Why San Francisco and London are so different

Each time I move between San Francisco and London I notice the differences between the two cities and cultures. Of course they have similarities: both English-speaking; both flourishing; both attracting immigrants; both expensive; both with inspiring monuments and both proud.

But more noticeable and interesting are their differences, and the causes behind their distinct identities and cultures…

Escaping the rat-race vs. working on my passion

A large proportion of Londoners are employed in established companies and corporations. Large workforces and networks of international offices often leads to people feeling like small cogs in large machines; less empowered and focussed on their immediate surroundings. People resign to being part of the ‘rat-race’ and so focus their energies on trying to further their own prospects.

San Francisco contains a large number of start-ups with small teams where employees feel like they can have greater impact. Many people found their own businesses to pursue their passions or are part of larger teams working on causes they relate to. This leads to a culture of creating impact on others and of doing something that’s has wider benefit than to just oneself.

Slim-fit shirts and pin-stripe suits vs. faded hoodies and worn-out jeans

Maybe more so in recent times but London is a Financial Services hub of the world. Many Londoners work in Professional Services (banking, investment, consulting, law, accounting etc.) and are undoubtedly influenced by the formal, stiff and money-centric atmosphere of their offices, for example in career aspirations, or personal style and expectations.

San Francisco is a Tech hub of the world; almost every other person I meet either works at Google or a startup. The culture in these offices is much more relaxed, flexible and people-centric but equally driven and intense. This flows in to people’s personal lives as they are more casual about their dress, their plans, their haves and have-nots.

Investing in myself vs. empowering others

People in London expect to get rich via banking / finance and maybe property. Large salaries and bonuses are the norm for those well-off. Investment culture seems to be focussed on capital markets and complex instruments that require in-depth understanding of finance. This all requires developing individual expertise and acquiring information that gets you ahead of others at an individual level - direct competition dominates.

In San Francisco the predominant ways people make money is through selling or floating their startup - it’s about working hard and living frugally whilst working with your team, before success results in a pay-off. Investment is focussed on helping these small teams succeed and so cultivates a culture of mentoring, collaboration and support. There is a lot of content authored on what breeds success and many events that share learning - everyone is trying to help each other in achieving success - collaboration dominates.



Stickiness of wealth

Social mobility in London is fairly low; if you had rich parents then in all likelihood you’ll remain rich. Much of the wealth is from property, established business interests and investments. This I feel creates aloofness and snobbery and more (very obvious) distinction between those well-off and those not.

Many of the wealthy in San Francisco are newly rich, directly from their own work in building a business. Many of these businesses are public or run professionally and so there is less space for heirs and, with the continuing fast pace of technological change, plenty of space for new entrants - meritocracy, not connections are key. In addition people have experienced living poorly and this shared understanding enables greater empathy towards those still struggling.

Knowing is power vs. hacking is power

I’ve noticed a culture in London where knowledge is power; not knowing something is embarrassing and a sign of weakness. People don’t like to admit to not knowing, and clearly value knowledge and information. People keep up to date with the news, and providing new information at a social gathering earns respect.

In SF people seem to be very comfortable highlighting their lack of understanding or knowledge on a topic, with the caveat that they can / will / will try to figure it out. And people are willing to accept that and provide people that chance - it means that you can be very comfortable being ignorant as long as you’re willing not to remain so.

New, innovative, cool vs. old, traditional, sophisticated

San Francisco is all about innovation and looking ahead. Less emphasis on the past combined with a younger history means the city doesn’t display much grandeur or elicit much awe. Having accomplished something isn’t as important as accomplishing something now, and a failure in the past is something to learn from and move on quickly.

London’s history stretches from Roman times and is visible in the city - in the architecture, in the stories and in the mindset. People value tradition and enjoy the past. Maybe this makes people slightly more resistant to change or less inclined to innovation? I believe it definitely means that previous accomplishments or association with prestige is far more valued when compared to San Francisco.

Far from everything vs. global centre

San Francisco is 6 hours away from the US East Coast and even further from Europe and Asia. This leaves it a little isolated and less connected to other parts of the world. A noticeable consequence of this is that people seem to be less aware of, interested in and knowledgeable about world affairs. There seems to be a little bubble where San Franciscans are mainly interested in brunch plans, their fitbit and the newest photo-sharing app (shout-out to shoto!) A liberal mentality means people are of course interested in environmental affairs (e.g. composting bins are normal in households and public places) but less so about developing-world concerns. And of course SF is still part of the USA, which often means that people are far more concerned with of all things American than anything non-American!

