Which is the most fast paced city in California: San Francisco, Los Angeles, or San Diego? (Oakland: shops, garages)

[Losfrisco]

Look at how many red/purple line subway stops there are in central Los Angeles and Hollywood. Look at how many BART subway stops are in San Francisco city. That's your first clue that L.A. is the faster paced city.

If you "got stuck in traffic for two hours" in L.A. as the meme goes, well that could happen in any metro over 5 million, including NYC. Maybe take the Expo or Red line next time.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by SavageOwl

I suggest actually spending time in Downtown LA rather than jumping to SF-defensive & stereotypical conclusions. Downtown LA is, and always has been, extremely different from the rest of LA. I can see possibly at least being equally fast-paced to SF but definitely not slower. I mean for goodness sake its constant pedestrian traffic necessitates its existence of horseback mounted sidewalk police, subway lines, Metro electric bikes, and in spite of all that the numerous streets have bumper-to-bumper traffic. The fact that there are so many neighborhoods with buildings in use going back to the late-1800’s (even a street from the 1700’s, Olvera Street) & even all the way up to new dynamic high rises alone contradicts the stereotype of LA not having history. I’m irked by SF & NY people who cling only to stereotypes they see in movies & TV with people practicing yoga on the beach & use that image to belittle it on forums like these. Yeah, I’m triggered, alright? Ya don’t screw around with me like that, I’ve got an Italian temper. Capisci?

But on that note, regarding the city of LA proper here goes my breakdown in order of fastest paced to slowest paced: Downtown, Westside - Los Feliz, Hollywood, then coastal. SD imho can align with the slower & moderately paced parts of LA, and SF about the faster to moderate parts, but the Bay Area can approach the other 2 almost in slowness.

True SF has subtropical elements too, it’s just not as strong as, say, driving PCH in the land that gave us The Beach Boys and bringing & exposing surfing to the rest of the world after Duke Kahanamoku brought it from Oahu & resided in the coastal LA area in the 1910’s (well technically Huntington Beach (North OC) “Surf City” but he frequently visited & taught surfing in Malibu in LA County, so if one wants to nitpick a lot he had to drive THROUGH the city of LA to get to neighboring Malibu, then in the ‘50s & ‘60s real life Gidget & her movies & then the beach party movies plus Hawaiian-influenced surf music made it even bigger & more iconic as such.)

I think stereotypes are hard to break when people haven't been somewhere in a while. And there is some truth to you stereotypes, only that they usually reflect a mere sliver of an area's reality. I noticed that even as you were looking to dispel stereotypes, you brought in the 50s and 60s Southern California beach stereotype right back into the mix. Part of what draws people to a place could even be its stereotypes.

I think your analysis on hustle and bustle is very accurate. In general, as a Bay area native who lives in San Diego and has been to Los Angeles countless times, including a few days ago, I would say there are certain similarities between all the California cities, and there is definitely some overlap between their Metro areas. Even a lot of our regional coffee shops and restaurants keep opening branches in each other's cities. But it's the mix of all the diverse elements that is a little bit different in each area. Downtown Los Angeles is completely transforming and is vastly different than it was 20 years ago, but I would still give the edge on density, size of the financial district, and bustle to San Francisco. Outside of that, I think LA metro seems more busy and hectic than the Bay Area, with the exception of the freeways. San Diego is bustling but not packed like the other two.

The Southern California beaches are certainly an essential feature of its Coastline. It seems a good 90% of socal's color is very developed, Beach oriented, and bustling. In Northern California, 90% of the coastline is more rugged, natural, sparsely populated. That you can go to a place like Santa Cruz or Capitola in Northern California and get taste up Southern California beach life. Similarly, you can go to parts of the Palos Verdes peninsula, north of Malibu, or to the Channel Islands in Southern California to get a taste of the more rugged, wild Coast. It's all in different proportions.

San Francisco's subtropical influence is less seen in its day to day climate and more in its increasingly exotic vegetation, which I think marries well with the eclectic and colorful architecture, and certainly distinguishes it from East Coast cities.

We're really eager to spend more time in Los Angeles this year to check out downtown as well as the burgeoning cultural and culinary scene.

[waltchan]

I would say Merced, CA is the newest fastest growing city in California for decades to come.

[SOON2BNSURPRISE]

The City of Los Angeles has a population of 4 million people. San Francisco has 860,000 people? How does anyone compare that?

The Los Angeles Metro area includes 12.8 million people compared to San Francisco's 4.6 million

The Los Angeles Metro region is home to 18.1 million people compared to San Franciso's Metro region of 8.7 million.


Cost of living is 23% less in Los Angeles then in San Francisco.

To determine which place is the faster paced city it would depend on many factors. I don't even know what that means, fast paced. Have some sort of metrics formed to determine fast paced? Are we talking work or play?

[neutrino78x]

San Jose is twice the pace of San Francisco. San Jose is the largest city in Silicon Valley, whereas San Francisco is 50 miles north of Silicon Valley. Being the center of innovation for the entire world, Silicon Valley is clearly more fast paced than either San Francisco or San Diego. San Jose is also the largest city in the Bay Area, being about 20-30% larger than frisco.

San Jose is The City.

Basically it is between San Jose and Los Angeles.

[tspoon91]

Originally Posted by LuvSouthOC

SF has a Boston vibe, not a really big city vibe.


SF is not in the same league as Los Angeles.

SF feels much bigger than L.A. even though it doesnt look like it because its surrounded by water. For that matter i wouldnt call L.A. too much of a city in the general defintion of a city. More like a giant suburb

[tspoon91]

Originally Posted by Losfrisco

Look at how many red/purple line subway stops there are in central Los Angeles and Hollywood. Look at how many BART subway stops are in San Francisco city. That's your first clue that L.A. is the faster paced city.

If you "got stuck in traffic for two hours" in L.A. as the meme goes, well that could happen in any metro over 5 million, including NYC. Maybe take the Expo or Red line next time.

SF has 6 subways stations in its doentown area alone a d lime 20 through it the city including bart station and underground muni trains..

[tspoon91]

Originally Posted by SOON2BNSURPRISE

The City of Los Angeles has a population of 4 million people. San Francisco has 860,000 people? How does anyone compare that?

The Los Angeles Metro area includes 12.8 million people compared to San Francisco's 4.6 million

The Los Angeles Metro region is home to 18.1 million people compared to San Franciso's Metro region of 8.7 million.


Cost of living is 23% less in Los Angeles then in San Francisco.

To determine which place is the faster paced city it would depend on many factors. I don't even know what that means, fast paced. Have some sort of metrics formed to determine fast paced? Are we talking work or play?

The Bay has 7.77 million while L.A. metro has 13 million people, big deal i guess but what dkes that have to do with pace. SF is the 2nd most densely populated city in North America at 19k people per square mile while L.A. is at 9k per squar mile. Downtown SF is also bigger and has more skyscrapers and foot traffic and way mote urban. Its not close. L.A. is closer to Oaklands pace 8k per square mile than SFs

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by tspoon91

SF feels much bigger than L.A. even though it doesnt look like it because its surrounded by water. For that matter i wouldnt call L.A. too much of a city in the general defintion of a city. More like a giant suburb

I think if you split LA into 5 SF sized portions than you'd understand. Again LA city has almost the same amount of people as SF-Oakland. We don't have water winch does make things dramatic. I just don't understand how someone can drive down willshire, and say that's not the city.

[blam]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

I just don't understand how someone can drive down willshire, and say that's not the city.

Because as you drive (first clue that its not a real city) you realize there is hardly any people or shops on the streets, just an endless array of parking garages