Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Cultural and arts amenities - LA. There's a lot here even if most people don't partake.
Cultural diversity - LA. Like everyone has said. More in LA, but also more segregated.
Political diversity - LA. AFAIK.
Transportation system (roads, rail, ferries, etc.) - SF. Better public transportation in the Bay Area, but LA is secretly catching up.
Geographic diversity - LA
Climatic diversity - LA. Or SF. It's pretty close.
Sports teams - SF. No foosball in LA.
Higher educational opportunities - LA. USC, UCLA, Caltech, UCI.
Family friendliess - SF, Outside of the city seems more family friendly than LA which is pretty ghetto even in the suburbs.
"Dynamic" environment (entrepreneurial, social, cultural, etc.) - SF. But closer than many think.
Natural beauty - SF. More my style.
Beach quality - LA. lol.
Road rage - LA. Bay area drivers are surprisingly mellow...and slow.
Friendliness of people - SF. Neither are especially friendly but someone has to win.
General happiness - SF. I don't know about SF, but the majority of people that I know in LA are very dissatisfied.
YOUR personal preference--and why!
I'd like to live in the Bay Area, but never have so maybe not.
Cultural and arts amenities - LA. If this includes entertainment stuff like shows, theater, concerts, etc.. then def LA as there is just more going on. A big name performer may only have one or two shows in the entire Bay Area where as they might have four or more in the entire LA metro. Even though some people like 'Sacramento916' try to write off LA as not having intellectual cultural amenities since it doesn't have the "intellectual" vibe of the Bay Area but they are there if you bother looking, very good ones too.
Cultural diversity - Tie
Political diversity - LA by far. The LA metro covers the entire political spectrum from very liberal to very conservative. The Bay Area simply does not offer than type of political diversity, it's leans to hard to one side imo.
Transportation system (roads, rail, ferries, etc.) -Bay Area, much better and useful public transit overall and more options.
Geographic diversity - LA. You'll prob find more diversity over a smaller area/distance in the Bay Area but LA is so massive that it beats it out overall imo. You go from sea level to 10,000+ feet in the LA area with ski resorts, alpine forests, and deserts.
Climatic diversity - LA. Some of the farther suburbs of LA like Lancaster and Palmdale can get several inches of snow at least once every winter sometimes more. You'll never see anyone in the Bay Area not able to make it to work because they are snowed in and the freeway is closed. You also get tropical monsoonal moisture in the region that can produce thunderstorms in the summer, you almost never see that in the Bay Area. You watch the weather forecasts there and they have like 4 or five different areas they forecast weather for; coast, metro, valley's, mountains, and deserts.
Sports teams - Tie, both are good. LA does have a football team, they just play in Oakland
Higher educational opportunities - Tie with maybe a slight edge to the Bay Area as their top institutions are bit more prestigious.
Family friendliess - Tie. LA has more family oriented activities like theme parks and beaches. Bay Area has more affluent and educated suburbs.
"Dynamic" environment (entrepreneurial, social, cultural, etc.) - Tie, both are good but for different reasons. Maybe a slight edge to the Bay Area as LA seems more economically stagnant lately.
Natural beauty - Bay Area, I like the greenery and more areas have been preserved. LA's paved over a lot of it's beautiful areas but it still has plenty of stunning areas.
Beach quality - LA because it's more user friendly and you can swim in the water. The Bay Area has a more scenic coast but the water is very dangerous and cold, great to look at but not to actually use. Bay Area/NorCal has better forests, lakes, and rivers though if that's your thing.
Road rage - If you're a skilled driver that pays attention then the Bay Area will be worse for you overall as the drivers are not as good as Southern Californians. If you're more an aloof and less skilled driver then LA as they are more aggressive overall and for the most part actually know what they are doing.
Friendliness of people - Tie, I've had both good and bad experiences in both. Although I've had a better time talking to and hanging out with strangers in LA than the Bay Area. I dunno, maybe it's because I don't care to talk about how much I love the Bay Area and how wonderful it is, the Giants, or politics might be why I don't always click with some strangers here. I've found native Angeleno's to be some pretty funny characters overall in my experience.
General happiness - Bay Area. A lot of Angeleno's have this self-deprecating humor about the place which contrasts with the annoying smug attitude of people here.
