SDiegans to SFranciscans?.. (Los Angeles, San Diego, Stanford: appointed, transplants, movers)

[CandyRN]

San Diego...
It's a great city! The best beaches on the west coast of America are there!
The city is nice to visit, but I can't imagine living there! And although calling the people "whack" is a little too ghetto and juvenile for me, I can't disagree that the people there aren't exactly the best! It's the main reason why I declined an offer to work at UCSD as a nurse (even though I would have been paid handsomely--no thanks!).

[sav858]

Originally Posted by CandyRN

Calling the people of San Diego "whack" would not be my word choice per say, but aren't you generalizing too in what you're saying here? How do you talk about a people without generalizing? I don't think you can.

That's why you shouldn't really generalize a whole population to begin with, some people take stereotypes and extreme examples and apply it to a whole population. Just as you can stereotype San Diegan's as a certain way you can do the same thing with San Franciscan's, but most people in both places are pretty normal and don't exemplify either stereotype, which what I was getting at pretty much.

[HIGH!Lonesome]

I was stationed in San Diego for a couple of years while in the Navy, and I did like San Diego as far as looks are concern but the people there are very stereotype prejiduce, and rude, I took note that most locals seemed like tranplants from the South so they were not accostom to seeing people with brown skin, anything with brown skin they figued came from Tijuana, I even would to listen to San Diego radio stations where the DJ's use to love to cap on their Mexican neighbors to the South over the airwaves.

I also find some San Franciscans with similairities as those from San Diego with their stereotype looks and staredowns, everytime I'm walking down the street and if there is a caucasian male walking towards me, why do they always have to spit, does it make them feel manly?

Basicly they wish they were spittin at me as most obvious as it looks, but I know better where they are coming from, tranplants just like those in San Diego.

[andrewh86sd]

Originally Posted by libbykt

San Diego is a full of conservative jarheads. Oh wait, no it's not, it's full of liberal hippie surfers. San Francisco is the financial capital of the west. Oh wait, no it's not, it's full of liberal gays and lesbians.

I've lived in San Diego all my life. I can reassure you that even the 'hippie surfers' here are conservatives - at least fiscally.

[hotornot]

I've lived in both cities. I luv 'em both to death. Though what I started to notice when I first moved south was that Pacific Beach and San Diego in general offered more oppurtunities for having fun without having to shell out a whole lot of money. That revelation revealed itself years ago.

Now if you want to spend money, both cities will accomodate you with plenty of options for both you and your credit card. But when it comes to recreation and good times and then analyzing the grade of quality time (and that would be a high grade of QT) vs. money spent (a low and sometimes zero dollar amount), San Diego is a better value. A better value that dramatically enhances the quality of my life, sometimes for free. At this point in time San Diego works better for me. YMMV.

P.S. Stereotypes and generalizations that describe people usually can't stand face to face with common sense. Both cities have their share of rocket scientists and crackheads.

[rah]

^ San Francisco has plenty of things to do with little or no money as well...and SF has a big advantage that SD doesn't: a compact walkable environment, and an extensive public transportation system. Cars are expensive, and not having one saves you lots of money...but good luck living a relaxed, fulfilling life in SD with no car. You can walk everywhere in SF if you want, and spend not a dime on transportation. It might be a little time consuming, but it's still reasonable, and at least it's possible (i'd say you need 2 hours to walk completely across SF)....to do so in SD would be much more time consuming due to the more spread out nature of the city. Comparatively, walking across SD would be impossible pretty much, unless you have lots of free time and lots of will power. Personally, I'm not so sure if SD really is that much of a better value than SF, overall (obvious stuff like housing prices aside). You may have cool stuff to do for free (as most cities do), but you're still going to end up spending a significant amount of money keeping a car, or you'll have to deal with frustrating, sub-par public transportation.

[hotornot]

Originally Posted by rah

and SF has a big advantage that SD doesn't: a compact walkable environment

From where I live I can walk to the drug store, the supermarket, the public library, 3 different public schools, tattoo parlors, an urgent care clinic, a park (or two), coffee shops, the US Post Office, nightclubs, the gym, restaurants up the ying-yang, churches up the ying-yang, the boardwalk down on the beach, the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc and still be only a 10 minute car drive from downtown San Diego. Or you could ride the bus to go downtown if public transportation is your thing.


I would call what I just described above as a 'compact walkable environment'.

Geography ain't linear in scope, size, dimension or personality. I guess Rah thought San Diego was like Afghanistan. I live in San Diego. I don't walk everywhere I go. My 70-plus year old neighbor does that. But as I pointed out above I don't always need a Humvee to get around either. Or a Yugo. In this post I confronted and then dismantled a hastily contrived generalization. Watch out for those

[rah]

Originally Posted by hotornot

From where I live I can walk to the drug store, the supermarket, the public library, 3 different public schools, tattoo parlors, an urgent care clinic, a park (or two), coffee shops, the US Post Office, nightclubs, the gym, restaurants up the ying-yang, churches up the ying-yang, the boardwalk down on the beach, the Pacific Ocean, etc, etc and still be only a 10 minute car drive from downtown San Diego. Or you could ride the bus if public transportation is your thing.


I would call what I just described above as a 'compact walkable environment'.

Geography ain't linear in scope, size, dimension or personality. I guess Rah thought San Diego was like Afghanistan. I live in San Diego. I don't walk everywhere I go. My 70-plus year old neighbor does that. But as I pointed out above I don't always need a Humvee to get around either. Or a Yugo. In this post I confronted and then dismantled a hastily contrived generalization. Watch out for those

That "generalization" I made was based on many months of time spent in San Diego (my sister lived there). I've stayed in Pacific Beach, Ocean Beach, Mission Hills, Golden Hill, La Jolla and Hillcrest, as well as Imperial Beach, and have been all over to other parts of the city too. I have a pretty good sense of it's layout, and how walkable it is overall (not very). Some of those hoods i listed are very walkable though, while other's really aren't. I'm not knocking SD's walkability for no reason (plus, i'm knocking it when compared to SF anyways. SF is hard to match in that department).

[NYSD1995]

I don't care how walkable San Francisco is because I would never live there, for a number of reasons.

San Diegans, in my opinion, tend to run a a little slow, and a little on the redneck side. San Francisco has it's own quirks, i.e. people can be a little nuts sometimes.

[hotornot]

Originally Posted by libbykt

But even if you could stereotype a city's population (ie, everyone I have ever met from Charlotte, NC has been unbelievably nice), I don't know how you could do it with 2 cities that have such transient populations. I know we have a few natives on the SF and the SD boards, but almost everyone I know in both cities is "from away."
What point is the OP trying to make with this post?

Nail on the head times ten.