Sad in Seattle...San Francisco or San Diego?? (San Jose, Berkeley: transplants, crime)

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

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.

Certain areas of SD may not be some EXACT replica of parts of the Bay Area but some do have a similar feel or vibe.

I've never surfed and I'm rarely bored here, its one of the best cities if you like the outdoors. Maybe living in Scripps Ranch and North county is the problem for you b/c that is just typical boring suburbia. I think people who find SD boring must have some really narrow interests and just don't like being outside a lot. I don't really feel like there is even that much more to do in the Bay Area, at least for me. One advantage SD has over the Bay Area is being close to another large metro area, Los Angeles, so if one needs some big city stuff its not that far away. SF is not located close to any other interesting cities, Sac just doesn't cut it.

[ubringliten]

Originally Posted by sav858

Certain areas of SD may not be some EXACT replica of parts of the Bay Area but some do have a similar feel or vibe.

I've never surfed and I'm rarely bored here, its one of the best cities if you like the outdoors. Maybe living in Scripps Ranch and North county is the problem for you b/c that is just typical boring suburbia. I think people who find SD boring must have some really narrow interests and just don't like being outside a lot. I don't really feel like there is even that much more to do in the Bay Area, at least for me. One advantage SD has over the Bay Area is being close to another large metro area, Los Angeles, so if one needs some big city stuff its not that far away. SF is not located close to any other interesting cities, Sac just doesn't cut it.

Yes, I forgot about outdoor activities. I bike twice a week at a lake, I go to the beaches (gorgeous beaches) in the summer, and I still find it boring. I dine out in Hillcrest and Littly Italy (probably the best two neighorhoods in SD, La Jolla is not my type and downtown is filled with meatheads) all the time, and the food there are far from excellence, and far fewer than any large city in terms of restaurants. I live in a boring neighborhood, but it's just a neighborhood, not a CITY. I can still go out on the weekends, only 20 minutes away, you know. Museums suck, major lack of art culture, fashion is terrible, Balboa Park is a joke with ugly Spanish architecture, and I think things in SD are mediocre (nothing admirable about SD). Everywhere in SD is so far from each other. I have pretty much seen all of SD in half a year, and I don't find anything interesting to see anymore. I grew up in LA and have lived in NYC, so I can tell you SD is boring. I go to LA once a month to see friends and family, and think goodness for LA. However, it's still 2 hours drive. It's a four hour drive in one day, so it's difficult to just go to LA in a spur of the moment.

[LVinWA]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

I grew up in LA and have lived in NYC

I have a feeling any city in the US would be boring after NYC, haha. But your point is well taken. It's leaning in favor for San Francisco as far as I'm concerned.

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by sav858

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.

Well, you're right -- I am off, but only by a few degrees. Coastal SD averages about 76-77 in late summer, and SF averages about 72 in Sep/Oct, both cities will be about 2 degrees warmer, but they are so consistent in temperature that they only rarely surpass those averages. And yes, SD WILL have 75+ days any time of the year, but they will also be above average, just like there will be 55F days that are below average. Even SF hit the mid-70s in January this year, and parts of the North Bay (Santa Rosa, Napa) were in the 80s, but that was very unusual. I wouldn't count on consistently above-average weather in any city anywhere in the world all winter long. But I would say that both SD's and SF's warmest winter days will be warmer than their coldest summer days. SD will usually get some 80+ winter days, and SF will usually get some 70+ winter days, and both cities will have some summer highs only in the 60s. (Hearkening back to my preference for inland climates).

Bay Area nights are indeed chilly if you're near the water. But again, if you go inland (and I mean over the hills, not just across the bay, b/c that's still near the water), then you'll get plenty of balmy nights, whether in SD or SF. I grew up near the Mt. Diablo foothills, and almost every suburban home built in the 1970s or 1980s had a pool, and we used to sit outside on hot nights all the time, even while SF was shivering. Bay Area microclimates get really extreme!

[tstieber]

Originally Posted by sav858

Certain areas of SD may not be some EXACT replica of parts of the Bay Area but some do have a similar feel or vibe.

I've never surfed and I'm rarely bored here, its one of the best cities if you like the outdoors. Maybe living in Scripps Ranch and North county is the problem for you b/c that is just typical boring suburbia. I think people who find SD boring must have some really narrow interests and just don't like being outside a lot. I don't really feel like there is even that much more to do in the Bay Area, at least for me. One advantage SD has over the Bay Area is being close to another large metro area, Los Angeles, so if one needs some big city stuff its not that far away. SF is not located close to any other interesting cities, Sac just doesn't cut it.

