Braybuddy From Ireland, joined Aug 2004, 5650 posts, RR: 32
Reply 2, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 2 days ago) and read 2158 times:
Give me LA! I was only once in San Franciso and never had the desire to go back. As a gay man I found it TOO gay. You could live, play, work and die in a gay world and never step out of it. Also, I was surprised to see a surprising amount of anti-gay graffiti. And, the weather isn't as good as LA!
On the other hand, I've been to LA probably about ten times and loved it each time. It happens to be my favourite (or should that be "favorite") American city. It is America as it should be: big, brash and extreme in everthing. Yet it has its surprising side: I just love the low-rise of places like West Hollywood and Santa Monica. Most cities have an era which defines them, usually a period when they were at their peak and which their best architecture comes from (eg New York 1930s, Paris 19th century) and LA is the only city I can think of which evokes the 1950s.
And there are some fit men! The only thing that disapponted me about LA was the dearth of good late-night bars/clubs for a city of its size. Someone explained to me that it's because of the film (sorry, "movie") industry, where everone rises early for shoots.
...while costs can be high compared to living outside of CA, and I feel like there's a dearth of culture when I'm actually in LA (I can't explain why -- they have musuems, live theater, orchestra, etc... it's just my perception) I would much rather take the LA area. Then again I was raised in Southern California, so it natrually feels more at home to me.
San Francisco/the Bay Area is cool to visit (and BART rocks) -- I feel like I'm in a city, I feel like I'm surrounded by culture and history, but I wouldn't want to live there -- the cost of living is out of control, and just about everthing the city does is over the top... The city is way too liberal for my tastes (as in taxation and government telling me how to run my life/business not so much that the city is socially liberal)
"The coldest winter of my life was a summer in San Francisco" -- credited to Mark Twain, but no record that he ever said that. Regardless, each time I've been in San Francisco I couldn't help but think whomever actually uttered those words couldn't be more spot on.
CO Is My Airline of Choice || Baggage Claim is an airline's last chance to disappoint a customer || Next flts in profile
Jkw777 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 8, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2114 times:
SFO and LAX are airports....
I've never been to San Franscisco, but having made a shed load of visits to Los Angeles I would like to think that both of the cities offer totally different things.
Me personally though...
I absolutely love and adore LA for many different reasons. I've visited nearly 10 times in the past 3 years and I want to go back more each time. I love just how extreme things are in this damn city. I love driving down to Santa Monica and just hanging out with friends. I love driving towards Ventura and hanging out. I miss the 405 when I'm not there and I miss the 101 just as much. I can't explain why I like the (dangerous and busy) roads but I'm starting to love the freakin' 'California Sweep'!
I have a lot of connection with LA and surrounding areas due to most of my friends on the West Coast being from up in the hills in Calabasas (Which is a pretty little town). It's one place that I'll never tire of visiting. I don't go down to the South that much but it's just as nice there.
LA has this great vibe that I feel everytime I'm there. Perhaps it's a drug that I'll never stop being addicted to?!
British767 From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2005, 284 posts, RR: 21
Reply 14, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 2095 times:
In my experience, I had a fantastic week in San Francisco staying with a good friend of mine, therefore meaning that I had a much more plesant experience in San Francisco than I did in Los Angeles. I'm not saying I didn't like Los Angeles though. Los Angeles has a helluva lot to see, do, visit and so on (with my favourite being Venice).
AzoresLover From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 753 posts, RR: 6
Reply 15, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 2072 times:
This is almost like comparing apples and oranges...they are so different. LA is a vast area to me, not just a city, extending all the way through the San Fernando and San Gabriel Valleys, and down through Orange County. I love visiting SoCal, and go about everywhere when I do. San Francisco is more of an actual city where many attractions are right there in the city...Fisherman's Wharf, Chinatown, long list. I love to visit San Francisco, and go up to Muir Woods and hike through the Redwoods.
I love both areas about equally...I can't really choose one over the other, since each has such different attractions. When I lived in San Bernardino, I took numerous trips up to San Francisco for visits. So...no vote here.
Those who want to do something will find a way; those who don't will find an excuse.
AeroWesty From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 20394 posts, RR: 62
Reply 16, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2056 times:
Quoting Braybuddy (Reply 9): It's interesting that, of all the posts above, only one US citizen plumps for LA, while the only two non-US replies go for LA.
El Lay is a great place to be a tourist. It has a lot of places to go, things to do, people to see. It's a culture of its own.
Ess Eff is more cosmopolitan, and has more of what you're used to in Europe, in many ways. I could see how it'd be looked upon as "so what?" by many--you really have to live there to see that the quality of life is much better than it is in the Southland for a number of reasons. I like both for their own features, but I was born and raised in Ess Eff, and that's where my preference lies.
Hjulicher From Liechtenstein, joined Feb 2005, 871 posts, RR: 2
Reply 19, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 2045 times:
I choose SD, it's probably one of the more "normal" places in the state. LA is too congested crowded and big... If you love cars, and you like yours a lot, Live in LA, you'll spend most of your time in traffic. SF is a cool city, but only if you can afford to live there. California is notorious for being extremely expensive... Be ready to shell around 800 000 dollars for a three bedroom condo, and if you want to live in a house, expect more than a million.
San Diego is significantly larger than San Francisco on a city-city comparison.
I prefer Los Angeles, always have and always will and I will tell you why. It is by far the best city in the world to LIVE in. While it has the major fault of a crap public transit system (though it isn't as bad as most think), it is a true center of world culture that attracts all kinds of food, festival, party, etc. The decentralized nature of the city leads to it having many smaller centers which means you can go to a new one each day and have a totally different experience. The weather is better and there are always at least 5 ways to go somewhere so you can avoid the traffic everyone hears about.
