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.
I've lived in both. San Diego is much more pleasant, in my opinion. It's just easier to live there, there's more open space, people are nicer, the cost of living is lower, the climate is warmer and drier, the beaches are more accessible, you can easily drive anywhere you want to go, and it's within driving distance of L.A. if you need to be in a big city once in a while.
It's a bit off-topic, but it seems to me that the weather in SD is NOT warmer than in LA ?
The temperature usually taken for LA is in downtown farther inland while SD's official temperature station is downtown right along the bay next to the ocean, which is why LA's temps are higher. A better comparison would be Santa Monica, LAX or Long Beach to San Diego, since they all sit on the coast. In that case I think SD comes out a little warmer.
It's a bit off-topic, but it seems to me that the weather in SD is NOT warmer than in LA ?
Most of central L.A. has a warmer climate than San Diego. Along the coast, however (in Santa Monica, for example), the opposite is true: Coastal L.A. is definitely cooler than San Diego.
San Francisco, though San Diego isn't far behind. My sister lived in San Diego for 9 years, so I'm pretty familiar with it, and I love it there. I love year-round warm weather, actual warm beaches, the laid back vibe, natural setting, etc in SD, but SF beats it in some more important ways, such as public transportation, diversity, and size/number of things going on (yeah I'm aware that SD city proper is bigger than SF city proper, but the Bay Area has the SD metro beat by about 4 million people...plus SF is much more dense, making it feel bigger than SD in any case). You can't really find the kind of intense, dense, urban environments of SF in SD...and at least SF has beaches too, even if it's not very fun or safe to swim at them unless you're an experienced swimmer and love cold water (yeah we really can't compare in that department). SF's natural setting beats SD's in my opinion though, despite how nice SD's is.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
SI love the city environment and vibrancy but can't stand the climate and don't get a boner off of the restaurants or "cultural amenities" that SF has like some people do. Also it's changed a lot in the last 10-15 years, its become very yuppie and pretentious and the people within the city can be somewhat snobby and arrogant; people in the Bay Area overall are great but SF attracts it's own crowd.
What's with people generalizing cities this way? I could just as easily say that San Diego is all surfers, conservatives, and military families. Yeah SF is ever-gentrifying, but lots of poor, non-yuppie, non-hipster people, and even (gasp) middle class people still live here. Don't forget about us
What's with people generalizing cities this way? I could just as easily say that San Diego is all surfers, conservatives, and military families. Yeah SF is ever-gentrifying, but lots of poor, non-yuppie, non-hipster people, and even (gasp) middle class people still live here. Don't forget about us
I never said those people don't exist in SF, all I said it has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years in a way I do not like, but some people obviously love that yuppie/pretentious vibe. I guess I should have said "some people" b/c being from there I obviously know not everyone is like that.
Quote:
You can't really find the kind of intense, dense, urban environments of SF in SD...and at least SF has beaches too
But you can find an urban environment in SD too just not as intense as SF just as you can find beaches in SF just not as warm or nice. Same difference....
sf, 2nd densest city in the u.s. after nyc. way more to do, way more culture, north bay, walkable, good public trans, closer to national parks, better job market (I work in IT), etc.
I never said those people don't exist in SF, all I said it has changed a lot in the last 10-15 years in a way I do not like, but some people obviously love that yuppie/pretentious vibe. I guess I should have said "some people" b/c being from there I obviously know not everyone is like that.
I'm just used to people painting a picture of SF that's not close to entirely true, so I kinda jumped on you when you said that. Then again it is the truth that the parts of SF that most people are even aware of ARE populated with lots of pretentious yuppies, so I guess those stereotypes are to be expected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by sav858
But you can find an urban environment in SD too just not as intense as SF just as you can find beaches in SF just not as warm or nice. Same difference....
Yeah, definitely true. Both cities have their areas that they beat the other on. I just personally prefer SF...though I would probably be almost as happy living in SD too. I would probably die of contentment if SD's beaches and climate (though give me some fog and a little cold now and then), and a few of its neighborhoods were merged with SF.
I'm just used to people painting a picture of SF that's not close to entirely true, so I kinda jumped on you when you said that. Then again it is the truth that the parts of SF that most people are even aware of ARE populated with lots of pretentious yuppies, so I guess those stereotypes are to be expected.
Understandable, I've done the same when people have harped on SD and Bay Area stereotypes too.
Quote:
Yeah, definitely true. Both cities have their areas that they beat the other on. I just personally prefer SF...though I would probably be almost as happy living in SD too. I would probably die of contentment if SD's beaches and climate (though give me some fog and a little cold now and then), and a few of its neighborhoods were merged with SF.
I feel the same way about SF, could be just as happy there too in that awesome urban environment that only The City has on the west coast. Plus having all my family there is a big draw that SD can never have for me. We do get fog, just not as often and usually its not as thick and low to the ground. After you get used to the weather anything below 60-65 seems "cold". At night in winter it gets pretty much as cold as SF though.
If I could combine SF and SD I would pretty much have my perfect city.
Location: Los Angeles......So. Calif. an Island on the Land
736 posts, read 2,296,020 times
Reputation: 484
If San Franciso had San Diego's weather, SAN FRANCISCO would be the best city on earth.
If I had to choose between them as they are now, I'd go San Diego with the knowledge that I'd be giving up character to gain climate.
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.
(yeah we really can't compare in that department). SF's natural setting beats SD's in my opinion though, despite how nice SD's is.
