Is LA nicer than SF yet? (Los Angeles, San Diego: amusement parks, neighborhood, living)

[Maximalist]

LA’s Inland Empire alone can fit inside the entire Bay Area, San Jose Valley, and Sacramento combined so yeah there is no comparison in MSA’s.

[Mr5150]

Ok OP, unlike you I’ve lived in both metro areas. To compare LA (10,000 sq miles or so) to The City's 49 sq miles is like comparing apples to walnuts. People who prefer LA usually do it for the weather. It actually gets cold and rains in the Bay Area. I found LA people to be more interested in image rather than substance. Sure, Bay Area people are like city people everywhere, but at least what they portray is who/what they are. I also prefer seeing trees on the hills rather than chaparral. And at least SF has a real downtown.

[eureka1]

Apples and oranges

[TacoSoup]

Originally Posted by tstieber

This is a complex and difficult question to answer, and part of that challenge is highlighted by the way you've asked the question. Namely, what should we be comparing? Downtown LA versus San Francisco? LA region versus the Bay Area? Both regions are large and diverse, and there are huge differences in the quality of life between suburbs, cities, Etc. If we are just comparing San Francisco with Los Angeles, then I would say yes, San Francisco set the bar for many decades, but with the insane cost of living, much of the creative culture has fled the city as it has in New York. Meanwhile, Los Angeles was lagging so badly in terms of urban development that it has significantly caught up. You might say Los Angeles has been reinventing itself while San Francisco has been deinventing itself. Homelessness and traffic are terrible in both cities, but perhaps Los Angeles is currently more interesting than San Francisco. However, one thing that people can never change is the natural geography. San Francisco is so darn beautiful, surrounded by water on three sides and dotted by steep, colorful hillsides everywhere. Los Angeles, by comparison, is a flat, boring sprawl. So in terms of Aesthetics, San Francisco will always be the more beautiful place.

As a Bay Area transplant to Southern California, I can only say that I love visiting both places for different reasons, but I'm glad I don't have to live in either one. I'm so much happier living day-to-day in San Diego, which has much Scenic Beauty but far less sprawl.

Great assessment. While LA (and much of OC) is a huge basin of sprawl, I don’t think you’re giving it enough credit for its beauty in the surrounding landscape, especially the proximity of the mountains. I couldn’t agree more about they’re both great to visit, but happy to be living in San Diego.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by Maximalist

LA’s Inland Empire alone can fit inside the entire Bay Area, San Jose Valley, and Sacramento combined so yeah there is no comparison in MSA’s.

Comparing the Inland Empire 'alone' to the Bay Area is completely absurd. Let's stay away from absurdity.

[Ruth4Truth]

Originally Posted by capoeira

Potential?? LA has always been far ahead of overcrowded filthy SF in quality of life!

"always"? SF hasn't always been overcrowded, nor filthy. How sad, that you never knew it, "back when".

[sean1the1]

Both are nice cities. SF is much better to walk around, but LA has thousands of places to explore while never leaving the city. I just visited SF two weeks ago, and it was nice, but it's not as nice as it should be to have a median household income of $110k if LA had that there would be no comparison.

[18Montclair]

Originally Posted by sean1the1

Both are nice cities. SF is much better to walk around, but LA has thousands of places to explore while never leaving the city.

Like where?

Honestly the traffic and distance of areas of LA can be so grueling that one wonders if it's even worth it most of the time.

Furthermore, how is this ferry ride to Sausalito somehow diminished because your leaving SF city limits?

[bmw335xi]

There is no right or wrong answer here. They are very different. It's like asking is Atlanta nicer than Boston? It depends on the person as they are apples and oranges. San Francisco is much more photogenic and urban. Los Angeles has a lot more things to do and is spread out. The architecture in San Francisco a lot more interesting than Los Angeles overall. They are very different as I already mentioned, a quick visit to both and you'll know your answer very easily as to which one is nicer.

[sean1the1]

Originally Posted by 18Montclair

Like where?

Honestly the traffic and distance of areas of LA can be so grueling that one wonders if it's even worth it most of the time.

Furthermore, how is this ferry ride to Sausalito somehow diminished because your leaving SF city limits?

Like these Population and Race of Neighborhoods of the City of Los Angeles, California there's an entire mountain range bisecting the city there's stunning views throughout. It doesn't deminish it, but sorry it doesn't compare to going out to Catalina island.