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.
I love them both. Glad I live in LA though. LA is an enjoyable city to live in especially with year around great weather.
SF is a an easy city to love but not to live. I will never forget how simple tasks like finding a parking spot at the grocery store or finding a good club, became epic battles of will power in SF.
LA is a hard city to love, and an even harder city to get. You could live there your whole life and still not see all it has to offer.
But it's 1000% times more livablw than SF, especially now that SF bay traffic is almost as bad. There is just more space to live in LA, and it is way more mellow.
SF is a an easy city to love but not to live. I will never forget how simple tasks like finding a parking spot at the grocery store or finding a good club, became epic battles of will power in SF.
LA is a hard city to love, and an even harder city to get. You could live there your whole life and still not see all it has to offer.
But it's 1000% times more livablw than SF, especially now that SF bay traffic is almost as bad. There is just more space to live in LA, and it is way more mellow.
That's a reason I prefer LA over SF. And why I love NYC. I don't want to live in a city that I can experience everything within a few years. I felt like after 4 years in SF, I saw everything it has to offer. Because the city is small, North Bay has nothing but wineries, the Peninsula is suburbs, South Bay is suburbs, and East Bay is suburbs with Oakland and Berkeley, but nothing there is really better than SF. Plus, getting to those places is huge challenge without a car, except for parts of the Peninsula and East Bay. What is considered suburbs in LA usually still has a lot going on that is worth a visit. You literally can't experience it all--same with NYC. SF you can experience everything it has within a few years and that's boring.
That's a reason I prefer LA over SF. And why I love NYC. I don't want to live in a city that I can experience everything within a few years. I felt like after 4 years in SF, I saw everything it has to offer. Because the city is small, North Bay has nothing but wineries, the Peninsula is suburbs, South Bay is suburbs, and East Bay is suburbs with Oakland and Berkeley, but nothing there is really better than SF. Plus, getting to those places is huge challenge without a car, except for parts of the Peninsula and East Bay. What is considered suburbs in LA usually still has a lot going on that is worth a visit. You literally can't experience it all--same with NYC. SF you can experience everything it has within a few years and that's boring.
Are we talking about any city on a coast being excluded? I mean, that's taking away a lot of LA's identity. But a lot of more suburban areas actually have some really good downtowns with good restaurants and bar scenes. The Bay has some, like Walnut Creek and San Mateo and Palo Alto. But IMO, the city of SF has less to do than the LA Basin, and then on top of that, the SFV and actual suburbs also have a lot going on. The SGV is the new Chinatown basically. Old Town Pasadena. Glendale. Burbank. Studio City. Sherman Oaks. Culver City. West Hollywood. Santa Monica. Manhattan Beach. Hermosa Beach. Long Beach. Huntington Beach. Newport Beach. Laguna Beach. Santa Ana. A little further out you have Ventura. I won't comment on to the IE since idk enough going on there, but seems like Riverside is making a name for itself.
But basically, there are so many parts of LA to visit because it is just that much bigger. I enjoy that about LA. And since car ownership is required (which I'm not a fan of I admit), it means that most people have a car to go visit those places. In SF, if you don't have a car, which is supposed to be a plus of living in SF, you're stuck in the 7x7 box of SF. Yes, BART and Caltrain exist, but people aren't often visiting the other places outside of SF. In LA, people do drive and hang out in all different neighborhoods. I grew up near LAX so I spent plenty of time in Santa Monica, Venice, Culver, Manhattan, and Hermosa. But also lots of time in Westwood, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Mid Wilshire, DTLA, and LBC. I visited a friend in Pasadena pretty often. I visited family friends in Sherman Oaks quite often. I met up with friends in Studio City after I got off work in DTLA for dinner sometimes. I went for KBBQ in Ktown pretty often. SF felt much more limited since I couldn't visit many places outside of SF without relying on BART or Caltrain, and they're not so great.
Are we talking about any city on a coast being excluded? I mean, that's taking away a lot of LA's identity. But a lot of more suburban areas actually have some really good downtowns with good restaurants and bar scenes. The Bay has some, like Walnut Creek and San Mateo and Palo Alto. But IMO, the city of SF has less to do than the LA Basin, and then on top of that, the SFV and actual suburbs also have a lot going on. The SGV is the new Chinatown basically. Old Town Pasadena. Glendale. Burbank. Studio City. Sherman Oaks. Culver City. West Hollywood. Santa Monica. Manhattan Beach. Hermosa Beach. Long Beach. Huntington Beach. Newport Beach. Laguna Beach. Santa Ana. A little further out you have Ventura. I won't comment on to the IE since idk enough going on there, but seems like Riverside is making a name for itself.
