U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > California > San Diego
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 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.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Unread 02-06-2010, 11:59 PM
 
Location: San Diego, CA
10 posts, read 19,883 times
Reputation: 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by 18Montclair View Post
My huge mediterrenean style house built in 1992 is yards from a fault line that is considered a ticking time bomb.

Haven't lost a minute's sleep over it.
Couldn't agree more.

However...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Zango
And SD. gets near 350 days of pure sun a year. SF. is foggy and freezing in July. Sorry, but wearing a wool coat isnt fun in July. SD. is 2 hrs. to LA. and 6 hrs. to Vegas. SF. is 6 hrs. from....Oregon ? A 1500 sq. ft. home in SD. is $350k. Same home in SF. $600k. Dont get me wrong. I love to visit SF. But SD. is so much better.
Touche...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Unread 02-07-2010, 07:01 AM
 
Location: San Diego
5,062 posts, read 7,344,506 times
Reputation: 4553
Funny, this article was about which is the better weekend getaway, not about the best place to live. Just goes to show you what San Diegans are really like. No need to defend living in SD, the article was not challenging that. Potential tourists do not care about the house prices in your area, they want to know which place they should spend their travel funds on. Reading comprehension, people!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-07-2010, 10:31 AM
 
1,312 posts, read 1,486,954 times
Reputation: 779
SD would make the better weekend-only getaway, because you would only spend two hours driving instead of six. So if time is short, SD is it. But if you have a long weekend or a week, SF hands down. You have not only the City, but also the Wine Country, Marin County, and a million other great daytrips. I don't think the article is accurate in dismissing SF as a non-outdoorsy vacation destination. The Bay Area as a whole has a ton more hiking and biking trails, way more sailing and kayaking, rock climbing, etc., and a much bigger culture of outdoor activities, including festivals. Outside the City, the weather tends to be much warmer and sunnier and quite conducive to outdoor activities, BUT, they tend not to be surf-and-beach related, but rather overachieving Ironman-type all-day affairs that go in line with the Type A ambitious professionals that were described. I would definitely say that SD is more for "hanging out" outdoors, and SF is more for "doing stuff" outdoors. People in SF are much more intense about their outdoor activities and practice them religiously.

Oh, and as far as where to live, my vote is to live outside of SF so you can enjoy cheaper housing, better weather, AND proximity to the City. I don't think I'd enjoy living right in SF for some of the same reasons people mentioned. But I want to be able to go there and get the best of all worlds. Long term, SD gets a little boring if you like big city amenities.

Last edited by tstieber; 02-07-2010 at 10:33 AM.. Reason: added stuff
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-07-2010, 11:40 AM
 
Location: Northridge, Los Angeles, CA
2,685 posts, read 3,358,230 times
Reputation: 2233
You guys are really going to let someone from LA tell you how good SF and SD are Yeah..just a random third party person with absolutely no stake in it at all....

Being a native LA resident, I can tell you I've been to San Diego way more often (almost once a month) than I did to San Francisco before I lived in the Bay Area. For me personally, I don't even really view going to San Diego as much of a weekend getaway area, since its close enough to LA to come back within a day. There wouldn't be that much need for me to stay the night in San Diego unless I really wanted to.

San Francisco is much further away, and unless you fly in and out, its not a day-trip. The article almost makes it seem like they are of equal accessibility, but by far they aren't. San Francisco might as well be on the moon!
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-07-2010, 01:43 PM
 
Location: San Diego
5,062 posts, read 7,344,506 times
Reputation: 4553
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lifeshadower View Post
San Francisco is much further away, and unless you fly in and out, its not a day-trip. The article almost makes it seem like they are of equal accessibility, but by far they aren't. San Francisco might as well be on the moon!
They never said to do it as a day trip...the article is about a weekened getaway. And flying to SF takes a lot less time than driving to SD! We've done plenty of weekend getaways in SF from SD and loved it! I'd rather fly somewhere than drive any day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-12-2010, 11:19 AM
 
2,034 posts, read 1,790,148 times
Reputation: 1352
why must we compare to completely different cities? the geography,history (reason d'etre) of the places,climate,etc. are SO different.

Same with LA-it's annoying when people talk about how SD is not as cool as LA.
They are completely different and serve completely different needs for people.

Let it be.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-12-2010, 11:38 AM
 
Location: SF Bay Area
9,908 posts, read 11,983,290 times
Reputation: 5153
I'm still at a loss to see what was exactly is so "interesting" about this article. It basically stated the obvious and what most people already know and I agree that it's pretty simplistic and watered down. I'm guessing there was another reason for posting it.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Unread 02-12-2010, 01:30 PM
 
1,203 posts, read 1,369,413 times
Reputation: 936
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oerdin View Post
The article is wrong that San Francisco has more college graduates then San Diego. Yes, as a percentage of population college grads make up more of San Francisco's population but San Diego's population is 800k while San Diego's is 1.3 million so in absolute numbers San Diego has more college grads.
The article did say that it was "per capita" though:

It is a per-capita fact that one city has more surf shops and the other has more college graduates.
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:


Options
X
Data:
Loading data...
Based on 2000-2011 data
Loading data...

123
Hide US histogram

Over $74,000 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 > California > San Diego

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:15 PM.

2005-2014, 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 - Top