Los Angeles or San Francisco: Which city is more vintage, more Golden Era, more noir?

[John in Covina]

More Noir

Los Angeles is a rambling place, fair distances with longer than necessary drives in between. In LA and the surrounding areas there are some increadible pockets of the old. Some is in disrepair others chugging along quite well and others that are being renovated and made anew. Too much has gone under the bulldozer to be lost forever in LA and the local PBS station KCET have two long programs about some of the highlights of LA the are gone. These programs are titled "Things That Aren't Here Anymore" and "More Things That Aren't Here Anymore" and they chronical some of the most amazing and wonderful things that just did not last. LA land value is enormous and the pressure to tear down and put up something new in its place is unbelieveable. As such great places disappear every year.

Occasionally some neat things are saved and some places are uncovered and restored like the Pig and Whistle in Hollywood. The Egyptian Theater has been redone beautifully, as examples these show what is possible.

I picked SF as the more Noir Today city because it retains a lot of its Noir charm, seems to have it in a more concentrated area and that gave it a little more Noir weight in the choice.

Both cities are astounding, but in LA you just have to always drive further to be astounded. [huh]

 

[NicolettaRose]

I am very partial to both cities. I was born and raised in SF, but live in and love LA equally. When I think of noir though, I always think of Los Angeles, maybe because it makes me think of Raymond Chandler, maybe because of the many Art Deco era buildings here, there are not that many in SF.

 

[Hondo]

San Francisco

Definitely, San Francisco, buildings, bridges, land marks are forever etched in more note worthily films than I can recall. Try to forget current sub-culture, or idiots who occupy rule over this great city.