Should We Leave the Bay Area for San Diego? (Los Angeles: for sale, hotel)

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by spoonman1

We are talking about metro density as opposed to city. Also, comparing city limits Sacramento will show favorably as Sacramento is 97sq miles compared to SD’s 325sq miles. Take a 10 mile square in central SD and it will be much denser.

Everyone knows SD is a hub for Biotech, but you downplay that too. OK. Also, there is a financial district the same as most US cities that do not operate a stock exchange.

You are the only person here that compares San Diego to Iowa. Iowa by the Sea refers to Long Beach bud. Throughout CityData you always bash SD and promote LA. I’d suggest giving it a rest.

Great point. SD covers an enormous land area that includes city, suburbs, and open space, so only by comparing urban areas do you get apples to apples.

And you're right about biotech, too -- SD is actually one of the nation's largest biotech hubs, ranking right behind NY/NJ. Of course the economy can't be compared to LA as the largest metro area in the country, but it's robust -- $206 billion vs Sacramento's $128 billion. Both cities are proportional there.

It's true that SD's downtown hasn't evolved into a major financial district bc most of the construction is residential, as the biotech firms prefer sprawling Silicon Valley style campuses in the burbs. But at least they're constantly building highrises. The skyline is far bigger than Sacramento.

"Iowa by the Sea?" Wrong city indeed. The funny thing is, we were just in Long Beach four months ago and were really impressed with its downtown and adjacent commercial areas, along with leafy neighborhoods full of historic Victorian homes and scattered hipster breakfast places. Add to that a population between 450,000 and 500,000, and guess what city we repeatedly kept saying it reminded us of. :-)

[sav858]

Weighted density gives a more accurate picture of how dense a metro is, SD is nearly 50% denser than Sac by that measure.
Density calculations for U.S. urbanized areas, weighted by census tract - Austin Contrarian

Either way why is anyone talking about Sac or LA? Did someone need some attention or something? Sounds like the OP wants to maintain or improve to a higher quality of life in a mild climate. Some 3rd world hell hole like LA or cowtown like Sac aren't the places for that. Both of which are major downgrades from both the Bay Area and San Diego.

Moderator cut: see note

[ZeApelido]

Interesting discussion on SD vs Sacramento, not that I ever mentioned Sacramento or LA.

But to through some opinion on the topic of other cities, here is why we are not considering Sacramento or LA:

Sacramento

1. Much less tech jobs than SD. It has 1/10 of the job postings than SD for key words I use in search.
2. Way too hot.

Los Angeles

1. Traffic. Can you actually live by where you would work (i.e. ~ 30 min commute or less)? This means either west LA / Santa Monica, or Pasadena I think. Santa Monica real estate is pricey, I'm actually not sure there is much housing cost / salary ratio difference than up here. Maybe could live around Pasadena / La Canada (love that area) and work btw Pasadena and the valley (big cos like Medtronic, St. Jude). That is an option I guess.

I lived in Los Angeles for 5 years in grad school. If you don't have to commute, I actually like it. Great access to hard hikes and beach, just great diversity of things to do.

I don't get the SD to Sacramento comparison. Sacramento is closer to big mountains, that is the only benefit I see.

LA could be better if you can somehow find/afford the right location that allows your family to avoid oppressive traffic. My sister in law lives in Woodland Hills - fine enough place to live, but where are you going to work?

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by ZeApelido

Interesting discussion on SD vs Sacramento, not that I ever mentioned Sacramento or LA.

But to through some opinion on the topic of other cities, here is why we are not considering Sacramento or LA:

Sacramento

1. Much less tech jobs than SD. It has 1/10 of the job postings than SD for key words I use in search.
2. Way too hot.

Los Angeles

1. Traffic. Can you actually live by where you would work (i.e. ~ 30 min commute or less)? This means either west LA / Santa Monica, or Pasadena I think. Santa Monica real estate is pricey, I'm actually not sure there is much housing cost / salary ratio difference than up here. Maybe could live around Pasadena / La Canada (love that area) and work btw Pasadena and the valley (big cos like Medtronic, St. Jude). That is an option I guess.

I lived in Los Angeles for 5 years in grad school. If you don't have to commute, I actually like it. Great access to hard hikes and beach, just great diversity of things to do.

