Why is the Bay area more expensive than So Cal when So Cal is nicer? (Irvine: house, unemployment rate)

[ccm123]

In case we needed more confirmation, in Mercer's 2015 Quality of Life survey for cities, Mercer's ranked San Francisco as the highest ranked US city, at #27 -

Vienna Tops 2015 List Of The Most Livable Cities On Earth - Forbes

[roadwarrior101]

To say SoCal is nicer is a broad generalization. I personally think the beaches and beach communities down there are a lot nicer than what we have here. Its warmer, more glamorous/upscale, etc. Aside from that, I think that most of the LA/OC area is a pit. All you have to do is drive down the 5, whether its going through the valley, industrial areas south of downtown LA, South Central, etc.. The exceptions are the westside of LA and a few small pockets of nice areas (Pasadena, Claremont, Irvine, etc.).

On the contrary, with the Bay Area, if feels that there are a higher proportion of nice areas. The only real areas I'd call a pit would be most of the 880 corridor and a couple pockets, such as Richmond, East Palo Alto and Antioch.

There are urban vibes in SF/Oakland/Berkeley that I just don't think can be replicated in SoCal. Then you have large areas of affluence (Peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, Interior East Bay, etc.).

I feel that to be happy in LA, I'd have to be one of the lucky ones who was able to have a high paying job to be able to live in one of those nice pockets and not have a 2 hour commute. Those nice pockets are as expensive as here in the Bay Area, but quality jobs aren't nearly as prevalent.

[NewbiePoster]

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

To say SoCal is nicer is a broad generalization. I personally think the beaches and beach communities down there are a lot nicer than what we have here. Its warmer, more glamorous/upscale, etc. Aside from that, I think that most of the LA/OC area is a pit. All you have to do is drive down the 5, whether its going through the valley, industrial areas south of downtown LA, South Central, etc.. The exceptions are the westside of LA and a few small pockets of nice areas (Pasadena, Claremont, Irvine, etc.).

On the contrary, with the Bay Area, if feels that there are a higher proportion of nice areas. The only real areas I'd call a pit would be most of the 880 corridor and a couple pockets, such as Richmond, East Palo Alto and Antioch.

There are urban vibes in SF/Oakland/Berkeley that I just don't think can be replicated in SoCal. Then you have large areas of affluence (Peninsula, Silicon Valley, Marin, Interior East Bay, etc.).

I feel that to be happy in LA, I'd have to be one of the lucky ones who was able to have a high paying job to be able to live in one of those nice pockets and not have a 2 hour commute. Those nice pockets are as expensive as here in the Bay Area, but quality jobs aren't nearly as prevalent.

This is a good summation. I must point out, though, that "glamorous/upscale" is a preference. It misses the Bay Area mentality of laid-back, casual. In my observation, people don't want glamorous upscale beaches. What are we supposed to do, dress up to go to the beach? Strut the fashions? No, that's exactly where NorCal and SoCal are different, and that's a good thing. People who want upscale beach communities can go to Carmel and Monterey. For upscale-ish towns, they can go to Walnut Creek, or here and there on the Peninsula, or Tiburon or Napa. Leave the rest of us to our casual comfort style. I dig the Bay Area vibe! North is north, and South is south, and never the twain shall meet. Fine by me.

[roadwarrior101]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

This is a good summation. I must point out, though, that "glamorous/upscale" is a preference. It misses the Bay Area mentality of laid-back, casual. In my observation, people don't want glamorous upscale beaches. What are we supposed to do, dress up to go to the beach? Strut the fashions? No, that's exactly where NorCal and SoCal are different, and that's a good thing. People who want upscale beach communities can go to Carmel and Monterey. For upscale-ish towns, they can go to Walnut Creek, or here and there on the Peninsula, or Tiburon or Napa. Leave the rest of us to our casual comfort style. I dig the Bay Area vibe! North is north, and South is south, and never the twain shall meet. Fine by me.

I'll tell you this is the one thing I miss most of living in SoCal. I lived in La Jolla for several years, while in college. It felt like Carmel, only much better weather. I personally don't like the cold, windy/foggy weather. Carmel is beautiful, but I enjoyed the upscale beach vibe where I didn't have to bundle up.

Sure, I like doing day trips to the more casual beaches here. Stinson is nice, but I'm just saying I preferred the beach locations in SoCal. Now, on par I still think that the Bay Area has a lot more to offer, but I liked the beaches down south a lot better.

[mrsltd]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

Bay Area-ites can't relate to LA.

Not sure I agree. The two areas aren't so different that people from the Bay Area are locked into a non-comprehending stupor about the urban area (and its denizens) to the south.

