U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
View Poll Results: Where is a better place to live San Francisco, or San Diego?
San Francisco 92 59.35%
San Diego 63 40.65%
Voters: 155. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-17-2009, 04:39 PM
 
Location: Sierra Vista, AZ
16,116 posts, read 20,169,281 times
Reputation: 8204

Advertisements

San Diego is too Car Dependent and dirty. San Francsco, as close to the Seal Rocks as I can get

Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-17-2009, 04:54 PM
 
2,871 posts, read 4,463,619 times
Reputation: 3554
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Inquirer View Post
San Diego is know for bad public schools as well as all of southern california.
More like a mixed bag. The annual Academic Decathlon is dominated by LA area high schools. There are great, highly competitive schools peppered in and about the basin, like in Cerritos. Long Beach USD is a five-time finalist for America's Top Urban School District. (Freedom Writers was based on a Wilson High teacher; my nephew was a student of hers.) But the poorly performing districts perform really poorly, and are to be avoided.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 06:44 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,631,397 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hollywood Inquirer View Post
San Diego is know for bad public schools as well as all of southern california.

No.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 06:47 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,631,397 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
It would be pretty narrow minded to not include metro area options when listing schools... most people live in the suburbs.

Not to point out the obvious but...

sf city limits 46 sq miles
sd city limits 325 sq miles
That is pretty much irrelevant. Simple math can be used to find averages, just like crime rates. .
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 07:01 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,794,810 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
That is pretty much irrelevant. Simple math can be used to find averages, just like crime rates. .
How is it irrelevant, if one city total is based on 325 square miles and the other on 45 square miles... wouldn't it be more comparable to use the same area? This is not an argument as to which city is better, I have no clue and have not done the research, but I know when statistics are going to be unreliable. This is always going to be the case, given arbitrary city limits. At the very least you can use a data set of 500 schools compared to 500 other schools
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 10:59 PM
 
Location: South Carolina
1,991 posts, read 3,401,107 times
Reputation: 891
SF by a hair. San Diego easily has better weather, and has two of the most beautiful developments that are perfect for my tastes in 4S Ranch and Eastlake/Otay Ranch (chula vista), but the restaurants are by far much better and more varied in SF, and the downtown is more interesting and fun with more activities. But if I was going to live in the Bay Area, I'd want to live in Alameda, especially the Alameda Point area once they get it developed. I like it a lot better for living, and it still has public transit to SF. It has better weather than SF too, which is really interesting considering it's just right across the bay.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 11:04 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,794,810 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by MantaRay View Post
SF by a hair. San Diego easily has better weather, and has two of the most beautiful developments that are perfect for my tastes in 4S Ranch and Eastlake/Otay Ranch (chula vista), but the restaurants are by far much better and more varied in SF, and the downtown is more interesting and fun with more activities. But if I was going to live in the Bay Area, I'd want to live in Alameda, especially the Alameda Point area once they get it developed. I like it a lot better for living, and it still has public transit to SF. It has better weather than SF too, which is really interesting considering it's just right across the bay.
Most of the bay area has better weather than San Francisco itself, given that the majority of people in the bay area do not live in San Francisco proper, it is probably why most people on here that live out here associate it with that good coastal california weather and not some elfin fog land. SF is still pretty freaking sunny nice climate, it is not san diego or honolulu though which are pretty much defacto standards for what I consider "perfect" year round weather. Even the neighborhoods of san francisco themselves seem to have pretty different weather.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 11:28 PM
 
Location: San Leandro
4,576 posts, read 7,631,397 times
Reputation: 3248
Quote:
Originally Posted by grapico View Post
How is it irrelevant, if one city total is based on 325 square miles and the other on 45 square miles... wouldn't it be more comparable to use the same area? This is not an argument as to which city is better, I have no clue and have not done the research, but I know when statistics are going to be unreliable. This is always going to be the case, given arbitrary city limits. At the very least you can use a data set of 500 schools compared to 500 other schools

SF and SD are very comparable. Sf has a population of 800k and sd has a population of a million.

All you have to do is take every schools api in the city, add the scores up, and divide it by the number of schools and you get an average api. Which montclair was kind enough to provide for both cities. I don't see how many square feet a city has, as having any type of bearing or relevance what so ever when comparing performance for schools.

And quite frankly no one has ever made such a bizarre assertion before.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 11:35 PM
 
7,848 posts, read 17,820,121 times
Reputation: 2762
Quote:
Originally Posted by Boompa View Post
San Diego is too Car Dependent and dirty. San Francsco, as close to the Seal Rocks as I can get
Yeah, because San Francisco isn't car dependent at all...nobody drives there!

SF Traffic on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/calculator/2940552166/ - broken link)



http://www.flickr.com/photos/34128007@N04/3493611597/ (broken link)


golden gate bridge traffic on Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/michaelvaldez/113618247/ - broken link)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2009, 11:42 PM
 
Location: roaming gnome
12,391 posts, read 23,794,810 times
Reputation: 5617
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorCal Dude View Post
SF and SD are very comparable. Sf has a population of 800k and sd has a population of a million.

All you have to do is take every schools api in the city, add the scores up, and divide it by the number of schools and you get an average api. Which montclair was kind enough to provide for both cities. I don't see how many square feet a city has, as having any type of bearing or relevance what so ever when comparing performance for schools.

And quite frankly no one has ever made such a bizarre assertion before.
Because San Diego and San Francisco aren't the only two cities on here that get compared, try comparing a random list of other cities and then it will become more clear why it is often better to compare metro area performance, unless you want to limit yourself to city proper themselves. Chicago has a ton of good schools, but most of them aren't a part of CPS for instance...Should you not go to Chicago now, b/c CPS isn't that good? There are also a lot more good schools in the surrounding areas of San Francisco, which if it had the same city limits as San Diego...(virtual burbs) would be counted. These areas outside city limits proper by and large ARE options for people living there.
Comparing metro areas is bizarre?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > General U.S. > City vs. City
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2018, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35 - Top