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.
and San Diego would be a distant third. Nice city but a little too sleepy and suburban for me. Doesn't really feel like a big city. Feels more like a small town.
God...This thread is mostly SF people who think that SF is the best place and LA people that think LA is the best place. As somebody who's spent a lot of time in both, they are both great for completely different reasons...just don't tell somebody from the Bay that.
With the exception of having to drive through LA to get to SD from the Bay Area, I actually think proximity to LA is a plus. It offers pretty much more to see and do than any other city in the country other than NYC and is a day/weekend trip away from SD. I enjoyed being able to take advantage of the amenities of LA but could still be back at home the same night. One of the things I don't like about the Bay Area is how it's not near any other large interesting cities and feels isolated in a way.
I don't blame or even doubt those who disagree. But, I happily pay the SF premium over LA and find it to be a good value where these two cities are concerned. It is certainly a good value compared to Pasadena.
San Diego is a step closer to SF in desirability for me on many fronts, but lacks too much to consider it for more than just a visit.
Not sure if this is supposed to be a shot at Pasadena - but either way Pasadena offers pretty good value as far as the LA area goes - very walkable, Downtown-and-Hollywood proximate and transit-friendly and a lot less than similar areas on the Westside. I actually have a good reference to rents in Pasadena (and most of Los Angeles in general) vs San Francisco - my brother paid the same amount for a studio in the 'Loin as we do for a 2BR within a short walk from Old Town, South Lake and the Playhouse Districts and a 20 minute train ride to DTLA.
If it's a pot-shot, I get it - you're a transplanted San Franciscan who feels the need to justify those insane rents (which you are undoubtedly helping to balloon).
Sucks for people like me who now can't even afford a place in Berkeley or North Oakland (Pasadena's Bay Area equivalents IMO) because the middle-class has been completely pushed out of San Francisco and has now taken to the East Bay. I am contemplating a move to the East Bay or elsewhere in Los Angeles and comparing the rents of apartments in the two areas, it is staggering how over-priced the Bay Area is in general. Great region, one of the best in the country but even the suburbs are ridiculously expensive.
San Diego has no business being compared to either SF or LA. As far as which one is best between SF or LA, it really depends on what you like....If you're in to beaches or nightlife than it's LA, SF probably has more individual niches that would attract a more diverse crowd than LA, but you can't go wrong with either city.
San Diego has no business being compared to either SF or LA. As far as which one is best between SF or LA, it really depends on what you like....If you're in to beaches or nightlife than it's LA, SF probably has more individual niches that would attract a more diverse crowd than LA, but you can't go wrong with either city.
I mean it has more diverse entertainment, food, culture, women, demographics, and in a lot of ways it's just a much raunchier city than LA. All of those variants will attract a much more diverse crowd than LA, and really any city in the U.S. with the exception of a few, maybe NYC and Miami?
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.