San Francisco is a pretty place with some cool people, but I always find that the attitude of people there tends to be a bit of a shell that ends up looking a lot more ugly once you break through while L.A. is the opposite, a place of generally warm and friendly people once you get past the "everyone wants to be an actor" mystique.
Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
Halcyon From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 23, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 2013 times:
SFO is much more beautiful, IMHO...the fog, the building styles, the ocean (the bay in particular), the way there is less smog, and the vegetation make it a lot prettier than LAX...also, there the sea and air traffic, plus the huge bridges all make it seem like a great international city. It's a much more stylish city than LAX.
LAX is too sprawling, for me, but it does have a lot of attractions. The landscape is also not that nice.
Gamps From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 469 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (7 years 5 months 1 week 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 1995 times:
If one has to go by US Census statistics, people are moving out of SF - city had -5% population growth in last five years while California in general had +7% gain. So all complaints about being "pricey" is very much true.
Also compared to other "big" cities, SF is really small city - 46 square miles vs 498 sq miles of LA.
That said having lived in SF Bay Area for more than 10 years, I won't trade this for LA. The scenery, ability to go to beach or ski or Sierra in 2-3 hours is just great. Not to mention being right in the center of tech innovation, home of Apple etc - I guess Silicon valley vs Silicone valley
: I would have to choose LA over SF any day. SF has some pretty vile areas and it is very hard to get around. If you dont make $500K a year you are goi
: I have found the same thing about SF. I have been there at least 5 times in 10 years and have always had the same experience. That is one city I SO M
: A lot of that has to do with the fact that San Francisco is at full build out and has a high proportion of single people living there. In L.A., you c
: That was another point I meant to make. When it became known that I had accepted a position outside of the university, a company that I had worked an
: I grew up in LA but also lived many years in the bay area. Frankly, they both have pluses but I wouldn't want to live in either. RE: S.F.: Yeah, I kin
: I have been to both many times (I live in Santa Barbara (SBA) 90 mi north of LAX and about 200 mi south of SFO) and I just LOVE going down south to th
: Most of the residential land mass of San Francisco is covered with single-family homes or duplexes, so there's a lot of room to grow. Noe Valley, The
: LA and SFO are totally different cities, it is not even fair to try to compare the two of them. This is a perfect example of comparing apples and oran
: From a Native Californian.... Is there not a third choice? In my older years, I have come to the conclusion that SF and LA are like going out with the
: Either new cities such as Vacaville or Fairfield are now considered the Bay Area, or you are one damn speed racer. Honestly, that 2-3 hour figure fro
: San Diego has always been underrated like that.Maybe because LA is so close. But the top five are LA,SD,San Jose,SF and Long Beach. I agree.So,I'm al
: I live a little further north in the IE. Yes, im a 909er.... I actually measured the distance today and I live about 100 miles from SD and 60 miles f
: Visited San Diego in 2005. Great city. Underrated probably because of LA being 'close', but it is not really that close. But the metro area goes LA,
38 Travelin man
: As a native of SoCal (and current resident of LA), I definitely am in the "pro-LA" camp. But I do love to visit San Francisco. As others have said, ap
: In April, I will be visiting universities in both LA and San Francisco (in the process of applying for PhD courses in craniofacial medical research).
: Whichever one takes you! Be very careful about California, because as the song says 'you can check out anytime you want, but you can never leave!'. (
: I don't really think USC is in the best part of town. I'd live away (far away) from campus if I attended school there.
: Hey... you've described just the type of woman and city I'm looking for... And I love Cleveland. It's all of the good things about Southern Californi
: I like SFO alot more, SFO is more of a city to me. LA is very spread out, I just dont like that much. San Fran is very nice and has great areas around
: Is the question unfinished? Better to visit? or Better to live in? I just thought of that...makes a big difference.
: Gimme LA ! I love going there,I went there for a week last Summer,and enjoyed it immensely.It's funny,I told people @ work I was going to LA for a wee
: LA scored a bit more favorably than SF for parks and recreational opportunities, according to a study by EarthDay Network. http://www.earthday.net/UER
: I asked that question way back in reply 3... ...and unless I skimmed over it, the original poster has not clarified. Lincoln
: Not terribly fair, LA isn't a city it's one large strip mall after another development, just so happens they all fall into the Los Angeles City bounda
: I'd choose San Francisco any day. I don't want to live in a place where you can't see the hills because of all the smog in the way.
: I don't consider a subway that runs every 20 minutes for most of the day to be a "real" metro. It's more like a commuter rail, also because within th
: Ive lived in both. SF has the edge in beauty and thats about it. Attitudes are way better in LA, and most important to me, the weather too. They are r
: Only partially true. Trains are running about every 15 minutes when they are on their sole line; out in Walnut Creek or Pleasanton for example. But w
: Definitely L.A. Lots more to do, the weather is more stable, and it's in a better location to do more "stuff" (check out the beach towns, cruise down
: But that's becuase LA get's to encompass almost 500 square miles, most cities are a tenth of that. If we do comparable sizes on LA and SFO. one would
: It only took them that long because San Mateo Co. pulled out of SFBART before ground was broken, so going south of SF was never a priority. The remai
: And that is what amazes me. It needed to have been. San Mateo County needed to have been pulled back into the game. Not only is going to SFO a major
: But remember, back in 1961, or whenever, commuters had an entirely different setup. Trains used to travel on the lower deck of the Bay Bridge until s
: One of the reasons I like San Francisco better is the natural beauty of the bay and the surrounding areas. Also, it is fun to debate all the liberals.