Yeah, I agree -- the most extreme Berkeley lifestyles, like tree-sitting and using your own feces for fuel -- may be unheard of in SD, but Ocean Beach is totally hippie with its natural food stores, funky little organic eateries, and having blocked Starbucks from opening. The whole Hillcrest/North Park/University Heights area has a sort of Albany or Rockridge feel, and some of the North County coast, like Encinitas or Solana Beach, have that kind of Fourth Street "upscale part of Berkeley" feel, where people definitely look and dress like urban liberals. But not too many people in SD have converted the engines on their 1985 Volvo station wagons to cooking-oil compatible.

Someone said Balboa Park's Spanish architecture was ugly? That's obviously a matter of taste, but it's actually my favorite part. I love the detailing and romance of Spanish architecture, and I especially love it mixed in with Craftsman bungalows and Tudors like a lot of old California neighborhoods.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by ubringliten

Yes, I forgot about outdoor activities. I bike twice a week at a lake, I go to the beaches (gorgeous beaches) in the summer, and I still find it boring. I dine out in Hillcrest and Littly Italy (probably the best two neighorhoods in SD, La Jolla is not my type and downtown is filled with meatheads) all the time, and the food there are far from excellence, and far fewer than any large city in terms of restaurants. I live in a boring neighborhood, but it's just a neighborhood, not a CITY. I can still go out on the weekends, only 20 minutes away, you know. Museums suck, major lack of art culture, fashion is terrible, Balboa Park is a joke with ugly Spanish architecture, and I think things in SD are mediocre (nothing admirable about SD). Everywhere in SD is so far from each other. I have pretty much seen all of SD in half a year, and I don't find anything interesting to see anymore. I grew up in LA and have lived in NYC, so I can tell you SD is boring. I go to LA once a month to see friends and family, and think goodness for LA. However, it's still 2 hours drive. It's a four hour drive in one day, so it's difficult to just go to LA in a spur of the moment.

Well when you try to compare metropolitan areas of 15,000,000+ million to one of just 3,000,000 then I can see where you might be coming from but at least put into perspective. For a metro area of its size I don't see how San Diego is lacking in terms of things to do at all. In makes a top 10 list for Most Eventful Cities in America, beating out larger metro areas http://www.city-data.com/forum/gener...ca-2008-a.html

Bay Area is twice as big so naturally there will more things but its just more of the same things basically, which is why I don't see the Bay Area as having that much more to do. It's just ridiculous that your frame of reference for comparing San Diego to is LA and NYC. If you compare Sacramento to Chicago it would also probably come off as pretty boring too. Some people just need too live in larger metro areas to stay occupied I guess but places like SD are fine for people who don't need every world class amenity right there, it holds its own for a metro area its size.

[happ]

Originally Posted by rah

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).

For frost to form it normally has to get down to freezing\ 32F & the city of San Francisco rarely drops below 40F. The airport down near San Bruno can experience freezing temps but that is very rare. I would think that frost could appear in the low-lying areas away from the water. But the hills never see frost. Believe it or not but San Francisco has less freezing temps than Miami Florida. It is a 365-day growing season like both LA & San Diego. But that doesn't mean it is warm, as we know [it just doesn't get to freezing even in the cold spells like Jan 2007 or Dec 1990].

[sav858]

Originally Posted by tstieber

Well, you're right -- I am off, but only by a few degrees. Coastal SD averages about 76-77 in late summer, and SF averages about 72 in Sep/Oct, both cities will be about 2 degrees warmer, but they are so consistent in temperature that they only rarely surpass those averages. And yes, SD WILL have 75+ days any time of the year, but they will also be above average, just like there will be 55F days that are below average. Even SF hit the mid-70s in January this year, and parts of the North Bay (Santa Rosa, Napa) were in the 80s, but that was very unusual. I wouldn't count on consistently above-average weather in any city anywhere in the world all winter long. But I would say that both SD's and SF's warmest winter days will be warmer than their coldest summer days. SD will usually get some 80+ winter days, and SF will usually get some 70+ winter days, and both cities will have some summer highs only in the 60s. (Hearkening back to my preference for inland climates).

