San Francisco vs. Santa Monica/Venice (quality of life)? (Oakland: fit in, salaries)

[berrycurious]

Ok, yeah, this is comparing a larger city to a smaller area...
(Maybe not just SF, but the Bay Area in general.)
i'm trying decide which would be the better place to eventually move. i'd be trying to make a living as a painter, if that makes a big difference.

Have any of you been similarly caught between the two? Or moved here from the Santa Monica/Venice area of LA/ know both areas well? What are the big differences?

[Yvetta]

Actually it depends on what you like personally.
I relocated from southern CA because the salaries are higher here, I prefer the weather ( we have seasons) and it's more culturally diverse.
While I am neither a liberal nor a moderate I fit in very comfortably in N. CA.

Being as you are a painter, I'm sure you will find the arts and culture community here quite to your liking.

Decisions..decisions. Whatever you decide I sincerely wish you the best.

[Bunjee]

I think responses are slow because "quality of life" is a vague term, so: For a painter I do believe LA has a more robust and expansive arts scene, but if the choice is SoCal I'd live in North Hollywood.

The cost of living in SF proper has stifled its creative culture. And a lot, IMHO. I'd choose Oakland (anyway). It's very easy to meet other painters. I'm not one and I encountered several visual artists socially. It's cheaper to live, and to me feels more open, relaxed and intimate, maybe for that very reason--cost of living!