YOUR personal preference--and why! - I grew up in the Bay Area and it's where I have all my family and great friends so no place can compare in that respect. But if I wasn't from here and didn't have the family and friends that I do then I might take SoCal overall. I don't know nearly as many people in LA as I do here though. LA isn't as polished and refined as the Bay Area but I don't really mind the grittiness of LA and it has lots of nice areas too. I think there is more to do and see in LA and Southern CA in general and I really love the beach. It's summer and I want to go to the beach so bad and swim in the ocean, I really miss SoCal this time of year.
L.A. any day of the week. My sister lives in Marin (and to 415 s2k Marin is quite liberal actually)and quite frankly I never saw what all the hype about the bay area was.
You get there, it's balmy in late June by the ocean, tons of Ugly Betties (not into the hipster look), the Golden Gate is nothing special. I donno, it reminded me of a more lame version of San Diego. Nothing to do and nothing really interesting to see. It's easy to see why so many people sit around getting intoxicated. By the way as an advocate of medical pot, I thought that was cool about the city. But really the bay is just not where the action is. Give me the glamour and glitz and smog of a REAL city, L.A.
I pretty much agree. I'll take LA over the bay easily.
L.A. any day of the week. My sister lives in Marin (and to 415 s2k Marin is quite liberal actually)and quite frankly I never saw what all the hype about the bay area was.
You get there, it's balmy in late June by the ocean, tons of Ugly Betties (not into the hipster look), the Golden Gate is nothing special. I donno, it reminded me of a more lame version of San Diego. Nothing to do and nothing really interesting to see. It's easy to see why so many people sit around getting intoxicated. By the way as an advocate of medical pot, I thought that was cool about the city. But really the bay is just not where the action is. Give me the glamour and glitz and smog of a REAL city, L.A.
You are so full of crap, it's amazing. If you get bored here, the problem is you. Over 7 million people here find a way to not be bored all the time, so i don't know what kept you from enjoying yourself. No action? Maybe not in Marin LOL, which is a sleepy suburban/rural county that has lots of wealthy white people and NIMBYs. Ugly betties? I've seen "ugly betties" everywhere, and there are plenty of good looking women everywhere as well. Glamour and glitz? The Bay Area has it too (no Hollywood though, maybe that's your thing). Smog? The Bay Area has it too, what did you think no one burns fossil fuels here? All our cars, factories, oil refineries, stoves, and power plants run on magical non-polluting pixie dust? We're just lucky that most of our smog is usually pushed into the central valley by the ocean breeze, whereas LA's get's trapped by the surrounding mountains (Sacramento gets screwed by the Bay's pollution). And it's funny that you're even listing smog as a criteria for being a "real city" in the first place. But since you seem to like smog for some reason, come visit SF on the tail end of a heat wave (a heatwave = no wind), and then tell me there's no smog here. I've seen LA levels of smog in SF before, where you can barely see downtown from just a few miles away.
edit: also, as someone who has spent lots of time in San Diego, i fail to see how you could see SF as a "lame" version of SD. SF's metro has three times the population as SD's, and there is a level of vibrancy and activity to be found in parts of the Bay Area that you don't really come by in SD for the most part (much of SF, the downtown/university area of Berkeley, etc). If you're really into the beach scene though, then SD definitely has something that the Bay Area lacks (unless you like wind, dangerous currents and freezing water).
Cultural and arts amenities - LA. If this includes entertainment stuff like shows, theater, concerts, etc.. then def LA as there is just more going on. A big name performer may only have one or two shows in the entire Bay Area where as they might have four or more in the entire LA metro. Even though some people like 'Sacramento916' try to write off LA as not having intellectual cultural amenities since it doesn't have the "intellectual" vibe of the Bay Area but they are there if you bother looking, very good ones too.
Cultural diversity - Tie
Political diversity - LA by far. The LA metro covers the entire political spectrum from very liberal to very conservative. The Bay Area simply does not offer than type of political diversity, it's leans to hard to one side imo.
Transportation system (roads, rail, ferries, etc.) -Bay Area, much better and useful public transit overall and more options.
Geographic diversity - LA. You'll prob find more diversity over a smaller area/distance in the Bay Area but LA is so massive that it beats it out overall imo. You go from sea level to 10,000+ feet in the LA area with ski resorts, alpine forests, and deserts.
