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: Los Angeles vs San Francisco
Los Angeles 53 52.48%
San Francisco 48 47.52%
Voters: 101. You may not vote on this poll

Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 05-03-2015, 11:57 PM
 
Location: City of Angels
2,935 posts, read 4,589,367 times
Reputation: 2227

Advertisements

Tough one

If we're talking metros then I would prolly go with Manhattan/Hermosa Beach. Malibu and Laguna are more beautiful, but are too isolated for my tastes, want to be close to LAX. Would build a custon home on the strand.

If we're talking cities only, then SF might have a slight edge. Penthouse at the top of one of the newer high rise condo buildings.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 05-04-2015, 01:22 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,135,870 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
95% of the Bay Area looks the same as LA, so if LA is an "ugly, sprawling wasteland" then so is SF. They're both overwhelmingly decentralized, multinodal, Sun Belt sprawl.

What is Boston, then? SF is larger/denser than Boston, has more transit users in the Bay and the City, and much denser development patterns over a smaller configuration (i.e. 6+ million people in far less land than Boston's 4.5 million). So does that make Boston Sun Belt sprawl as well?

Also, to give props to both LA and the Bay Area, do you really put the two overall densest metros in the entire country (at > 6,000 ppsm over their entire urban areas) in the same category of development/sprawl as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Nashville, Austin, Charlotte, etc?

Sometimes your quotes are a little odd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 01:31 AM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,135,870 times
Reputation: 790
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
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.
Odd quote. By the way there are many people who are proudly "bi-coastal" between SF and NYC, too. I wouldn't claim to know why New Yorkers move to either city, but they do move to both. I would imagine both offer a different lifestyle than New York itself, but both might have some similarities that New Yorkers find appealing (and LA and SF would offer different similarities). Lots of people working in finance in New York seem to go for the SF transfer. There's also a lot of funk in both SF and LA, frankly, the kind of edge that in my opinion can truly only be found in those 3 cities in this country.

Your post reads like a trolling post, and it has no merit or meaning.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 07:22 AM
 
275 posts, read 297,402 times
Reputation: 302
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOLA101 View Post
95% of the Bay Area looks the same as LA, so if LA is an "ugly, sprawling wasteland" then so is SF. They're both overwhelmingly decentralized, multinodal, Sun Belt sprawl.
Every city has sprawl. Still, it is undeniable that the built environment of San Francisco's core looks vastly different than LA's. Part of this has to do with the fact that SF developed a few decades earlier than LA (i.e. before cars existed) and had less area around it to expand outward.

LA is surprisingly dense. But the city was built around the automobile, so all those wide boulevards packed with strip malls and parking lots make it feel suburban. And although the houses in LA are packed in tightly, they are usually bungalows or ranch houses set back from the street with yards, adding to the suburban vibe there.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 10:07 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,563,975 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frank Bones View Post
Every city has sprawl. Still, it is undeniable that the built environment of San Francisco's core looks vastly different than LA's. Part of this has to do with the fact that SF developed a few decades earlier than LA (i.e. before cars existed) and had less area around it to expand outward.

LA is surprisingly dense. But the city was built around the automobile, so all those wide boulevards packed with strip malls and parking lots make it feel suburban. And although the houses in LA are packed in tightly, they are usually bungalows or ranch houses set back from the street with yards, adding to the suburban vibe there.
Most of Los Angeles is multi-family housing. In the core it is overwhelmingly multi-family. Los Angeles was mostly built around the streetcar, and then re-designed over and over again to accommodate the personal automobile. I wouldn't say the core of SF is vastly different than Los Angeles', but it is certainly different (read: has better urban design).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 10:10 AM
 
Location: Pasadena, CA
10,087 posts, read 12,563,975 times
Reputation: 3941
Quote:
Originally Posted by anonelitist View Post
What is Boston, then? SF is larger/denser than Boston, has more transit users in the Bay and the City, and much denser development patterns over a smaller configuration (i.e. 6+ million people in far less land than Boston's 4.5 million). So does that make Boston Sun Belt sprawl as well?

Also, to give props to both LA and the Bay Area, do you really put the two overall densest metros in the entire country (at > 6,000 ppsm over their entire urban areas) in the same category of development/sprawl as Atlanta, Houston, Dallas, Nashville, Austin, Charlotte, etc?

Sometimes your quotes are a little odd.
What are you talking about with Boston? Though now that you bring it up, Boston doesn't have Sun Belt style sprawl. It has East Coast sprawl. All American cities sprawl. The Bay and Los Angeles both have Sun Belt style, high density sprawl. This is the truth. Most of the Bay Area looks a whole lot like Southern California - IMO there are no two more-similar metros in the US.

Also, I am pretty convinced NOLA is John Hodgman's Deranged Millionaire character from The Daily Show:

http://thedailyshow.cc.com/videos/8e...ionaire-shrugs
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 11:30 AM
 
Location: worldwide
696 posts, read 820,131 times
Reputation: 464
Los Angeles all the way, San Francisco isn't my niche too too hippie/homo/tech for me.

Los Angeles is more diverse and offers way more for my lifestyle then San Fran ever can.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 12:02 PM
 
1,353 posts, read 1,135,870 times
Reputation: 790
I would say if we were comparing the cities of LA and SF, they are truly vastly different. Different lifestyles, different people, different climates, different a lot of things. And I'd say the core of LA and the city of SF are quite different (to say that LA's core is actually similar to SF's is to say that LA's core is also like Philly's or Boston's or for that matter, Brooklyn's, and I haven't yet heard anyone make that claim). However, I'd agree that the Bay Area as a whole and SoCal do share a lot of traits. Still, completely different vibes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 12:12 PM
 
1,706 posts, read 946,991 times
Reputation: 985
LA hands down. The weather in San Francisco compared to LA is awful.

SF has gone up exponentially in price since the tech boom. 6 years ago it was a deal and a half to live in the Mission District. Now even the middle class have been priced out of that area.

It's a great city to visit, but can see myself living in a lot of other cities before SF.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 05-04-2015, 12:28 PM
 
Location: Buena Park, Orange County, California
1,421 posts, read 1,755,671 times
Reputation: 1471
A couple years ago SF Bay would have been #1 for me hands down (not just against LA, but anywhere in the country). This is no longer true, nor what I want from life. Both cities are in a constant state of flux, but I like where LA is going more than I do where SF is trekking.
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