I don't get the SD to Sacramento comparison. Sacramento is closer to big mountains, that is the only benefit I see.

LA could be better if you can somehow find/afford the right location that allows your family to avoid oppressive traffic. My sister in law lives in Woodland Hills - fine enough place to live, but where are you going to work?

I think the thread got derailed when someone tried to describe San Diego as Sacramento by the water, which was inaccurate enough for the rest of us to clear up the disinformation. We want people to have realistic and factual answers here.[

LA is a traffic nightmare indeed, even worse than the Bay Area, but at least there is lots of world-class infrastructure that SD lacks. It's nice to have daytrip or weekend access to that, but I'm thankful not to live there. In fact, one of our neighbors up the hill works as a commercial airline pilot out of LAX who chooses to live in SD and commute every so often.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by spoonman1

We are talking about metro density as opposed to city. Also, comparing city limits Sacramento will show favorably as Sacramento is 97sq miles compared to SD’s 325sq miles. Take a 10 mile square in central SD and it will be much denser.

Everyone knows SD is a hub for Biotech, but you downplay that too. OK. Also, there is a financial district the same as most US cities that do not operate a stock exchange.

You are the only person here that compares San Diego to Iowa. Iowa by the Sea refers to Long Beach bud. Throughout CityData you always bash SD and promote LA. I’d suggest giving it a rest.

You said cities, not metros. So i used factual data. That being said, sure DT SD is larger, with more to do IMO. But it doesn't compare to SF at all. Probably more comparable to Oakland than SF, in terms of vibrancy.


No SD does not have a financial district. Just stop. There is no SD version of bunker hill or the FiDi. Please don't.

[WizardOfRadical]

Originally Posted by ZeApelido

Interesting discussion on SD vs Sacramento, not that I ever mentioned Sacramento or LA.

But to through some opinion on the topic of other cities, here is why we are not considering Sacramento or LA:

Sacramento

1. Much less tech jobs than SD. It has 1/10 of the job postings than SD for key words I use in search.
2. Way too hot.

Los Angeles

1. Traffic. Can you actually live by where you would work (i.e. ~ 30 min commute or less)? This means either west LA / Santa Monica, or Pasadena I think. Santa Monica real estate is pricey, I'm actually not sure there is much housing cost / salary ratio difference than up here. Maybe could live around Pasadena / La Canada (love that area) and work btw Pasadena and the valley (big cos like Medtronic, St. Jude). That is an option I guess.

I lived in Los Angeles for 5 years in grad school. If you don't have to commute, I actually like it. Great access to hard hikes and beach, just great diversity of things to do.

I don't get the SD to Sacramento comparison. Sacramento is closer to big mountains, that is the only benefit I see.

LA could be better if you can somehow find/afford the right location that allows your family to avoid oppressive traffic. My sister in law lives in Woodland Hills - fine enough place to live, but where are you going to work?

Honestly, you would be better off out of state, versus letting your career flounder in a navy tourist town, like SD.

As far as SD's position in the global economy, "there's no there, there." Unless you are investing in big pharma, there is nothing and no one of value there.

[ZeApelido]

Originally Posted by WizardOfRadical

Honestly, you would be better off out of state, versus letting your career flounder in a navy tourist town, like SD.

As far as SD's position in the global economy, "there's no there, there." Unless you are investing in big pharma, there is nothing and no one of value there.

Where?

Job postings in in my area are higher in SD than Austin, Denver and other growing "tech cities". Seattle & Boston but not in consideration due to weather.

[kettlepot]

OP, going back to your original question, I think it comes down to "what kind of life do I want?"

If you want to climb the corporate ladder, pushing your career, doing the commutes, strategic job-hopping, or the entrepreneurial start up in pursuit of success, the Bay Area is definitely they place to be. You can be the guy whose life is lived in service to your career.

If you've decided that family, quality of life away from the hustle and bustle is what you want, that you're working the job to serve your life, then San Diego is the better choice.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ZeApelido

Where?

Job postings in in my area are higher in SD than Austin, Denver and other growing "tech cities". Seattle & Boston but not in consideration due to weather.

Just FYI you’re asking about advice about tech jobs from a public sector paralegal....

[spoonman1]

Originally Posted by sav858

Just FYI you’re asking about advice about tech jobs from a public sector paralegal....

Yep. Dude is bent on trashing SD and making false claims.