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.
Which is better in terms or things to do, geography, proximity to other cities, historical value, weather, transportation, and anything else you may want to add?
Last edited by JMT; 02-21-2012 at 07:13 AM..
Reason: Post only pics you took, or provide links to where you found them.
San Diego. the beach, ocean, mountains, desert, boating, great museums, decent sport teams, lots of activities and the most awesome climate in the continental USA.
San Diego. the beach, ocean, mountains, desert, boating, great museums, decent sport teams, lots of activities and the most awesome climate in the continental USA.
St Louis has way better brick mansions and probably better historic neighborhoods (although I live in what's considered among the best bungalow neighborhoods in the country) but other than that this is a pretty mean thread. And I'm a big fan of St. Louis- primarily for its architecture and some great urban neighborhoods, but come on, the 72 miles of beaches, the Pacific Ocean and a beautiful, super-low crime city is hard to beat.
I dislike them both but for different reasons. San Diego is such a boring city, really what a bore fest of a city. Every time I visit that place I get the impression that its a gigantic LA area suburb, a suburb to the suburb of the OC if you will. It leaves the impression of a retiree refuge where interior northeasterners from places like Maine and Pennsylvania or people from Missouri, Michigan, Kansas, etc midwesterners all dream of living one day further in their life to escape the dreaded cold climate of where they live now. The gaslamp district is huge but even thats boring, I would take the nightlife of LA and SF [even Sacramento] over SD. It feels really conservative for my liking and very bland with the same weather all the time, the same mentality, the same everything. The SD area feels like its popular among 40 year old, single/divorced men, with future plans of settling down to a more suburban/scenic area and enjoy a good laid back [yet boring] life IMO.
Not saying SD is a bad city but it rubs me the wrong way from my experiences there. I dont like to go to zoos or theme parks for fun. I like to go to broadways, pubs, places like Kenmore Square in Boston not Legoland. You cant pay me to live in SD, no salary is worth the torture of suburban boredom. Nothing interesting about the sports there, the music acts there, fashion, or film industry there.
Why is St. Louis on some many vs. threads? Are we supposed to be easy pickings or something?
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.
