Difference Between The Growth and Development of Los Angeles and California
... way due to the gold rush of 1849. However, the gold ran out and so did the rapid population growth. Los Angeles kept thriving with the citrus industry, and the in the early 1900’s the development of Hollywood also added to the appeal of the city. The citrus industry took advantage of their product and the advertised on the boxes a beautiful and tropical climate which lured even more people out west to the city. This was a major factor that led to the constant fast paced growth of the city. Even though the gold rush had slowed down, people still kept moving to San Francisco, but not just as fast as it was before. Another factor to the growth of Los Angeles were the few people who had the money and the resources to pretty much run Los Angeles and do anything they wanted to. Men like William Mulholland, Henry Huntington, and Harrison Gray Otis all contributed to the way Los Angeles developed. The men of the San Fernando Mission Land Company had knowledge about land and water that no one else had which enabled them to stay rich and control where people would move to. They helped the spread of Los Angeles, and were the dominant part of the city. San Francisco never had this big of an influence from rich people. Ghirardelli might be the only thing close to what Los Angeles had, but his wealth was in chocolate. He did not have the advantages the rail road tycoon, real estate tycoon, or the water and power tycoon had to make their money and become powerful enough to practically run a city. San Francisco and Los Angeles also grew differently because of the different climates the both had. Los Angeles is a warm desert climate as opposed to San Francisco which is the best example of a coastal climate. It has very cool temperatures and moist air, which is why it is always foggy and cold there. The importance of climate and growth directly relate to each other because of the more desired climate to live in. Los Angeles was more desirable because of the warm climate as opposed to the wet, moist and cold climate of San Francisco. Because of Los Angeles’ warm climate more people moved there because it seemed like the ideal climate to live in. It seemed this way because that was the way it was sold to the people back east. California was the place to move to because of all of the opportunity there, but Los Angeles was ideal to people because there was a tropical picture put in there minds. Advertising of Los Angeles through the citrus industry helped boost population growth. These boosters showed images of tropical like climates that seemed to be most desirable. This lured people down to Los Angeles. It was now even easier for people to get there because they had access to the Union Pacific railroad, and that made the move much easier. San Francisco lacked the mass transit and easy access that Los Angeles had. This railroad was also another big thing that made the two cities diff...