Sad in Seattle...San Francisco or San Diego?? (Los Angeles, Sacramento: best cities, home)

[rah]

Originally Posted by happ

Frost is unheard of in San Fransisco [could you imagine driving on ice in San Fransisco?].

Actually, frost isn't unheard of in SF. We get a little every now and then in the morning when we have colder weather. It always melts away within a couple hours though. Ice on the road though, now that's unheard of (except for that freak snowstorm we had in the Bay Area back in 2006).

[LVinWA]

Originally Posted by uptown_urbanist

What do you mean by "culture?"

Well, seeing as how I'm a young college student deciding on where to plant my roots, I basically desire a place that is action packed. From the sounds of it, SF is highly urbanized, as it is the second densest city in the states.

Being from Las Vegas, however, I must admit I am more acclimated to a southwestern city. Meaning incredibly laid and spread out, "suburbanized" if you will.

It's almost hourly that I go between SF and SD on where I want to be.

[tstieber]

Well, I happen to live in both cities (I go back and forth every few months), so I have an especially good perspective. Really, you'd have to visit both cities not as tourists, but go all around the areas by car to see what fits you best. There are too many possible places to live in either region to limit a comparison to just the City of San Francisco and the main areas of San Diego. You could, for example, have a San Diego-type of lifestyle in the Bay Area if you lived outside of the City. Or, you could have a Berkeley-type of lifestyle in San Diego if you lived in certain urban neighborhoods. It's still California, so you have certain overlap. You want to look at the regions as a whole.

BTW, someone said SD was 1000 miles from Seattle? I believe it's even farther -- like almost 1300 miles, since SF is about 775 mi from SEA, 375 mi from LA, and 500 mi from SD. It takes 8 hours to drive from SF to SD, and about 14 hours to drive from SF to SEA.

So here's my perspective. After many years, I still can't decide between SF and SD. SF is cosmopolitan, bustling, funky, exciting, and unusual. SD has a small-town, Rotary-Club type of middle-American vibe, but at the same time, there are some cool urban neighborhoods that make it culturally bearable and reminiscent of the East Bay (Oakland/Berkeley). Both SF and SD have WAY better weather than Seattle, with both areas squarely classified as "Mediterranean." However, SD's coastal climate is better than SF's coastal climate. Inland areas, however, have very similar weather in both SD and SF, with many months of sun, heat, and low humidity -- IMO, better all around, because I love fairly hot weather (but then the inland areas are boring). Even SD's coastal climate is still too foggy and cool for me, and while SF rarely breaks 70 degrees in the summer, SD rarely breaks 75 degrees. Again, go inland from either city, and it will get hot quickly -- many SD and Bay Area cities see 80s and 90s consistently all summer and fall. SF gets more rain than SD, but in both cities, it only falls in the winter, and summers are dry. And they both get only a fraction of Seattle's rain. The 265 sunny days per year in SF are probably quite accurate, since San Jose gets 300 sunny days per year and much less fog.

Scenery-wise, both places are beautiful, but I have to say that besides Vancouver, Canada, I haven't seen a west coast city more beautiful than SF. The enormous bay with its little islands, the rolling hills of SF, the architectural monuments, the waterfront, the markets -- it's all so much to take in visually. SD is also pretty but generally more flat. Balboa Park, however, puts Golden Gate Park to shame, and is one of the main reasons I love SD.

One thing is that SD is MUCH cheaper to live in than SF (although suburban inland areas are more similar in price). You could live in downtown SD in a highrise luxury condo for half of what it would cost in SF. But downtown SD is a sleepy convention town with a lot of cheesy bars and bad restaurants.

I'd say for the money, you get more bang for the buck in SD, but you may be a bit bored long term is all. Really, you can't argue with either place. As long as there is waterfront and palm trees, which both cities have, I'm good.

[NorthSDLifer]

Originally Posted by jzt83

If you live in the East Bay, you will have to pay a $5 to enter SF via the Bay bridge. Also, I doubt the 265 days of sunny days include days with fog. But SF is pretty sunny when compared to the Pac NW.