Bay Area nights are indeed chilly if you're near the water. But again, if you go inland (and I mean over the hills, not just across the bay, b/c that's still near the water), then you'll get plenty of balmy nights, whether in SD or SF. I grew up near the Mt. Diablo foothills, and almost every suburban home built in the 1970s or 1980s had a pool, and we used to sit outside on hot nights all the time, even while SF was shivering. Bay Area microclimates get really extreme!

SD has more heat waves/warm periods than SF during winter though b/c of the Santa Ana's. They both can get warm in winter but SD tends to get warm more often.

SF has A LOT more high temps in the 60's during summer. In SD, the only part of summer that will happen is June, but I don't really consider that summer in San Diego b/c of the June Gloom.

I grew up in Walnut Creek and unless it was at least 95+ during the day, the nights were not warm and lows always dropped into the 50's. Summer mornings are cold (relatively) everywhere in the Bay Area when temps are near normal. For example, the average low in August in Walnut Creek is 55, in SD it's 67. And the coldest temperature ever recorded in SD in August is 57, I've never seen it drop below 60 in July or August. When that fog rolls into inland Bay Area valleys during summer it is DAMN cold and windy.

One thing I didn't like about inland Bay Area weather is how much the temperature swings all summer long. It's always in some cycle where it goes between 70 to 105 all summer long. Inland SD doesn't seem to swing as much.

[happ]

According to NWS data, San Francisco averages above 60F 10 months & only upper 50's two months [Dec\ Jan]. Only 2 months average above 70F in San Francisco [Sept\ October]. San Francisco's average minimums are above 50F for 8 months & in the upper 40's during winter.

San Diego averages above 70F six months a year & in the 60's the other 6 months. San Diego's average minimum is above 60F for 6 months & in the 50's the rest of the year except Dec when it is 49F at night.

Both are right on the water & strongly influenced by the Pacific ocean. It is warmer away from the ocean in both cities during summer but the temperature in San Diego climbs very quickly within a few miles inland while inland from San Francisco is cooler within the same distance from the ocean. This is because ocean water temps are almost always in the 50's around San Francisco [maybe low 60's late summer]. San Diego ocean temps averages near 60F during winter & near 70F during summer. It is around 500 miles south of San Francisco & has a counter-current of warmer ocean water during summer. It is not uncommon for the ocean temp to stay in the 70's for several months in San Diego & during El Nino years the ocean can reach into the 80's.

Coastal stratus\ fog is common in both cities but the clouds are higher in general in San Diego than San Francisco. The strong wind that blows in the coastal clouds across the San Francisco bay don't occur over the San Diego bay with much lower wind speeds.

San Diego can become uncomfortably humid during summer [this does not happen in San Francisco]. Both cities experience offshore wind [esp during fall & winter] that can produce temps above 90F. These conditions are more common in San Diego than San Francisco.

Wedding Planner - Set the Date, Climate Comparision for San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA

[vdy1985]

Originally Posted by happ

According to NWS data, San Francisco averages above 60F 10 months & only upper 50's two months [Dec\ Jan]. Only 2 months average above 70F in San Francisco [Sept\ October]. San Francisco's average minimums are above 50F for 8 months & in the upper 40's during winter.

San Diego averages above 70F six months a year & in the 60's the other 6 months. San Diego's average minimum is above 60F for 6 months & in the 50's the rest of the year except Dec when it is 49F at night.

Both are right on the water & strongly influenced by the Pacific ocean. It is warmer away from the ocean in both cities during summer but the temperature in San Diego climbs very quickly within a few miles inland while inland from San Francisco is cooler within the same distance from the ocean. This is because ocean water temps are almost always in the 50's around San Francisco [maybe low 60's late summer]. San Diego ocean temps averages near 60F during winter & near 70F during summer. It is around 500 miles south of San Francisco & has a counter-current of warmer ocean water during summer. It is not uncommon for the ocean temp to stay in the 70's for several months in San Diego & during El Nino years the ocean can reach into the 80's.

Coastal stratus\ fog is common in both cities but the clouds are higher in general in San Diego than San Francisco. The strong wind that blows in the coastal clouds across the San Francisco bay don't occur over the San Diego bay with much lower wind speeds.

San Diego can become uncomfortably humid during summer [this does not happen in San Francisco]. Both cities experience offshore wind [esp during fall & winter] that can produce temps above 90F. These conditions are more common in San Diego than San Francisco.

Wedding Planner - Set the Date, Climate Comparision for San Diego, CA and San Francisco, CA

Nice info. To sum it up: Both SF and SD are WAY better than Seattle in the weather department.