Los Angeles is better than San Francisco

[DailyJournalist]

Originally Posted by BergenCountyJohnny

That's understandable. Maybe because I'm a life-long NJ'an (although you may be, too) I am so used to the suburban sprawl element of L.A. that it's more comfortable to me, subconsciously. Nah, it really has more to do with that L.A. is just so energetic and big, and so misunderstood, and so underrated by so many, while being a truly great city.

The way I see it is that San Francisco gets proper credit for everything that is great about it, and rightfully so, whereas L.A. gets a lot of bashing that it really doesn't deserve. People tend to overlook SF's shortcomings and focus on their glory, but with L.A. they do the opposite.

They are both just great, fun cities with lots to offer. I stick with L.A. though as the weather is a little better. I'd rather be at the Dodger game in 75 degree evening weather than at PacBell in 50-degree weather (which happened in July one year I went!).

I have also lived in NJ most of my life. I agree, I think LA is a great city and truly enjoyed the time I lived there, it is severly underated. The truth is that both cities are excellent and have so much to offer. I think urban city lovers like myself will give San Francisco an edge but not by much.

[Libohove90]

Originally Posted by LosAngelesNightmare

they are equal IMO if including the SF Bay Area for size factors

two completely different cities in the same state just a short plane ride or drive down the freeway

Both have climates that kill anything in the east/south/midwest

both have great diversity / culture(highest populations of Viets,Chinese,Thai,Lao,Salvadorean,Mexican,Iranian ,Lebanese,Syrian,Armenian,Ethiopians,Filipinos ETC ETC in the country)

Both hold great landmarks like the GG Bridge and the Hollywood sign

thats what i like about CA... unlike the "bosh wash corridor" ...the cities actually seem different here...Boston and Philly while having some differences are still based on that old, boring east city model..its just all a bunch of same same same...where as SF and L.A aren't

BosWash megalopolis has very interesting sets of cities. It is not by any means boring.

Washington DC and Philadelphia are two different cities...they are not much alike really. Philadelphia and New York are much different...Philly is predominantly a rowhouse city while NYC has many brownstone apts. Boston is NEW ENGLAND...it really isn't like Philadelphia. All cities have one thing in common...density. But thats about it.

Californian cities more similar than you think, Los Angeles and San Diego are virtually the same as far as infrastructure goes...only LA is far bigger. San Francisco is different becuz of its density...but to the suburbs, the image becomes the same. Dense Cali suburbs.

[PDX_LAX]

L.A. It's close though, I could easily see myself living in San Fran in 10 years.

[atlantagreg30127]

Aside from the fact that this comparison has been done in various ways several times already, you need to be more concise than just "which is better" when posting a this vs that thread here. Give specifics as to what in each city you'd like to compare, etc.