Did you mean to say "I doubt the 265 days of sunny days excludes fog"?

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by NorthSDLifer

Did you mean to say "I doubt the 265 days of sunny days excludes fog"?

Well, the fog usually burns off by mid morning and we're left with a sun drenched day.

I love that.

[NorthSDLifer]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Well, I happen to live in both cities (I go back and forth every few months), so I have an especially good perspective. Really, you'd have to visit both cities not as tourists, but go all around the areas by car to see what fits you best. There are too many possible places to live in either region to limit a comparison to just the City of San Francisco and the main areas of San Diego. You could, for example, have a San Diego-type of lifestyle in the Bay Area if you lived outside of the City. Or, you could have a Berkeley-type of lifestyle in San Diego if you lived in certain urban neighborhoods. It's still California, so you have certain overlap. You want to look at the regions as a whole.

BTW, someone said SD was 1000 miles from Seattle? I believe it's even farther -- like almost 1300 miles, since SF is about 775 mi from SEA, 375 mi from LA, and 500 mi from SD. It takes 8 hours to drive from SF to SD, and about 14 hours to drive from SF to SEA.

So here's my perspective. After many years, I still can't decide between SF and SD. SF is cosmopolitan, bustling, funky, exciting, and unusual. SD has a small-town, Rotary-Club type of middle-American vibe, but at the same time, there are some cool urban neighborhoods that make it culturally bearable and reminiscent of the East Bay (Oakland/Berkeley). Both SF and SD have WAY better weather than Seattle, with both areas squarely classified as "Mediterranean." However, SD's coastal climate is better than SF's coastal climate. Inland areas, however, have very similar weather in both SD and SF, with many months of sun, heat, and low humidity -- IMO, better all around, because I love fairly hot weather (but then the inland areas are boring). Even SD's coastal climate is still too foggy and cool for me, and while SF rarely breaks 70 degrees in the summer, SD rarely breaks 75 degrees. Again, go inland from either city, and it will get hot quickly -- many SD and Bay Area cities see 80s and 90s consistently all summer and fall. SF gets more rain than SD, but in both cities, it only falls in the winter, and summers are dry. And they both get only a fraction of Seattle's rain. The 265 sunny days per year in SF are probably quite accurate, since San Jose gets 300 sunny days per year and much less fog.

Scenery-wise, both places are beautiful, but I have to say that besides Vancouver, Canada, I haven't seen a west coast city more beautiful than SF. The enormous bay with its little islands, the rolling hills of SF, the architectural monuments, the waterfront, the markets -- it's all so much to take in visually. SD is also pretty but generally more flat. Balboa Park, however, puts Golden Gate Park to shame, and is one of the main reasons I love SD.

One thing is that SD is MUCH cheaper to live in than SF (although suburban inland areas are more similar in price). You could live in downtown SD in a highrise luxury condo for half of what it would cost in SF. But downtown SD is a sleepy convention town with a lot of cheesy bars and bad restaurants.

I'd say for the money, you get more bang for the buck in SD, but you may be a bit bored long term is all. Really, you can't argue with either place. As long as there is waterfront and palm trees, which both cities have, I'm good.

Interesting but "sleepy convention town" sounds funny. I thought people knock the Gaslamp for those cheesy bars and having too many tourists. Check out downtown Phoenix (at least 10 years ago) sometime.

Is San Diego really that bad of a restaurant town?

[NorthSDLifer]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Well, the fog usually burns off by mid morning and we're left with a sun drenched day.

I love that.

Similar to here. I'd say that still counts as a sunny day.

[happiestever]

Coming from Seattle - I would say San Diego - but that's what we're doing. I am going to SD mainly for the warmer weather. I don't care about the surfer culture one bit if it means I will get some sunshine on my face most of the year. But if you want to live close to everything I would say SF, because it's more dense - feels more like a city whereas SD feels more like a suburb for the most part.

Do you travel a lot? We try to go visit my hubbie's family every year - so that involves trips to Europe and Africa. If I want to experience true history I will go to Europe and visit the museum's there. For now all I care about is warm weather and happy days on the beach.

