San Francisco or L.A.? (Los Angeles, San Jose: live in, store, agricultural)

[krudmonk]

Originally Posted by sonicman25

However, San Francisco is just a much nicer city and someone would have to make a damn good argument to convince me otherwise.

Weather? Cleanliness? Attitude towards outsiders? Activities beyond restaurants and clubs?

[sonicman25]

Originally Posted by krudmonk

Weather? Cleanliness? Attitude towards outsiders? Activities beyond restaurants and clubs?

I consider bad traffic,smog,huge suburban sprawl, and a lifeless downtown to be not so nice things. SF has a nice downtown, is surrounded by water, has a lot of nice parks, has good culture, and has housing that is interesting as opposed to cookie cutter suburban homes. LA has better weather and more things to do but those are the only real advantages it has over SF.

[rah]

Originally Posted by Desertho

SF is always a great place to visit. But at the end of the day, what makes it good for visiting, i.e., it's compact size, makes it boring real fast. As people already said, SoCal is just a more energetic frenetic place that offers whatever SF does and then some in a nice sunny package. When it comes to culture, SF does not hold a candle to LA. I'm simply dumbstruck when people say otherwise. SF is a predomninantly homogenuous place that has three kinds of people: tourists, rich white people, and the homeless. Its museums hold no collections of note. L.A.'s the Getty (both museums), the LACMA, Norton Simon, and the Huntington are destinations onto themselves. Trust me, you will have more stories to tell about your visit to L.A.

Based on your comments, you cannot have spent much time at all in SF, and if you have, you must not have ventured around much. Three types of people?

over 30 percent of the population is Asian/Pacific Islander (chinese, filipno, japanese, korean, vietnamese, thai, cambodian, indian, samoan, etc....)

Almost 20 percent is Latino/Hispanic (Mexican, Salvadorean, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, etc, etc...)

Just 8 percent is black, but the black population is dropping all over california.

I will not dispute the number of homeless and crazy people, but LA has Skid Row too, doesn't it?

Anyways, if you stay in "touristy" areas, you will see lots of tourists. It explains alot about visitors' attitudes about how they percieve SF, when most tourist maps exclude a third to ONE HALF of San Francisco, including pretty much all of the hispanic areas, many of the heavy black areas, and some heavily asian areas. Alright, that's enough ranting...

I don't even want to get into the culture thing. BUT, San Francisco is a whole lot denser, and a whole lot older than LA...

[Desertho]

Originally Posted by rah

Based on your comments, you cannot have spent much time at all in SF, and if you have, you must not have ventured around much. Three types of people?

over 30 percent of the population is Asian/Pacific Islander (chinese, filipno, japanese, korean, vietnamese, thai, cambodian, indian, samoan, etc....)

Almost 20 percent is Latino/Hispanic (Mexican, Salvadorean, Guatemalan, Nicaraguan, Honduran, etc, etc...)

Just 8 percent is black, but the black population is dropping all over california.

I will not dispute the number of homeless and crazy people, but LA has Skid Row too, doesn't it?

Anyways, if you stay in "touristy" areas, you will see lots of tourists. It explains alot about visitors' attitudes about how they percieve SF, when most tourist maps exclude a third to ONE HALF of San Francisco, including pretty much all of the hispanic areas, many of the heavy black areas, and some heavily asian areas. Alright, that's enough ranting...

I don't even want to get into the culture thing. BUT, San Francisco is a whole lot denser, and a whole lot older than LA...

Geez, I keep responding to this because SF people are some of the most uninformed people I know. "A lot older?" Try just 5 years older, LA was founded in 1781, SFs mission was founded in 1776. They were both incorporated the same day, April 4, in 1850. If you count LA County as a whole, LA was founded even earlier when the Mission San Gabriel was built in 1771.

"A lot denser"? Apples and Oranges, LA is ten times the size of SF, huge chunks of it are mountaintops. Narrow it down to the same populated contiguous size as SF, and you'll find it to be the same. But there's no disputing the fact that the Los Angeles metro is denser than the Bay Area.

