Town for a reason. http://cdn5.thr.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/NFE_portrait/2010/11/hollywood_a_p.jpg
Thursday, November 17, 2016
Human/Environment Interaction
http://la.streetsblog.org/2010/12/13/density-car-ownership-and-what-it-means-for-the-future-of-los-angeles/
vs.
http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/img/indicators/small/Population_Density.png
Humans have since day 1, and will continue to till the end of time, had both positive and negative effects upon the environment. Human/Environment interactions include everything from population density, to agriculture, and our two cities have a fair share with each.
One of the main contributors to environmental impact is the population density of a given place. The more humans to inhabit a definitive space means that more resources will be used and thus the environment will be affected with the appropriate responses. LA and SF are both heavily populated places, but only one can come out on top. According to a 2012 press release from the US Census, "the nation's most densely populated urbanized area is Los Angeles-Long Beach-Anaheim, Calif., with nearly 7,000 people per square mile." No worries though, as "the San Francisco-Oakland, Calif., area is the second most densely populated at 6,266 people per square mile." What these numbers usually entail is an exploitation of resources. Southern California is the most densely populated place in the US and one major result of that is a shortage of water. Los Angeles and all suburbs are naturally dry places, absent of much natural water. Being that this is the case, there is a major water shortage going on now because the environment was never meant to support this many people.
Los Angeles isn't the only one with problems as San Francisco is also dealing with repercussions following their interaction with the environment. Much of San Francisco's problems also deal with water, but not in the same manner as Los Angeles. "Throughout the San Francisco Bay, state Water Quality Standards are exceeded for pesticides, invasive species, mercury and other metals and toxic substances. Many miles of beaches are impaired for unacceptable levels of bacteria due to sewage spills and crumbling sewage infrastructure. Habitat destruction has eliminated more than 90 percent of shoreline wetlands and 40 percent of the total San Francisco Bay aquatic ecosystem in the last 150 years, leading to the special protection of more than 90 species of plants and animals" (EPA, paragraph 1). Pollution is more or less the problem up north and it stems from their heavy agriculture community. San Francisco tries their best to cultivate the Earth through projects like Community Grows and Little City Gardens. In doing so though, they pollute some of the habitats with their pesticides necessary for crops. More nature friendly pesticides are being produced but with some species loss already occurring, some effects may be too late to reverse.
Los Angeles and much of Southern California aren't consider agricultural places because for one, their environments are not keen for growing food; the hot temperatures make it very difficult to grow most fruits and vegetables. Instead what LA has tried to do in order to give back to the Earth is reduce greenhouse gases. Like previously stated, LA is the most densely populated area in the US, so in order to not end up like Beijing, China, or Rio de Janiero, Brazil, Los Angeles needed to create strict regulations. California created what is called the Smog Check Program, designed to make sure the vast amount of cars on the road weren't emitting too much green house gas. "Between 2005 and 2007 air pollution led to almost 30,000 hospital and emergency room visits in California for asthma, pneumonia, and other respiratory and cardiovascular ailments," but in the past 10 years many improvements have been made and air quality is on the up and up (Shevory, paragraph 5).
All in all, both LA and San Francisco have their environmental problems, but both locations are taking many steps necessary in order to ensure a quality standard of life for generations to come.
Place
Whereas location focused on where the cities stood physically and economically, Place delves into physical characteristics of the cities and qualities that may differentiate the populations. Like previously stated, San Francisco and Los Angeles have pretty different climates; the northern city boasts a much damper environment whereas its southern counterpart is in the midst of one of the worst droughts in history. The San Francisco area has numerous green cities, like Redwood City, Walnut Creek, Concord, etc. The Los Angeles Area on the other hand has many dry cities, like Palm Springs, Barstow, and all of the San Fernando Valley. The real question here now is if these geographic conditions have in any way, shape, or form, affected the populations of the respective cities? The answer here is yes.
