the differences between northern and southern california

People in Southern California are fake; people in Northern California tend to be LESS fake.

 

i've been born and raised in south cali.
south cali is NOT fake. it's only orange county area stereotypically. south cali besides OC just gets more to business about drugs and grime. north cali is more spirituality, hippies, beauty.

 

I was born and raised (and currently live in Orange County) but many of my friends from college live in Nothern California. I myself lived in SF for 6 months for a college internship, so I have a good sense of the dichotomy. There are thing I love about both.

So-Cal: Glam culture/life-style, egocentric, people think they are way cooler than people from Nor-Cal (depends on your point of view, Nor-Cal people feel the same way, but it's just a defense mechanism), great waves, good-looking people, minorities, close to Baja for surfing/fishing

Nor-Cal: Lots of culture (San Fran, not Oakland), great restaurants, decent weather (except for San Fran), no waves, mostly ugly people, less minorities, close to... Oregon?

 

Mostly ugly people?

No, you!

I'm manpretty enough to offset every fuck in socal.

 

The county In which I grew up(?) has taken the place of notorious Orange County as the most conservative in California= Kings County,just south of Fresno County. As far as I'm concerned ,there's north of Redding and south of Redding. Two differant places and should be two differant states.

 

I'm a born and raised Californian (northern). I'm very familiar with both SoCal and NorCal and the older I get, the more logical it seems to make California into two states.

 

I was born in Northern California (Bay Area) and was there for 21 years of life and down in Southern California (San Diego) for the last 3.


-Negatives
Northern California vs. Southern California

Smug vs. Fake
less hot women vs. few quality women
Outside of SF not a great nightlife vs. feeling of being crammed in the city
Oakland Raiders vs. Los Angeles Kings
Some rundown ghetto areas vs. some rundown ghetto areas

Positives
Northern California vs. Southern California

Awesome camping vs. awesome beaches
the hot women are really hot and stand out vs. hot women everywhere
Lots of daytime things to do within a 2 hour drive vs. Disneyland
Better restaurants vs. better nightlife

Those just came to mind both have some cool historical sites worth checking out although I would probably give the edge to SF over San Diego on that one.

Hella is a great word to say in Northern California, Hella is a terrible word to use in Southern California although I have not found a quality substitute for it yet.

 

You sound west hollywood...

NoCal has more hippies and blood sucking yuppies as well as a terminal case of PC.

SoCal is morons, pesants, artist, and posers. And georgeous women.

 

I take offense!

SoCal has much better camping-- not just sierras and beaches where you can't swim.

And you put the kings against the raiders... the Dodgers dwarf the raiders (not to mention the giants) in stature ...

And of course, let's not forget silicon valley is in NoCal-- totally offsets all the neo-hippies.

 

I was making generalizations but SoCal, at least San Diego area has nothing comparable to Yosemite, Big Trees, Angel's Camp or some of the places i've been near Chico in terms of camping, and I doubt L.A. does as well. I've heard people mention big bear but that's about it.

Northern California also has Santa Cruz and some ok beaches for surfing and stuff near San Francisco. So it's not all or nothing, I was comparing the two overall.

In regards to sports, it's not good right now but the 49ers were really good and the Raiders actually used to live in L.A.

 

The Raiders ditched 'Frisco for LA only briefly-- then ran back.

Yosemite is as close to LA as SF and Sequoia is closer. Not to mention the Methusela Trees-- all technically central Ca.

Then there's the incomparable Joshua Tree and Death Valley.
And the Mojave Preserve and Mexico (But not right now!). And Catalina.

Not to mention Vegas in 3 1/2 hours.

 

Yosemite was 3 1/2 hours for me and it's 5 1/2 hours from L.A. assuming you were at the tip. From SF at most it would still be 4 hours.

The Raiders were never in Frisco, they are in Oakland.

 

Yesterday, I went to the low desert, the high desert, 8000 ft up a snowy mountain, to the beach and back home to Hollywood.

Where else can you do all that in18 hours?

 

why can't we split the state into bay area, LA and san diego or something?
san diego should NOT be lumped in with LA. i can understand why you wouldn't like LA but it doesn't represent all of southern california.

i can easily stay in san diego but i could be convinced to live in santa cruz or somewhere around there, too.

 

really-- NoCal, CentralCa, and SoCal should be three different states.
the lines should be the PCT lines.

mexico to Walker Pass - SoCal
walker pass to tahoe - Central
tahoe to oregon - NoCal

That puts SF bay in central, just south of the line,

 

how about four?
just one quarter would still be bigger than a number of european countries!

 

I'd say San Diego north to just south of Bakersfield where the grapevine ends----Bakersfield to Redding--Redding to the Oregon border. 3 states.

 

Well it's predicted that L.A. could break off into the ocean. Mother Nature might decide which one she likes better.

 

Man you are all so wrong. If anything it needs to be split down the middle north to south. It's the coast that is different from the valley(s).

 

socal is all about money.
nocal we have real weather except for the valley where we grow things.

if you're gonna split the valley from the coast, i'll take my surrial nervana mountains of light and split them from both.