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.
This is very fair. I maintain that the LA area would be hard to dispute vs. the Bay Area.
But, this is a comparison of city proper. The urbanality, saturation, neighborhoods, public transit, and views are simply better in SF. Those are my personal standards, and could very well understand if someones criteria were different. I mean, some people love Houston. Not to compare LA and Houston, but it shows the differing opinions on the desirable makeup of a city.
By the way, I saw someone mention that SF should be compared to cities of it's size. Another that said it's core is merely "classically urban" like the east coast cities. That doesn't make a lot of sense. The very definition of an urban city is pretty similar around the world. That said, am I the only one that sees some significant similarities between SF and Boston? There was a thread, SF vs. Boston, and I felt like people were talking in circles. The weather is the major difference, and the row houses/housing stock is quite different in most areas. But it feels like they are more sister cities than they are different in a lot of ways. Since moving back here, I can't help but see glimpses of SF everywhere I go.
Nearly unmatched ethnic diversity with strong representation from 6 continents
Superb branding/name recognition worldwide
"agreeable" weather
multiple top notch universities (USC, Caltech, UCLA, Claremont Colleges)
Despite all of these strengths, something just feels off about LA.
The lack of mass transit. The lack of walkable, urban feeling areas was a factor. I got sick of being stuck in traffic driving everywhere.
I find SF to be geographically and architecturally more beautiful.
I also prefer SF climate. Not too cold, but barely hot enough to break a sweat.
San Francisco is not perfect, but it has more of the things that would make me happier in terms of city living.
It also doesn't hurt that SF is also fairly diverse (not on LA level, but still)
I found it the other way around. On paper SF and the Bay should be better.
But in real life, living in SF is an expensive, overrated chore. Simple tasks like getting groceries, renting, and parking become herculean tasks. The culture of the bay is very workaholic and obsessed with money. In many ways the population is provincial, insufferable, socially ackward, etc. This is largely due to tech dictating the local economy.
As the saying goes, "SF is lovable but not very livable. LA is just the opposite"
But in real life, living in SF is an expensive, overrated chore. Simple tasks like getting groceries, renting, and parking become herculean tasks. The culture of the bay is very workaholic and obsessed with money. In many ways the population is provincial, insufferable, socially ackward, etc. This is largely due to tech dictating the local economy.
Lived in Newport, Irvine and Pasadena.
The culture of the LA area is obsessed with money sounds more accurate to me.
FYI much preferred Pasadena to OC. Not really even close IMO.
The culture of the LA area is obsessed with money sounds more accurate to me.
FYI much preferred Pasadena to OC. Not really even close IMO.
Obsessed with money they don't really have either, or at least as not as much as they try to portray. People in the Bay Area actually have money and don't flaunt it nearly as much or as ostentatiously. You're average Bay Area resident is better financially off than your average LA Metro resident.
Sure if you consider Burbank and Glendale "urban" which I guess they kind of are but again in that weird dense suburban/urban hybrid model you see in LA. Much of it is mountainous as its part of the Santa Monica Mountains, that really ins't the same as something like Golden Gate Park, Central Park, Balboa Park, etc..
Yeah I didn't mention Los Angeles State Historic Park for good reason. It's a pretty new park bordered by ugly industrial buildings on one side.
The rest you listed, those are nice smaller neighborhood parks with the exception of Elysian Park, not really what I was talking about. The parking lot of Dodger Stadium probably comprises a third of the area of Elysian Park lol.
But does it have to be the same as those man made parks like Golden Gate? Griffith Park whether you like it or not is a large urban park. It is part of the natural wilderness of LA. But yet you still can do many activities there like any other park.
Elysian Park is another park where you can picnic, play ball, pick flowers, hike or do nothing but chill.
But does it have to be the same as those man made parks like Golden Gate? Griffith Park whether you like it or not is a large urban park. It is part of the natural wilderness of LA. But yet you still can do many activities there like any other park.
Elysian Park is another park where you can picnic, play ball, pick flowers, hike or do nothing but chill.
Well that is the type of park I was talking about so yeah. Call it whatever you want, it's mostly mountainous, surrounded on two sides by freeways and an ugly concrete "river" with an old landfill in the middle. I suppose that is the closest thing LA has to Golden Gate Park, Central Park, Balboa Park, etc.. but not the same or that comparable imo.
Well that is the type of park I was talking about so yeah. Call it whatever you want, it's mostly mountainous, surrounded on two sides by freeways and an ugly concrete "river" with an old landfill in the middle. I suppose that is the closest thing LA has to Golden Gate Park, Central Park, Balboa Park, etc.. but not the same or that comparable imo.
Landfill? Concrete river? When I visit my parks I see trees, grass, picnic areas, hiking trails, great views. LA doesn't need to copy those parks. Why?
Landfill? Concrete river? When I visit my parks I see trees, grass, picnic areas, hiking trails, great views. LA doesn't need to copy those parks. Why?
I never claimed or suggested LA "needed" to copy those parks, just saying it doesn't really have anything like it.
Would pick LA in a heartbeat. SF is geographically beautiful, but it's the most intolerant area in this nation. It's liberal here in MA, but there isn't the vicious reaction to any idea not their own like there is in SF. We're a lot more live-and-let live. I've seen it firsthand in the Bay Area. It's unreal. Plus it's, by far, the most expensive area in the nation. Why anyone would live in the Bay Area by choice is beyond my comprehension.
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.
Obsessed with money they don't really have either, or at least as not as much as they try to portray. People in the Bay Area actually have money and don't flaunt it nearly as much or as ostentatiously. You're average Bay Area resident is better financially off than your average LA Metro resident.
