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.
San Francisco for me, by a long shot. Especially if we're keeping this within city limits.
- Good mix of architecture
- Actually walkable
- Less smog
- Never gets over 90 degrees
- Better educated population (I prefer Techies to Hollywood types)
- Nicer parks/scenery
- Cleaner (for the most part)
If you had to chose only between these two cities, and could work from anywhere, and had a lot of money, which would it be?
Coming from NY, I'd have to say probably LA. Sorta similar to how I feel when I think about the choice of moving to another NE city (or to Chicago) vs Miami. While the former might be an easier lifestyle transition, it would be like trading a 911 for a Boxster.
LA, like Miami, offers a completely different package. It's got much better weather, more of a big-city feel, and a city that is very comfortable with itself.
SF easily for me. Northern California is too beautiful. Food is better. Actual city is more what I am use to. I don't mind the slightly milder temperatures one bit.
Definitely LA, by far. Much better weather, #2 city in the U.S., vastly bigger, more to do, and more cosmopolitan, and the city's celebrity culture is perfectly suited for a life of leisure.
If you're rich, and on the West Coast, it doesn't get much better than Corona del Mar, or Pacific Palisades, or Malibu. Bev Hills/Bel Air are a tad overrated, IMO, but I would still easily take those places over somewhere in the Bay Area.
SF proper doesn't have very good weather, and the suburban parts that do have good weather don't have what LA offers. Really neither city is great for urbanity or city living so I would go with the bigger/better city.
Coming from NY, I'd have to say probably LA. Sorta similar to how I feel when I think about the choice of moving to another NE city (or to Chicago) vs Miami. While the former might be an easier lifestyle transition, it would be like trading a 911 for a Boxster.
Yes, this is exactly true.
New Yorkers really like LA, in general, because LA is something different. It's doing it's own thing. If you leave NYC for another U.S. metro, you generally aren't looking for an urban-type city, because, compared to NYC, there are no urban-type cities in North America. All the other major cities will leave you bitterly disappointed. There isn't even a U.S./Canadian city with even 1/10 the high density core as NYC.
This is why LA and Miami are so popular for New Yorkers. They're different. No one wants some cut-rate, budget, scaled down, 1/10 the size and quality urban center. If they wanted urban, they would stay in NYC.
This is also why I'm mystified that, even though I love LA, why some forumers on C-D are always playing up downtown LA, transit in LA, and the like. I mean, are you serious? That stuff means nothing in the greater context. It has zero to do with LA's desirability. LA could spend 1,000 years bettering its transit and downtown, and it would mean nothing in the context of why people move to LA. People want Pacific Palisades, not Boyle Heights.
Seriously. When I first came across this site, people treated LA like it was some third world, cultureless, materialistic, homeless camp with little more than movie stars and Mexicans.
LA seems to always win City Data polls if its pitted against San Francisco with no other choice. Results change if other cities come into the mix (namely: NYC), that takes away some LA vote.
If you had to chose only between these two cities, and could work from anywhere, and had a lot of money, which would it be?
This question makes no sense to me since if I had infinite choices I would avoid both of those overcrowded places. I will take San Diego anyday over LA. However I will pick almost anywhere over San Francisco so I voted LA. In LA I would stick to some less crowded place like Rolling Hills or La Habra Heights where I could get a nice home with an acre plus lot.
New Yorkers really like LA, in general, because LA is something different. It's doing it's own thing. If you leave NYC for another U.S. metro, you generally aren't looking for an urban-type city, because, compared to NYC, there are no urban-type cities in North America. All the other major cities will leave you bitterly disappointed. There isn't even a U.S./Canadian city with even 1/10 the high density core as NYC.
This is why LA and Miami are so popular for New Yorkers. They're different. No one wants some cut-rate, budget, scaled down, 1/10 the size and quality urban center. If they wanted urban, they would stay in NYC.
I disagree with this. San Francisco is definitely not a scaled-down version of NYC. The only thing that it shares with NYC is a dense core. Beyond that, they are not at all alike. It's a city with a completely different feel and attitude. Even the architecture is quite dissimilar.
The only city that does somewhat feel like a scaled-down NYC is Philadelphia. And when I was in Philadelphia, I knew plenty of people there who had moved from NYC precisely because it was a scaled-down NYC at half the price.
You're right that LA and Miami are popular with New Yorkers. But it's popular with certain types. The New Yorkers who like LA and Miami are the ones who typically put a high premium on fashion and nightlife. These types of New Yorkers are attracted to LA and Miami because those cities have scenes comparable to NYC. San Francisco has never been known for being trendy or for its nightlife.
I disagree with this. San Francisco is definitely not a scaled-down version of NYC. The only thing that it shares with NYC is a dense core.
This is exactly my point. SF doesn't have a dense core like NYC. NYC has like 4-5 million people living in high density, SF has maybe 100k. You are talking 1/40 the scale. It's like comparing SF and Sausalito in terms of urban living.
And that is why SF's relative level of urbanity means nothing in that context. It's a non-factor for someone when NYC is in the mix. SF does have much better urbanity than LA, but it's essentially irrelevant in the context of NYC. It would be like a San Francisan choosing Sausalito over Mill Valley beause its more urban. Doesn't make any sense, as they would just stay in SF if they wanted urbanity. Or like someone from LA choosing Atlanta over Charlotte because it has a stronger movie industry. If Hollywood were a factor they would just stay in LA.
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.