Metro Pop. Density
1 Los Angeles - Long Beach - Santa Ana, Calif. 7,068.3
2 San Francisco - Oakland, Calif. 7,004.3
3 San Jose 5,914.1
4 New York - Newark
(incl. Conn. suburbs) 5,309.3
5 New Orleans 5,101.6
6 Davis, Calif. 4,845.4
7 Vallejo, Calif. 4,681.9
8 Honolulu 4.659.8
9 Tracy, Calif. 4,621.6
10 Las Vegas 4,597.1
11 Galveston, Tex. 4,527.7
12 Oxnard, Calif. 4,459.7
13 Miami 4,407.4
14 Fairfield, Calif. 4,355.7
15 Stockton, Calif. 4,218.4

As for diversity, SF has a white population of 42 percent. LA has 30 percent.

[Desertho]

Originally Posted by sonicman25

I consider bad traffic,smog,huge suburban sprawl, and a lifeless downtown to be not so nice things. SF has a nice downtown, is surrounded by water, has a lot of nice parks, has good culture, and has housing that is interesting as opposed to cookie cutter suburban homes. LA has better weather and more things to do but those are the only real advantages it has over SF.

Outside SF, what else is there in the Bay Area but sprawl and cookie-cutter homes? What's SF housing like? Victorian, Victorian, Victorian, zzzzz....Is there anything in the Bay that even comes close to Pasadena, Santa Monica, the South Bay beach cities, West Hollywood, Malibu, Palm Springs, any of the OC beach cities, San Diego, etc., in beauty and/or URBANITY. Do you know even what a beach is? The densest city in California after all isn't SF (shock!) but Maywood, a city adjacent to L.A. of a little more than a square mile but packs 23,000 ppsm. Again, outside SF, there's a lot less to see and do in the Bay than in SoCal. A LOT LESS.

[greatbasinguide]

Again, outside SF, there's a lot less to see and do in the Bay than in SoCal. A LOT LESS.

I am not sure this is a supportable statement. Here is a great way to spend an early Sunday morning in SF. I used to do this when my boy was little. We would stay at the Hostel in Marin, get up and ride our bikes over a winding narrow lane that climbed to a ridge on the north side of the Golden Gate overlooking the bridge and the city beyond, then along that road, frequently surprising deer or foxes and hawks. We would drop onto the north side of the bridge, and pedal across it watching for freighters and sailboats passing underneath us. With the grand city rising beyond and Alcatraz peering out of the thin fog. Across the bridge we would drop to Fort Point and the pre civil war brick fort, then along Crissy field watching the early morning wake boarders, then through Fort Mason to the historical ships park, along to Fisherman's wharf sleepy in the morning sun. We would eat breakfast at the Eagle Cafe, an old longshoreman's hangout preserved on Pier 38. Then pedaling along the docks looking at various boats and ships tied up. We would pedal onto the Baseball stadium then double back heading up the hills to Coit Tower and down through North Beach across to Pacific Heights to the Presidio. There is a set of very cool steps that drop to Lombard Street which we would, or at least I would ride down, while my boy walked his bike, then into the Presidio and back across the Golden Gate.

If you know San Francisco, you know this ride. There is nothing nearly as scenic and appealing I have ever found in LA.

There is also breakfast at the Cliff House, ride down the beach road to the zoo and back through Golden Gate Park.

And what is there to do in the Bay Area? Let us start with Ano Nuevo and the Elephant Seals, then back through the hills beyond Pescadero, visit Stanford, or ride the train at Big Basin.

In Marin, there is Sausalito and the Bay Model, very cool, Muir Woods, Stinson Beach, Mt. Tam, birthplace of the Mountain bike, Bodega, Point Reyes, Marine World, John Muir's home, The Oakland Hills, Berkeley and Telegraph Avenue, Jack London Square.

Not a bad place to spend some time at all.

While in college, my girlfriend and I would go to the city, wearing trench coats against the damp, standing in the cold swirling fog waiting for a cable car, not much in the entire world more romantic than that.

Nothing like that in Socal.

[monti]

Great - I'm sorry but it sounds like you lead a boring life, comon, riding TRAINS for fun?

What about going to the beach and surfing, or, hey if you're in the mood go do some skiing. Then go paintballing at huntington beach, followed by dinner with the friends at a nice quaint little mexicano restaraunt, followed by clubbing/bar hopping later that night?

All in great weather that you just cant compare with up north.

