Cyclists: Let the Backlash Begin (or Not)
Muni Ticket Agent Arrested After Assaulting Juvenile
So Much For That Plastic Bag Ban
Verizon Droid: Big Deal? Or Just Another Late Arrival Rival?
Feinstein : Will She Or Won't She?
In case you don't know, today is Earth Day. (Please go stick a sapling in the ground, or whatever.) And more than any other day, really, today is San Francisco's day to bask in its green, self-righteous, CO2-reducing glory.
Or is it?
LA Times scribe Margot Roosevelt threw down the gauntlet today when she asked, which city is greener? According to Nancy Sutley, Los Angeles' deputy mayor for energy and environment, we just don't compare to So Cal when it comes to who's verdigris is bigger.
Nancy Sutley, L.A.'s deputy mayor for energy and environment, acknowledged that her city is moving more cautiously, but noted the "sheer scale" of its construction activity compared with its Northern California rival. "We think of San Francisco as a boutique city," she said.
A boutique city? Bitch, what?
But our very own Jared Blumenthal, director of SF's Department of the Environment, steps in to delivers the a verbal slap to Sutley's obvious hysterics.
"Hardly boutique!" he exclaimed. And with slight condescension, Blumenthal adds, "We are thrilled that L.A. is now going to start reducing its CO2 . . . If L.A. implemented our ordinance, it would have an even greater impact for all Angelenos."
The nerve.
Update: according to our sister, we win. So: ha!
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
SF a boutique city? Sure, why not. We're small and cute and expensive. l.a., then is a Walmart. Big and ugly and cheap.
But then again, to call l.a. a "city" is a bit of a stretch. How did that quote go? "l.a. is a thousand towns looking for a city." Something like that.
So LA will be green in building codes. What about transportation? How can a city possibly be "green" when nearly every single person, except for poor people, drives?
mdw: So you're saying you'd rather they do "nothing" than "something."
If you check LAist, SF is declared the winner!
Of course not. But to laud themselves as so green, and greener than San Francisco, is laughable.
the City of LA is bigger than several states...the COUNTY of LA is even huger....you could fit SF into a small portion of LA and still have room for surfers, actors, starlets and hippies and gangbangers.
it's weird to see the LA people get into the pimpslapping of SF...usually the SF/LA rivalry is one that only SF seems to know about...
Check out the examiner's story on the ridiculous number of passenger vehicles in the city's fleet. Until all city employees are required to use public transportation, we suck. Period. Maybe we suck a bit less than L.A. but we still suck.
personally, i am really, really sick of the term "green."
it's not like anyone actually gives a fuck, so quit pretending. (ok, a few people actually do, but way too many have tried to jump on that bandwagon that don't actually do anything besides "recycle" and drive a hybrid)
also, if i would consider any city to be "boutique," it would be austin...
this city would not be on that list of considerations.
In addition, LA Times scribe Margot Roosevelt reports that Los Angeles is gayer than San Francisco.
Also: LA has many more orange bridges, better seafood, and higher priced parking tickets.
Notice SFist has several comments already; up until now, LAist has no comments at all to try and back up their sprawl of Wal-marts, freeways, and cookie-cutter houses. Sometimes silence speaks louder than words.
"We think of Los Angeles as an overdeveloped city..."
And why is "boutique city" considered an insult? It's suggests SF is small and exclusive. As opposed to LA which is the Wal Mart strip mall hellhole of cities.
I think I'd rather live in a boutique city than a Wal Mart city.
Which is greener, LA or SF? The answer is Portland, of course.
where?
Bluecanary's comments exemplify San Francisco's smug boutique attitude perfectly.
I live in LA and have never, not do I plan to, ever go to a Wal-Mart. None of my friends subscribe to a Wal-Mart mentality, not support the Wal-Mat corporation in anyway. LA is full of wonderful, intelligent and progressive people who are actually a lot more open minded than most San Franciscans. I live in SF for 5 years, and it was great. But after getting bored of 'small and exclusive' it was nice to be somewhere that was a bit more important.
Los Angeles is more real than San Francisco will and can ever be, mini-malls and all. LA is a major player on a national and international scale.....SF wishes it was still more than a pretty face with rolling hills, yuppies and homeless people.
Sadly, people in SF cant seem to think outside their peninsula and realize that LA is part of the real world and THEIR California. There a 4 times as many people down here (in the city limits, proper) and perhaps learning to live together and getting along would benefit themselves along with the world. We are all one state, and one nation. Dont be snobby SF and get over yourselves!
Stop hating and demand change in the rest of the world. Youre part of it!
agreed, sss777. i have always promoted the awesomeness that is SoCal. without SoCal (specifically, without LA), SF is just another Portland. and i don't mean that in a good way.
Here's an update to make everything a bit more clear:
http://www.ajc.com/metro/content/metro/stories/2008/05/01/websmog_0501.html
Notice, LA is ranked #1 in "worst metro regions for year-round particle pollution, or soot," AND in " worst metro regions for ozone pollution". Although other articles claim that Pittsburgh beat LA in the most soot, LA still ranks as the most polluted city. Amazingly, San Francisco is never mentioned in any of these articles.
I just can't believe anyone would even consider LA as environmentally friendly in any way.