London was the capital of the vast British empire and has always held an important role on the international stage. The Raj led Londoners to have strong links to countries all over the world and English led London and Britain to have substantial lasting impact globally. There is a fantastic diversity of international immigrants in London that is probably unparalleled anywhere else in the world (bar NYC) that adds new ideas, tastes and colours to the London mix. Great British media houses such as the BBC and publications such as The Economist help keep Britain relevant to the world and the world relevant to Britain. The result is I find people reading about world affairs, donating to far-reaching causes and discussing developments happening elsewhere.

Small and square vs. big and radial

San Francisco is 7x7 miles and oriented such that the central business district is in one corner, startup-central along one side, and many corporate tech jobs south of the city (in Silicon Valley). This leaves a lot of prime space for living, with people living close to each other. Commuting times are short for those working in the city and people congregate in neighbourhoods that appeal to their personality type.

London is over 600 square miles large and very radial; the most central parts are occupied by businesses with people living in concentric rings around, with higher property prices towards the middle. This means that almost everyone spends a significant amount of time commuting (an hour on average) and also that it’s more difficult to socialise at home. People tend to meet after work at bars and restaurants and plan ahead rather than ad-hoc and at-home.

Sunny and warm vs. overcast and cold

The climate naturally plays a big part in a city’s culture and the warmer, brighter weather in SF (compared to London at least!) means people are able to enjoy more outdoor activities. Weekend hikes and other trips are common and cycling is less dangerous due to drier roads. People wake earlier and there is less nightlife.

London has adapted well to dark days and cold nights - there is a rich nightlife and a wealth of indoor venues; bars and restaurants aside. Galleries and theatres entertain both on weekday evenings and people party late at weekends. Hitting the gym is more common than riding a bike although now it’s becoming more fashionable to brave the conditions and exercise in freezing parks with British Military Fitness.

Community of implants vs. existing social networks

I’ve not met many people that grew up in SF - almost everyone has migrated there from elsewhere in the US or outside. All these people have been attracted to what SF has to offer and made a significant commitment to relocate; they really want to be there and associate strongly with what San Francisco / the Bay Area has to offer. They’ve had to discover new friends and create their lifestyles from scratch. Consequently (a) they are very open to meeting new people and are welcoming to fellow immigrants and (b) have had the opportunity to make friends as per their personalities and interests when they moved.

In contrast, London is the hub of the UK. It retains almost everyone that has grown up in London and attracts many others from all around the world. From what I have experienced this means that locals always have brimming social networks from high school, university, workplaces. It leaves less time for discovering and making new friends as people often struggle to balance existing ones. It also means that friendships are often a continuation of those founded whilst younger and not always based on recent interests or commonalities (but rather on old experiences,) leading to stronger, less diverse cliques.

And many more..?

Other differences and reasons may include the types of people the city attracts (e.g. SF attracts many computer scientists and not many in the fashion or media industry, unlike London) and the role models it displays. The risk appetite and what’s considered “cool” also influences how people think and behave of course (e.g. it’s cool not to have a job and be working on your own thing in SF, which is less so the case in London.) Even the engagement with the political scene is different - San Franciscans seem more apathetic and less connected to their governance than Londoners.

Update: dominated by startups vs. diversity of influences

After publishing the first version of this I received some great feedback about one major difference: San Francisco is heavily influenced by the cultural themes related to startups - risk appetite, learning, innovation, collaboration etc. etc. London, however, has a multitude of cultures; there is of course the large component of professional services and finance that I have discussed in detail, but there are side-cultures from fashion, media, politics / non-profit etc. There is a thriving creative industry (advertising, design, art etc.) and a growing startup scene. However maybe it is the distinct segregation of these side-cultures that makes it more difficult for them to exert influence among the London population in general?

It seems to me that there are many more differences and underlying causes than one would first expect amongst two well-known cities. It demonstrates the subtleties involved in the evolution of culture and I’ve been fortunate to have the opportunity to experience those of San Francisco and London side-by-side. I definitely love both places; the former more so for the city culture, but the latter for friends, family and familiarity.

Of course my whole opinion is from my very individual perspective (I worked in London as a management consultant whereas in SF I worked with a startup), which may not paint an accurate picture - so I would definitely welcome specific observations on SF vs. London but also thoughts on differences between other cities and cultures you’ve experienced.