Climatic diversity - LA. Some of the farther suburbs of LA like Lancaster and Palmdale can get several inches of snow at least once every winter sometimes more. You'll never see anyone in the Bay Area not able to make it to work because they are snowed in and the freeway is closed. You also get tropical monsoonal moisture in the region that can produce thunderstorms in the summer, you almost never see that in the Bay Area. You watch the weather forecasts there and they have like 4 or five different areas they forecast weather for; coast, metro, valley's, mountains, and deserts.
Sports teams - Tie, both are good. LA does have a football team, they just play in Oakland
Higher educational opportunities - Tie with maybe a slight edge to the Bay Area as their top institutions are bit more prestigious.
Family friendliess - Tie. LA has more family oriented activities like theme parks and beaches. Bay Area has more affluent and educated suburbs.
"Dynamic" environment (entrepreneurial, social, cultural, etc.) - Tie, both are good but for different reasons. Maybe a slight edge to the Bay Area as LA seems more economically stagnant lately.
Natural beauty - Bay Area, I like the greenery and more areas have been preserved. LA's paved over a lot of it's beautiful areas but it still has plenty of stunning areas.
Beach quality - LA because it's more user friendly and you can swim in the water. The Bay Area has a more scenic coast but the water is very dangerous and cold, great to look at but not to actually use. Bay Area/NorCal has better forests, lakes, and rivers though if that's your thing.
Road rage - If you're a skilled driver that pays attention then the Bay Area will be worse for you overall as the drivers are not as good as Southern Californians. If you're more an aloof and less skilled driver then LA as they are more aggressive overall and for the most part actually know what they are doing.
Friendliness of people - Tie, I've had both good and bad experiences in both. Although I've had a better time talking to and hanging out with strangers in LA than the Bay Area. I dunno, maybe it's because I don't care to talk about how much I love the Bay Area and how wonderful it is, the Giants, or politics might be why I don't always click with some strangers here. I've found native Angeleno's to be some pretty funny characters overall in my experience.
General happiness - Bay Area. A lot of Angeleno's have this self-deprecating humor about the place which contrasts with the annoying smug attitude of people here.
YOUR personal preference--and why! - I grew up in the Bay Area and it's where I have all my family and great friends so no place can compare in that respect. But if I wasn't from here and didn't have the family and friends that I do then I might take SoCal overall. I don't know nearly as many people in LA as I do here though. LA isn't as polished and refined as the Bay Area but I don't really mind the grittiness of LA and it has lots of nice areas too. I think there is more to do and see in LA and Southern CA in general and I really love the beach. It's summer and I want to go to the beach so bad and swim in the ocean, I really miss SoCal this time of year.
Excellent assessment. I concur.
I think many people are fairly ignorant of both the geographical and climatic diversity of LA / SoCal. They incorrectly imagine that the whole place is a sort of semi arid / low desert climate zone. All you need to do is look at the Sunset Western Gardening Guide climate zone maps to realize how incorrect that is. There are simply far more zones in the SoCal map. And the spread in SoCal is wider than in the Bay Area. We have no 1, 2 or 3, our lowest number if you count the far inland is something like 9. Our highest number is 17. Whereas in LA / burbs / exurbs you see the entire span from at least 2 or 3 clear up to 24. Granted, there are some missing such 14 - 17, 9 and maybe a couple more. But in total LA takes this.
Geographically it's also a no brainer, from 0 to 10K+ feet and encompassing about 20 micro plates of the crust.
edit: also, as someone who has spent lots of time in San Diego, i fail to see how you could see SF as a "lame" version of SD. SF's metro has three times the population as SD's, and there is a level of vibrancy and activity to be found in parts of the Bay Area that you don't really come by in SD for the most part (much of SF, the downtown/university area of Berkeley, etc). If you're really into the beach scene though, then SD definitely has something that the Bay Area lacks (unless you like wind, dangerous currents and freezing water).
Downtown Berkeley isn't any more vibrant than the vibrant areas of SD, even less so in some cases. Actually there aren't any areas in the Bay Area outside of SF that I find to be more vibrant than the busier areas of SD. And even with SF I would say once you leave the northeastern third area of the city the level of activity in neighborhoods drops off significantly.
But yeah, LakeshoreSoxGo just will take any opportunity to spite the Bay Area if he can, it's kind of comical at this point.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