But basically, there are so many parts of LA to visit because it is just that much bigger. I enjoy that about LA. And since car ownership is required (which I'm not a fan of I admit), it means that most people have a car to go visit those places. In SF, if you don't have a car, which is supposed to be a plus of living in SF, you're stuck in the 7x7 box of SF. Yes, BART and Caltrain exist, but people aren't often visiting the other places outside of SF. In LA, people do drive and hang out in all different neighborhoods. I grew up near LAX so I spent plenty of time in Santa Monica, Venice, Culver, Manhattan, and Hermosa. But also lots of time in Westwood, Beverly Hills, West Hollywood, Mid Wilshire, DTLA, and LBC. I visited a friend in Pasadena pretty often. I visited family friends in Sherman Oaks quite often. I met up with friends in Studio City after I got off work in DTLA for dinner sometimes. I went for KBBQ in Ktown pretty often. SF felt much more limited since I couldn't visit many places outside of SF without relying on BART or Caltrain, and they're not so great.
Exactly, outside of the coast there is really nothing worth visiting as they are all pretty much run of the mill suburbs found in most large metros. Pasadena? Culver City? Sherman Oaks? Seriously? You're really overrating these places. Even places like Burbank the only thing unique are movie/tv studios, not the actual city itself.
Exactly, outside of the coast there is really nothing worth visiting as they are all pretty much run of the mill suburbs found in most large metros. Pasadena? Culver City? Sherman Oaks? Seriously? You're really overrating these places. Even places like Burbank the only thing unique are movie/tv studios, not the actual city itself.
Pasadena and Culver City have a lot going on actually and both are served by light rail.
By excluding beach cities you're basically saying "when you take away one the premier assets of all of SoCal, LA really is the same thing as the Bay Area."
Well, there's also cities that have decent hills and mountains in or nearby. I'll talk about San Gabriel Valley a bit, since that's what I'm most familiar with. There are places like Pasadena which is a decent urban area in and of itself and has a good host of museums and institutions (or in neighboring San Marino with the Huntington Library and its gardens. Further out there's Claremont which is alright due to the presence of the Claremont Colleges and being at the foothills of the mountains. There are quite a few mountain trails though there used to be more, though on what was probably private property. If you count Culver City as a "suburb" because it's technically not part of Los Angeles proper, then it has its odd bits to it due to its film production history and the people that attracted and still attracts.
Honestly though, I wish more spaces outside of just the mountains and hills, but in the actual valleys were reserved for larger parks. It'd be a great if Santa Anita Park (which is a race track with massive parking lots) and Santa Anita Golf Course were both turned into public parks. Those and the giant superfund site that is Irwindale after some intense remediation.
Also, it's odd to disregard the coastal areas of Los Angeles and its metropolitan area since so much of its cultural and social gravity is shifted there with heavy development, a long coastline and weather that's generally conducive to being near the water. It's a bit like taking Manhattan outside of New York City and the Tri-State Area, which while an interesting exercise, isn't really an accurate comparison when comparing to other metropolitan areas.
Pasadena and Culver City have a lot going on actually and both are served by light rail.
By excluding beach cities you're basically saying "when you take away one the premier assets of all of SoCal, LA really is the same thing as the Bay Area."
Great, again you can say that about a lot of suburbs around the country. Nothing unique.
Yeah but it doesn't take a lifetime to explore the beach cities. LA has more to visit but most of it isn't worth visiting, at least anymore than the various suburbs in other large metros. Just more of the same stuff.
Great, again you can say that about a lot of suburbs around the country. Nothing unique.
Yeah but it doesn't take a lifetime to explore the beach cities. LA has more to visit but most of it isn't worth visiting, at least anymore than the various suburbs in other large metros. Just more of the same stuff.
I disagree. They're all different. I've spent long enough in each to know they all have a different vibe. Though I've heard Culver is becoming the new Santa Monica and I haven't been back in a while. But SaMo is different from Culver which is different from Venice which is different from Manhattan which is different from Hermosa which is different from Long Beach which is different from Huntington which is different from Newport which is different from Laguna which is different from Ventura. All of those are different from the inland ones. If you don't know how they're all different from each other, you can't properly comment on LA and what it has to offer outside of city limits. Yes, people go between many of the beach cities. But people who like Manhattan are not rushing to hang out in Venice. Even people who like Hermosa will like Manhattan, but they'll clearly prefer Hermosa and rather live and play there than Manhattan. Anyone from the South Bay or West LA will find LBC different. All of the LA County beach cities will find noticeable differences in the OC beach cities. The only time I ever felt uncomfortable going out in LA was in Huntington. And Huntington is very very different from Laguna.
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.
