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.
Chula vista
Ventura
Salt lake city(if you u like snow)
Some inland CA cities could make the list but they need fixing or cheaper prices(good job, nimbys)
Whether sea levels rise 1 foot this century or 10 feet, Stockton and Sacramento – among all California cities – have the two largest populations currently living on land below that level, according to new research by Climate Central.
Madera could be the next hot spot. Just gotta wait until 2100. Buy now tho, pennies per acre
I think the negatives need to be considered in "what a city offers" as well. I've lived in both San Diego and Los Angeles, and while there is more to offer in LA, I found that I was often unable or unwilling to take advantage of those things as often as I would have liked to due to the horrible traffic and expensive parking and decentralized nature of the area. My world was pretty much in a bubble which was the SGV area/East LA. I made it out to west LA or downtown maybe once or twice a month outside of work. When I lived in SD, which is also decentralized, I found I was nonetheless able to get around most parts of the metro more often to do and see things and actually enjoy the type of lifestyle SD can offer, even though I made a lot more $$ in LA. Not to say SD doesn't have traffic or parking issues, it does, but LA is a different beast altogether. Plus, the weather is better in most of SD than in most of LA which tends to be hotter since a lot of the metro is oriented a bit further away from the coast.
OTOH, San Diego suffers from the "sunshine tax" more so than LA. Housing is higher in LA but so are wages. So in some regards I suppose SD is more "unaffordable" to the average joe. But if I had a job opportunity that paid the same or similar in SD and LA, SD would be a no-brainer for me.
It's definitely far from cheap (it's very much an expensive city!), but there are many deals to be had - even in decent neighborhoods. If you want to live in The Valley, you will find it relatively affordable in most areas outside of Studio City, Burbank, and Sherman Oaks.
Given that LA is the second biggest city in the US - it offers a TON of stuff, so I think that's why it deserves to win this poll.
OTOH, San Diego suffers from the "sunshine tax" more so than LA. Housing is higher in LA but so are wages. So in some regards I suppose SD is more "unaffordable" to the average joe. But if I had a job opportunity that paid the same or similar in SD and LA, SD would be a no-brainer for me.
Median income is lower in LA actually. It also has more rent burdened households and lower homeownership rate. LA is def more unaffordable than SD.
Median income is lower in LA actually. It also has more rent burdened households and lower homeownership rate. LA is def more unaffordable than SD.
Los Angeles has affordability woes, but it's still World Class and with many offerings.
SD doesn't even beat Portlandia in offerings or even vibrany. It is the most boring of all these cities, yet really not much cheaper than everywhere in coastal SoCal.
This is what people mean by SD's sunshine tax. You are paying for the location, not any offerings construed by man. You are talking about a one team city, who's only team can not sell tickets and theatend to leave too!
Not sure how Seattle is losing. It's definately #3 on the West Coast.
Los Angeles has affordability woes, but it's still World Class and with many offerings.
SD doesn't even beat Portlandia in offerings or even vibrany. It is the most boring of all these cities, yet really not much cheaper than everywhere in coastal SoCal.
This is what people mean by SD's sunshine tax. You are paying for the location, not any offerings construed by man. You are talking about a one team city, who's only team can not sell tickets and theatend to leave too!
Not sure how Seattle is losing. It's definately #3 on the West Coast.
LA
SF
Seattle
Oakland
Portland
SD
LBC
San Jose
But the OP didn't ask about strictly man-made amenities or offerings. He asked this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by WTL63
Considering the cost of living for each (which are all obviously very high), which gives you more and is least overpriced in terms of:
quality of life
nightlife
scenery
daytime activities/events
shopping/entertainment venues
overall vibe
Quality of life, scenery, daytime activities, etc. certainly don't require man-made amenities. SD has some of the best beaches in SoCal (Ja Jolla/Torrey Pines, Coronado), you can be up in the mountains/snow in Julian in an hour, there is phenomenal hiking everywhere, and it's all much easier to get to than comparables in LA, with arguably the best weather in the country. Overall vibe, again.... subjective. A LOT of people prefer the more laid-back vibe of San Diego than the vibe of LA. Shopping/nightlife definitely goes to LA but I think the rest is extremely debatable. Plus, when you factor in traffic, it really doesn't take longer to get to OC from San Diego than it does from much of LA especially the Valley and points north so as far as I'm concerned OC's amenities should be counted for SD if they're going to be counted for LA even though OC is officially in the LA metro. I know my overall QOL was better in SD even though I was poorer there than I was when I lived in LA.
I cannot tell you how many people I know in SD who sacrifice a lot just to live there. They scrimp and save to pay rent just to be able to call SD home for what the city offers, knowing they could live much more comfortably in 90% of the US, and knowing they were going to struggle to get ahead. The people in LA who I met like that were doing it because they were trying to pursue a career in entertainment or another field and trying to "make it big" or at least try to climb the ladder. I guess my point is whether a city is "overpriced" depends on what it offers to the individual person. To me, SD offers more therefore I find it less overpriced.
But the OP didn't ask about strictly man-made amenities or offerings. He asked this:
Quality of life, scenery, daytime activities, etc. certainly don't require man-made amenities. SD has some of the best beaches in SoCal (Ja Jolla/Torrey Pines, Coronado), you can be up in the mountains/snow in Julian in an hour, there is phenomenal hiking everywhere, and it's all much easier to get to than comparables in LA, with arguably the best weather in the country. Overall vibe, again.... subjective. A LOT of people prefer the more laid-back vibe of San Diego than the vibe of LA. Shopping/nightlife definitely goes to LA but I think the rest is extremely debatable. Plus, when you factor in traffic, it really doesn't take longer to get to OC from San Diego than it does from much of LA especially the Valley and points north so as far as I'm concerned OC's amenities should be counted for SD if they're going to be counted for LA even though OC is officially in the LA metro. I know my overall QOL was better in SD even though I was poorer there than I was when I lived in LA.
I cannot tell you how many people I know in SD who sacrifice a lot just to live there. They scrimp and save to pay rent just to be able to call SD home for what the city offers, knowing they could live much more comfortably in 90% of the US, and knowing they were going to struggle to get ahead. The people in LA who I met like that were doing it because they were trying to pursue a career in entertainment or another field and trying to "make it big" or at least try to climb the ladder. I guess my point is whether a city is "overpriced" depends on what it offers to the individual person. To me, SD offers more therefore I find it less overpriced.
The thing is all of these cities offer scenery, vibe, quality of life. That is why they are expensive.
SD does not stand out with nightlife, day time offerings, shopping, amenities etc.
Neither does Portland, but Portland relfects this with cheaper prices. SD simply does not.
Don't get me wrong. I would take SD over anywhere in flyover country. And over anywhere on the East Coast not called Boston or NYC. But it clealry offers the least for the prices.
Most people in LA, Seattle,and Portland are just trying to slim by. Arguably more so than people in SD. LA is majority California natives, and majority brown/blue collar.
Most people in SD are just suburban locals or transplants from back east, doing the whole bro ham/ and or military scene for a few years before they move on.
Los Angeles has affordability woes, but it's still World Class and with many offerings.
SD doesn't even beat Portlandia in offerings or even vibrany. It is the most boring of all these cities, yet really not much cheaper than everywhere in coastal SoCal.
This is what people mean by SD's sunshine tax. You are paying for the location, not any offerings construed by man. You are talking about a one team city, who's only team can not sell tickets and theatend to leave too!
Not sure how Seattle is losing. It's definately #3 on the West Coast.
LA
SF
Seattle
Oakland
Portland
SD
LBC
San Jose
Ok? Much of this doesn't really have anything to do with what I said.
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.
