NorCal or SoCal? (San Jose, San Francisco, Irvine: college, living, vs)

[ahmunaeatchu]

This is my first time on this board so take it easy on me

I'm considering a move from NYC to either NorCal (SF/SJ) or SoCal (LA/Costa Mesa). I've been to SF/LA before but am really torn between the two so any type of feedback that will help me make a more informed decision (or any feedback at all) would be much appreciated.

I graduated recently from college and don't really know anyone my age in either city, so that is obviously a concern. I do have a job lined up and deciding between the locations. I'll keep an open mind. Thanks in advance

[coyoteskye]

If the choice is between L.A. and S.F., i say San Francisco without hesitation but it really depends on what you're looking for ... what kind of "culture" and community you want, what kind of weather / nature you want, what and where your work will be, etc., etc..
Have you been to San Jose?
If you want an urban life in Northern California then, assuming you can afford it, San Francisco is an obvious choice and San Jose may be a big disappointment to you.
It used to be said that San Francisco was the Boston of the west coast.
While i think that's a rather silly perception, S.F. is certainly more similar to east coast cities than L.A. (although to me San Francisco is like no other city anywhere and it's #1 but, like Boston, it's relatively small and easy to "manage") and it will be less of a culture shock for you.
But you may want the kind of radical change that L.A. will provide.
Although you'll find that even S.F. will be quite a change and you'll probably need to slow down a bit and relax if you want to flow nicely as the pace in California is, generally speaking, quite a bit more easy compared to urban northeast.
All that said, you need to be more specific / detailed about the kind of life you're looking for.
L.A. / SoCal and S.F. / Northern California are two different "worlds".
I much prefer Northern California as, to me, it's much more sane and balanced and, as i see it, much of southern California is expressing / manifesting some of the worst of the present day U.S. culture but i am admittedly biased.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

I much prefer Northern California as, to me, it's much more sane and balanced

You've never actually lived in Southern CA have you?

much of southern California is expressing / manifesting some of the worst of the present day U.S. culture but i am admittedly biased.

I'm curious, such as what?

[BRinSM]

SF:SJ::LA:Costa Mesa::SF:LA

all are very different from each other. where exactly are the job offers? the only thing that i can tell you generally about norcal vs socal is that norcal is more liberal and socal is more beach oriented. otherwise, both areas encompass huge amounts of land and there are major variations within the respective metro areas.

[18Montclair]

Either one would be fine. Besides your young, you can always move if you want.

Also, you really arent being clear enough about what sort of place your looking for.

[ndfmnlf]

I'm just curious why people divide California into North and South when it really should be divided into East (inland) and West (coastal).

[coyoteskye]

Originally Posted by sav858

You've never actually lived in Southern CA have you?

No I have not lived in Southern California nor would i want to but that's just me and i admitted my bias.
One does not need to live in a place to have a fairly good impression of it although obviously people who live there or have lived there are more equipped to give the o.p. needed information.
And like i said to the o.p. (besides acknowledging my bias) SoCal may suit him just fine depending on what he's looking for which, as of yet, isn't clear.

[VeronikaW]

I have lived in both Northern and Southern CA (grew up in and around Irvine and then spent 5+ years living and working in Silicon Valley). If it were up to me, I'd live in Northern CA. It just really depends on what you're looking for, though. I find the people in the Bay Area to be more laid back than the people in Southern CA.

[Bunjee]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

No I have not lived in Southern California nor would i want to but that's just me and i admitted my bias.
One does not need to live in a place to have a fairly good impression of it.
And like i said to the o.p. (besides acknowledging my bias) SoCal may suit him just fine depending on what he's looking for which, as of yet, isn't clear.

I disagree. Are the residents of Pasadena or Lakewood or Torrance exactly how you're presuming them to be? I have lived extensively in NorCal and SoCal, and I can tell you definitively that the differences often described are exaggerated and too often utter falsehoods. The OP has mentioned already having visited both, though, and is torn, whatever the general impressions. Maybe in particulars we can be more helpful, those familiar with SoCal more helpful with SoCal; and those familiar with NorCal, with NorCal.

[sav858]

Originally Posted by coyoteskye

No I have not lived in Southern California nor would i want to but that's just me and i admitted my bias.
One does not need to live in a place to have a fairly good impression of it although obviously people who live there or have lived there are more equipped to give the o.p. needed information.
And like i said to the o.p. (besides acknowledging my bias) SoCal may suit him just fine depending on what he's looking for which, as of yet, isn't clear.

I think to comment on the lifestyle and people one would, unless of course "sane and balanced" is referring to the topography and weather or something like that. But at least you admit the obvious bias.

Also I find it funny you think Southern CA is perpetuating the worst of present day culture when you don't really hear the term "Southern CA values" being used across the country in a derogatory way as opposed to "SF Values".

I agree, the OP should probably give more info on what they are looking for, the question is too vague.