[ubringliten]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Well, I happen to live in both cities (I go back and forth every few months), so I have an especially good perspective. Really, you'd have to visit both cities not as tourists, but go all around the areas by car to see what fits you best. There are too many possible places to live in either region to limit a comparison to just the City of San Francisco and the main areas of San Diego. You could, for example, have a San Diego-type of lifestyle in the Bay Area if you lived outside of the City. Or, you could have a Berkeley-type of lifestyle in San Diego if you lived in certain urban neighborhoods. It's still California, so you have certain overlap. You want to look at the regions as a whole.

BTW, someone said SD was 1000 miles from Seattle? I believe it's even farther -- like almost 1300 miles, since SF is about 775 mi from SEA, 375 mi from LA, and 500 mi from SD. It takes 8 hours to drive from SF to SD, and about 14 hours to drive from SF to SEA.

So here's my perspective. After many years, I still can't decide between SF and SD. SF is cosmopolitan, bustling, funky, exciting, and unusual. SD has a small-town, Rotary-Club type of middle-American vibe, but at the same time, there are some cool urban neighborhoods that make it culturally bearable and reminiscent of the East Bay (Oakland/Berkeley). Both SF and SD have WAY better weather than Seattle, with both areas squarely classified as "Mediterranean." However, SD's coastal climate is better than SF's coastal climate. Inland areas, however, have very similar weather in both SD and SF, with many months of sun, heat, and low humidity -- IMO, better all around, because I love fairly hot weather (but then the inland areas are boring). Even SD's coastal climate is still too foggy and cool for me, and while SF rarely breaks 70 degrees in the summer, SD rarely breaks 75 degrees. Again, go inland from either city, and it will get hot quickly -- many SD and Bay Area cities see 80s and 90s consistently all summer and fall. SF gets more rain than SD, but in both cities, it only falls in the winter, and summers are dry. And they both get only a fraction of Seattle's rain. The 265 sunny days per year in SF are probably quite accurate, since San Jose gets 300 sunny days per year and much less fog.

Scenery-wise, both places are beautiful, but I have to say that besides Vancouver, Canada, I haven't seen a west coast city more beautiful than SF. The enormous bay with its little islands, the rolling hills of SF, the architectural monuments, the waterfront, the markets -- it's all so much to take in visually. SD is also pretty but generally more flat. Balboa Park, however, puts Golden Gate Park to shame, and is one of the main reasons I love SD.

One thing is that SD is MUCH cheaper to live in than SF (although suburban inland areas are more similar in price). You could live in downtown SD in a highrise luxury condo for half of what it would cost in SF. But downtown SD is a sleepy convention town with a lot of cheesy bars and bad restaurants.

I'd say for the money, you get more bang for the buck in SD, but you may be a bit bored long term is all. Really, you can't argue with either place. As long as there is waterfront and palm trees, which both cities have, I'm good.

Agree with almost everything you said about SD besides the red bolded sentence. The Berkeley type neighborhoods here are very minute and not as bohemian, funky, eccletic and the people that frequent those neighorhoods don't seem to belong there. I moved here about a year ago, and I can't wait to get out of this city and move to the Bay Area (hopefully, SF). It is dull except if you're into surfing. It has nothing like an urban feel. SD is a great place if you have a family to raise because of lower cost of living, beaches, calmness, little traffic, and ease of getting around town, and not to mention the SD zoo, Legoland, Sea World, etc.

The black bolded sentence is the correct description of downtown SD.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Inland areas, however, have very similar weather in both SD and SF, with many months of sun, heat, and low humidity -- IMO, better all around, because I love fairly hot weather (but then the inland areas are boring). Even SD's coastal climate is still too foggy and cool for me, and while SF rarely breaks 70 degrees in the summer, SD rarely breaks 75 degrees.

Inland areas are much warmer in San Diego during winter than the Bay Area, about at least 10 degrees warmer on average.

Coastal SD goes above 75 any time of the year and July through September the average high is above 75.

SD is also warmer at night too, one thing I couldn't stand about Bay Area weather is how cold it is at night during summer. You should not have to a wear a sweatshirt in the middle of summer.