Maybe you're saying that you and those in your circle can't relate to LA?

[sav858]

Originally Posted by NewbiePoster

This is a good summation. I must point out, though, that "glamorous/upscale" is a preference. It misses the Bay Area mentality of laid-back, casual. In my observation, people don't want glamorous upscale beaches. What are we supposed to do, dress up to go to the beach? Strut the fashions? No, that's exactly where NorCal and SoCal are different, and that's a good thing. People who want upscale beach communities can go to Carmel and Monterey. For upscale-ish towns, they can go to Walnut Creek, or here and there on the Peninsula, or Tiburon or Napa. Leave the rest of us to our casual comfort style. I dig the Bay Area vibe! North is north, and South is south, and never the twain shall meet. Fine by me.

Many of SoCal's upscale suburbs and communities just happen to be on the beach, I don't see what exactly is that different about them than say upscale suburbs in Marin County and the Peninsula. Considering how wealthy some of these upscale beach communities are they are actually fairly casual and laid back, just as much if not more so than your typical upscale Bay Area suburb.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by mrsltd

Not sure I agree. The two areas aren't so different that people from the Bay Area are locked into a non-comprehending stupor about the urban area (and its denizens) to the south.

Maybe you're saying that you and those in your circle can't relate to LA?

They are different, though. LA is huge sprawl that requires a complex freeway system for getting around. SF is the antithesis of sprawl. If you compare LA to the whole Bay Area, then one might be able to speak of sprawl and freeway issues. But Bay Area people don't think of it that way. Not lifelong residents anyway, or people native to the area. And as an earlier poster mentioned, the LA image is about glamor, while the Bay Area is about low-key, casual, and more into enjoying nature.

Traditionally, perhaps until the relatively recent influx of so many transplants, the image Bay Area residents had of LA was sprawl and a maze of freeways. That's why they couldn't relate.

[LuvSouthOC]

Originally Posted by Ruth4Truth

They are different, though. LA is huge sprawl that requires a complex freeway system for getting around. SF is the antithesis of sprawl. If you compare LA to the whole Bay Area, then one might be able to speak of sprawl and freeway issues. But Bay Area people don't think of it that way. Not lifelong residents anyway, or people native to the area. And as an earlier poster mentioned, the LA image is about glamor, while the Bay Area is about low-key, casual, and more into enjoying nature.

Traditionally, perhaps until the relatively recent influx of so many transplants, the image Bay Area residents had of LA was sprawl and a maze of freeways. That's why they couldn't relate.

Well we were talking about the Bay area, and not SF. I agree that SF is a gem of a city, but it is pretty small.

On SF being the antithesis of sprawl, I had to chuckle. Where do you think all of the commuters into SF, both drivers and Bart takers, are coming from?

Regarding the image thing, I suppose there is something to that. I was shocked how many ex hippies I found in the Bay area. It is as is they are in a bit of a time warp. Transplants coming into LA are the ones who are keeping the undeserved glamour image alive since I think it is a bit past it's prime.

LA had the geographical advantage (some might say disadvantage) of being able to sprawl endlessly whereas SF could not. San Jose, on the other hand...

[wecaredalot]

I live in the Bay right now and will be moving to LA next week actually. I think the Bay would be a nicer place to live in if it weren't so damn expensive. SF is a pretty city surrounded by beautiful pockets of nature, but it is NOT worth the thousands of dollars in rent you need to pay to live here. The hills wreak havoc on your car, the public transportation sucks, and something really needs to be done about all the dog and human **** littering the sidewalks. Food is also way more expensive than it needs to be.

Secondly, the people complaining about LA traffic and public transportation need to understand that SF is NO BETTER. Seriously, I live in Inner Sunset right now, and it would take me an hour on the bus to get to the Embarcadero...roughly 6 miles away. In rush hour traffic, it'd probably take an hour and 15 minutes. Sure, SF has more transportation than LA, but it is NOT easy to get around this city. Driving to SoMA takes me 30 minutes in no traffic and 45 minutes in traffic. Again, that's for distance a little under 6 miles. The windy streets and hills make it much harder to get from point A to point B. That's a big part of what I don't like about this city. I don't see why I'm paying all this money to live in a small city that's difficult to get around and wears down my car. At least LA is cheaper.

I agree that parts of LA are uglier than SF--the buildings look older and the streets can be more run-down. I will also miss a lot of the beautiful nature NorCal has to offer. LA, by contrast, just looks dried out and smoggy. But I'm still excited about it. It'll be a welcome change from the Bay.

[blueskywalker]

Originally Posted by bruhms

hm??

dito that!