Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Advertisements
What are the differences and similarities of these West Coast major cities?
Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego
List Positives and preference if you like pertaining to...
Urban layout: All of these cities sprawl more than, say, NYC or Boston or Philly, except for San Francisco. San Francisco is pretty dance and tall, comparatively speaking. Seattle has a very built-up core, but as you go out, you find more single-family dwellings and apartment buildings that aren't connected to one another and have yards.
Culture & Diversity - SF and LA win for diversity, but Seattle is probably the best integrated of all these cities, imho.
Climate - SD and LA have the best weather if you're looking for lots of sunshine. Seattle is quite dreary and grey most of the year with spectacular summers; the rain isn't anywhere near as bad as people make it out to be, but it's fairly damp and wet (there's a reason it's so green). Portland is cooler and gets plenty of rainfall, but it's not as grey as Seattle. SF is probably the most balanced of these cities, but as long as the sun isn't up, there's a good chance the fog will roll in. Living in SF, even if it's sunny and in the 70's, I'll still bring a sweater or jacket with me because I know that when I'm headed home towards the Richmond District at night, I'm going to be freezing.
Education - Not too familiar with Portland or SD's public schools so I won't pretend to know, but Seattle, SF, and LA all have really, really bad public school systems. LA Unified is infamously awful, and SF's aren't exactly great either. The schools out in the Richmond and Sunset do a lot better than the ones in the Mission or Southern parts of the city, from what I understand. A lot of SF's problems stem from the fact it's got a very large, younger, affluent, and childless population that cycles through the city after a few years with many of the large tech, legal, banking, and business firms here. They're largely disinterested in the state of the schools as if they plan to have children, they plan to have them elsewhere, and put them in private schools. All three cities, however, have great higher learning institutions.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,745 posts, read 23,804,636 times
Reputation: 14660
Urban layout: I like Seattle and Portland's dense urban core but hyrbid urban/surburban neighborhoods with attractive single family homes, parks, trees, and elbow room.
Culture & Diversity: LA is dominant in this one, one of two real melting pots in the US (NY also) with visible culture from throughout the world. The Bay area is a strong contender, but LA has more of a cornucopia of diversity
Climate: San Diego's and LA has a perfect climate. Summer in Seattle and Portland is indeed awesome, but 7-8 months of gloom is a big price to pay to enjoy summer there.
Education: I think the SF Bay area have the most noteriety here with Stamford & Berkeley
Infrastructure & Architecture: SF has my favorite architecture as it's actually authentic to the city. The Bay area also has the best Mass transit. All west coast cities have overly congested freeways as urban growth have exceeded the capacity of most of the freeways in all of these cities.
Economy: Tough everywhere, especially Portland & LA's Inland emprie. I get the impression the Bay area/Silicon Valley is still holding on fairly well though.
Each of these sprawls less than most of the US, due to a combination of voter-approved protections and natural barriers.
All have decent retail in their downtowns, particularly SF and secondarily Seattle. DTLA is becoming a decent retail area (beyond the quincinera and $20 suit shops), Portland is pretty good but has faltered a bit, and San Diego is ok but has faltered more with its mall problems, or so I've heard.
I agree with the point above about Seattle being relatively integrated, even while SF and LA are a lot more diverse. Various ethnic groups tend to spread out. In the various maps that show this (can't mention specifically on CD) the dots are highly mixed vs. the dominant concentrations in various parts of LA especially.
Each is currently densifying in core areas. LA and SF have the densest cores overall, while SF and Seattle have the densest downtowns in residential terms (especially SF, by far).
What are the differences and similarities of these West Coast major cities?
Seattle, Portland, San Francisco, Los Angeles, San Diego
List Positives and preference if you like pertaining to...
I'm going with the dark horse, San Diego, on this one. Downtown financial district right on the water, with an urban grid surrounding a central park. I'll put Portland second, as everything seems to be laid out in way that makes sense there. L.A. loses because of the arbitrary location of downtown, S.F. loses because of the random placement of the zoo, and the weird suburban, deserted feel of it's western boundary. Seattle is pretty strong in this, with distinct hubs laid out in a pretty logical way.
Climate:
San Diego, but Los Angeles is a very close second. If overcast weather is an issue for you, go ahead and put L.A. at the top.
Culture and Diversity:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
Education:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
Infrastructure and Architecture:
Los Angeles, by it's small historical downtown only, wins easily on architecture. I understand that San Francisco has about a 30 year head start in historical structures, but go the old DTLA and you'll see block after block of completely historically intact buildings that SF has no answer to. This is before we've even gotten into all the iconic homes and buildings from around L.A. that you know from films and television.
L.A.'s combination of the world's most advanced freeway system and robust metro rail network put it easily on top in this category as well. If we were judging infrastructure as a historical whole since the beginning of the city, you could put L.A. ahead of all the east coast cities and Chicago as well, based on the scale of the early Red Car lines, their ambitious and revolutionary freeway project, and today's rail revival ahead of their third Olympics.
Economy:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
I'm going with the dark horse, San Diego, on this one. Downtown financial district right on the water, with an urban grid surrounding a central park. I'll put Portland second, as everything seems to be laid out in way that makes sense there. L.A. loses because of the arbitrary location of downtown, S.F. loses because of the random placement of the zoo, and the weird suburban, deserted feel of it's western boundary. Seattle is pretty strong in this, with distinct hubs laid out in a pretty logical way.
Climate:
San Diego, but Los Angeles is a very close second. If overcast weather is an issue for you, go ahead and put L.A. at the top.
Culture and Diversity:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
Education:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
Infrastructure and Architecture:
Los Angeles, by it's small historical downtown only, wins easily on architecture. I understand that San Francisco has about a 30 year head start in historical structures, but go the old DTLA and you'll see block after block of completely historically intact buildings that SF has no answer to. This is before we've even gotten into all the iconic homes and buildings from around L.A. that you know from films and television.
L.A.'s combination of the world's most advanced freeway system and robust metro rail network put it easily on top in this category as well. If we were judging infrastructure as a historical whole since the beginning of the city, you could put L.A. ahead of all the east coast cities and Chicago as well, based on the scale of the early Red Car lines, their ambitious and revolutionary freeway project, and today's rail revival ahead of their third Olympics.
Economy:
Los Angeles, no one even close enough in second place to warrant writing about.
The Bay Area can definitely compete with LA in terms of education, and I’d argue culture and diversity as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