I don't think this is really debatable, SoCal > NoCal

[Desertho]

Originally Posted by greatbasinguide

While in college, my girlfriend and I would go to the city, wearing trench coats against the damp, standing in the cold swirling fog waiting for a cable car, not much in the entire world more romantic than that.

Nothing like that in Socal.

You're right, there's really nothing in SoCal like cold wet 5% visibility weather. You know what's more romantic than wearing trench coats with your significant other? Walking on the beach.

[greatbasinguide]

Somehow, walking a socal beach, crowded with teenagers, families, reeking of sunscreen just doesn't do it for me, . Here is a part of an essay I wrote some years ago, my prefered sort of beach walking.

I went down to the beach. The storm had blown itself inland to the east. The forested ridges of Inverness were hung in heavy clouds. On the beach the sun was shining, it had rained some, not a whole bunch. The waves were breaking small. I walked north into the wind, the salt spray hanging in the air ahead of me. White, brilliantly white foam from the breakers washes up onto the shore to slowly fade, only to be replaced by the next wave of foam. In the distance I saw the Point Reyes headland. This is just about the same view that Sir Frances Drake saw.

It is nice to walk, it is something I don't do nearly enough of, I spend too much time running and bicycling. It does me good to walk. There were pieces of old jelly fish broken up on the shore. My son would love it here. Years ago I walked this beach with a friend and Christopher, who was only two then. Away from the water about one hundred feet, stand three pine trees, hammered thick and short by the sea winds, until they looked more like Monterey Cypress trees. When Kimberley and Christopher and I walked this beach, there were half a dozen Buzzards sitting in those trees. He was very impressed by those great ugly birds so close . . .

I wish I knew how to transcribe the sound of the waves breaking against the shore. The steady murmur broken by moments of crashing thunder by each individual wave collapsing against the raw edge of the continent. Each wave breaks in its own time and order, never rushed.

Sandpipers, with their long beaks looking like old Scottish gentlemen with clay pipes, scurried down the beach ahead of me. I saw clouds, remnants of the storm, like great balls of fluff drifting in orderly rows, just seven or eight clumps of clouds drifting to the east of me. I wish that there was a way that I could convey to you . . .my feeling for walking in wild places. It seems like nothing is real, except for being out, just feeling the wind and the waves and the rocks. Or seeing the way the mountains dip and rise along the horizon. I feel as if jobs, house, security and all that, is not as real as just being on an empty beach looking back at my footsteps.

I walked out about two miles on the sand pit. On my right now, lies the estuary, on my left, the Pacific and straight ahead, the channel between the two. Right out at lands end there were nearly two hundred Harbor Seals! Some time ago my brother, Chris, and I were walking along an isolated empty beach on the north edge of Santa Barbara County. We found a pup sleeping all by himself in the great expanse of the wild sand. He woke up and looked at us with a perfect expression of, "Oh God, do I have to go in the water?" These Seals looked at me in just about the same way. "Oh, please don't make us get wet!"

I think, standing in the fog wearing trenchcoats, walking along wild beaches creates a sense of romance that women appreciate.

Now, a socal beach can be romantic, late evening, winter, but not at noon on a July day.

[whoIam]

Originally Posted by Desertho

You're right, there's really nothing in SoCal like cold wet 5% visibility weather. You know what's more romantic than wearing trench coats with your significant other? Walking on the beach.

Ha ha..! That's cute. But there really is something special about walking in the fog. I might even call it romantic if I was with the right person. When I lived in South Bay (in NorCal), on occasion I would go to this small, relatively undiscovered beach north of Santa Cruz. It was located in a spot where a few mountain streams led to the ocean, carrying down some remnants of the logging from above. Over time, various people had used the driftwood and their own creativity to build wooden shelters, forming a unique village of sorts. The place looked like it could have come out of a science fiction piece. Walking here amidst the fog and sunshine (minus the trenchcoats hehe), beside stratified sand cliffs, was an indescribable, almost otherworldly, mystical experience. I had a couple of very thought-provoking talks with an ex here.

The thing about the beaches in Northern CA is that the water temps are usually too low (for me at least) to really immerse yourself in the waves and all. The beaches in sunny SoCal are gorgeous, fun, and full of life-- when I wanted to be with others, people-watch, etc. I particularly enjoyed them with my husband, friends, and kids.