When we discussed location, we talked about how San Francisco's average household income was significantly higher than Los Angeles'. Well much like how household income is much higher, as is cost of housing and as cost of housing rises, we tend to see major changes in demographics. In Redwood City, a suburb of San Francisco, the average price for a house is $1.3 million.
http://www.siliconvalleyrealestate.com/images/redwoodcity_sign.jpg.scaled.1000_1000.jpg
In contrast, Palm Springs, a very lovely and artsy city located in the Southern California desert, has an average home price of about $265,000.
http://www.dhsspa.com/assets/themes/dhsspa/img/Attractions-at-Palm-Springs-Desert-Hot-Springs-Spa-Hotel.jpg
When an area has a higher median home rate, it tends to reflect higher education rates and lower population growth rates compared to a cheaper city. Sure enough, according to the US Census, 84.9% of Redwood City residents are high school graduates and 41.3% have their Bachelor's Degree. Palm Springs boasts a similar high school graduation rate, 87.4%, but has a lower Bachelor's Degree rate, only 34.3%. Redwood City has a predicted 11% growth rate over the next five years whereas Palm Desert county saw their population increase increase by more then 33% in the span of just 5 years*. What this reflects is how a poorer climate will affect an area's population. The hot, dry lifestyle of a Los Angeles suburb is literally quite hellish, meaning houses will be cheaper and people will choose to live there because of pricing convenience. The San Francisco suburb on the other hand has a cooler climate and is very lush, making it heavily sought after. Therefore, housing prices are higher which drives many likely buyers out of the market. Now driving buyers out of the market isn't entirely bad for is has some benefits (i.e. crime rates). Redwood City has a much lower crime rate than Palm Springs, and it's probably got something to do with the accessibility to money by home owners up north.
* all numbers used are taken from the US Census Bureau and data is based off of the 2010 US Census:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0655254/embed
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0660102
When we discussed location, we talked about how San Francisco's average household income was significantly higher than Los Angeles'. Well much like how household income is much higher, as is cost of housing and as cost of housing rises, we tend to see major changes in demographics. In Redwood City, a suburb of San Francisco, the average price for a house is $1.3 million.
http://www.siliconvalleyrealestate.com/images/redwoodcity_sign.jpg.scaled.1000_1000.jpg
In contrast, Palm Springs, a very lovely and artsy city located in the Southern California desert, has an average home price of about $265,000.
http://www.dhsspa.com/assets/themes/dhsspa/img/Attractions-at-Palm-Springs-Desert-Hot-Springs-Spa-Hotel.jpg
When an area has a higher median home rate, it tends to reflect higher education rates and lower population growth rates compared to a cheaper city. Sure enough, according to the US Census, 84.9% of Redwood City residents are high school graduates and 41.3% have their Bachelor's Degree. Palm Springs boasts a similar high school graduation rate, 87.4%, but has a lower Bachelor's Degree rate, only 34.3%. Redwood City has a predicted 11% growth rate over the next five years whereas Palm Desert county saw their population increase increase by more then 33% in the span of just 5 years*. What this reflects is how a poorer climate will affect an area's population. The hot, dry lifestyle of a Los Angeles suburb is literally quite hellish, meaning houses will be cheaper and people will choose to live there because of pricing convenience. The San Francisco suburb on the other hand has a cooler climate and is very lush, making it heavily sought after. Therefore, housing prices are higher which drives many likely buyers out of the market. Now driving buyers out of the market isn't entirely bad for is has some benefits (i.e. crime rates). Redwood City has a much lower crime rate than Palm Springs, and it's probably got something to do with the accessibility to money by home owners up north.
* all numbers used are taken from the US Census Bureau and data is based off of the 2010 US Census:
https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0655254/embed
http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/0660102
Location
When comparing and contrasting the two cities in terms of geography, we must begin with one of the simpler aspects of the five themes of geography; location. Location can be further broken down into 2 essential subsections: absolute location and relative location. A city/place's absolute location is rather straightforward, as it is simply where it is located on a map. This image shows the locations of Los Angeles (southern) and San Francisco (northern). Los Angeles and much of Southern California have very arid and desert qualities to their location whereas San Francisco and the Bay are more known for being wetter and much cooler.
A city's relative location is a bit more complex in that it is "a location within the economic system based on its characteristics and location within the world market"(UN Omaha). Now we're not going to look at these cities' standing in the world market, but more in a statewide and perhaps nationwide scope. Los Angeles' average household income is $40,000 whereas San Francisco has an average income of $62,000. The reason behind this rather huge discrepancy is because "Los Angeles' business class, its movers and shakers, were too conservative, too backward looking in their goals and their style to recognize and nurture what would become the new economy" (Storper, paragraph 8). As many of us may know, one of the tech capitals of the world is Silicon Valley, nestled just south of San Francisco. Back in the 1960s and 70s, businessmen in Southern California didn't see much of an immediate future for technology, so they scoffed at the notion of a completely technological reliant society. Many progressives to the North recognized the endless possibilities they had at hand and began requesting development. Companies like Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and Xerox all call Silicon Valley home and are one of the primary contributors to The Bay's booming economy. It's true that Los Angeles used to dominate the economic realm in California, but San Francisco capitalized on the missed opportunity and now boast one of most content populations nationwide.
A city's relative location is a bit more complex in that it is "a location within the economic system based on its characteristics and location within the world market"(UN Omaha). Now we're not going to look at these cities' standing in the world market, but more in a statewide and perhaps nationwide scope. Los Angeles' average household income is $40,000 whereas San Francisco has an average income of $62,000. The reason behind this rather huge discrepancy is because "Los Angeles' business class, its movers and shakers, were too conservative, too backward looking in their goals and their style to recognize and nurture what would become the new economy" (Storper, paragraph 8). As many of us may know, one of the tech capitals of the world is Silicon Valley, nestled just south of San Francisco. Back in the 1960s and 70s, businessmen in Southern California didn't see much of an immediate future for technology, so they scoffed at the notion of a completely technological reliant society. Many progressives to the North recognized the endless possibilities they had at hand and began requesting development. Companies like Apple, Hewlett-Packard, and Xerox all call Silicon Valley home and are one of the primary contributors to The Bay's booming economy. It's true that Los Angeles used to dominate the economic realm in California, but San Francisco capitalized on the missed opportunity and now boast one of most content populations nationwide.
Sunday, October 2, 2016
LA vs. SF
Being that I am from the great state that is California, I only feel as if it's natural I compare and contrast the two most glorious cities there; Los Angeles and San Francisco (sorry San Diego, you didn't make the cut). See, ever since I moved out to Hawaii, I have had to explain to people where I'm from. I'm seemingly running into the same problem every time, that people don't recognize that there's a huge difference between Southern California and Northern California. Known as "the classic city feud," people from LA and SF alike like to make one thing clear: though there exist a few granted similarities, the two cities are vastly different, from their human-environment interaction to their cultural movements (Kruschewsky, paragraph 1).
I think most of the confusion arises because people are simply not familiar enough with the two cities. I've been to both cities--though I admit that I've been to LA far more times due to the fact that I'm a Southern California boy. Los Angeles is "The City of Angels;" a "city with the most substance in the United States -- cultural substance" that is claims famed Angeleno Werner Herzog (Bradley, paragraph 3).
San Francisco is "Saint Francis;" a city so great that famed writer Rudyard Kipling proclaimed that "the only drawback... is how hard it is to leave" (Gregoire, paragraph 2). Obviously each city has character, but evolution and contemporary movements, along with geographical elements create rather clear distinctions.
Works Cited
Bradley, Paul T. "50 Reasons Los Angeles Is the Best Effing City in America." L.A. Weekly. N.p., 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Gregoire, Carolyn. "This Is Why People Who Live In San Francisco Are So Happy And Healthy." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Kruschewsky, Gabriela. "Los Angeles vs. San Francisco: Which City Rules The West Coast?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Mar. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
I think most of the confusion arises because people are simply not familiar enough with the two cities. I've been to both cities--though I admit that I've been to LA far more times due to the fact that I'm a Southern California boy. Los Angeles is "The City of Angels;" a "city with the most substance in the United States -- cultural substance" that is claims famed Angeleno Werner Herzog (Bradley, paragraph 3).
San Francisco is "Saint Francis;" a city so great that famed writer Rudyard Kipling proclaimed that "the only drawback... is how hard it is to leave" (Gregoire, paragraph 2). Obviously each city has character, but evolution and contemporary movements, along with geographical elements create rather clear distinctions.
Works Cited
Bradley, Paul T. "50 Reasons Los Angeles Is the Best Effing City in America." L.A. Weekly. N.p., 14 Oct. 2011. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Gregoire, Carolyn. "This Is Why People Who Live In San Francisco Are So Happy And Healthy." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 Sept. 2013. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Kruschewsky, Gabriela. "Los Angeles vs. San Francisco: Which City Rules The West Coast?" The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 8 Mar. 2014. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)