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 didn’t realize LA’s subway was so expansive (and nice/used?) now. That certainly makes an impact, and you make a strong case for LA. I certainly do not think of SD as a boring town.. honestly, o think it’s quite diverse, urbane, and cultured compared to many places in the US. However, I can see where LA might be on a different scale.
On a different note: how is San Diego for rail transit? Bike infrastructure?
Based upon a previous thread in which San Diego is compared with Fort Lauderdale, a question of which of these is better for a visitor overall, because while San Diego isn't in the same league of cities as LA, I get the sense that many may actually find it more appealing, perhaps at least for a short term visit/long weekend.
San Diego definitely. It's more pleasant, more welcoming to visitors, cleaner, attractions are far more compact, much less of a hassle to drive around.
A friend of mine dubs San Diego "Des Moines" by the sea!
Sounds like your friend hasn't been to San Diego since the 1970s
Quote:
I prefer interesting cities to pretty cities like San Diego and San Francisco, so that puts me in L.A. with my $7 Tap card where you don't need a car to get around anymore.
Curious as to what makes LA more interesting than SF.
LA is a nightmare to get around by transit or by car. All trips take ridiculously long amounts of time and they are unpleasant experiences. It's definitely the most stressful place to travel around.
On a different note: how is San Diego for rail transit? Bike infrastructure?
San Diego inter-city and commuter rail is decent. You get access to downtown and North County beach communities (blocks from the beach).
The trolley is not geared towards tourist destinations, but is useful for downtown travel, special event venues, universities*, and going to Tijuana. Basically every major tourist destination is a single-seat ride (bus or trolley) from downtown or Old Town. San Diego's attractions are generally not as spread out as LA.
San Diego's urban bicycle infrastructure is very lacking. There are a lot of good trails though---coastal, mountain, canyon, etc.
LA is the least interesting big city (talking urban environment here) in the U.S. San Diego *knows* it's not interesting but at least it has the weather and better scenery.
SD is family-friendly, safe and easier to get around and it constantly ranks as one of the top most liked cities to visit. It’s a pleasant, pretty city. That being said, I’m not into family-friendly stuff. I’m into culture. With the exception of NYC, no city in the US compares to the cultural wealth that exists in LA. SD is better for a weekend because you can do everything in that weekend. A weekend in LA, and you’ve barely scratched the surface.
Sounds like your friend hasn't been to San Diego since the 1970s
Curious as to what makes LA more interesting than SF.
LA is a nightmare to get around by transit or by car. All trips take ridiculously long amounts of time and they are unpleasant experiences. It's definitely the most stressful place to travel around.
SF, like SD, can be done in a week. The museums in SF are somewhat better than in SD, but not by much. The museums in LA, on the other hand, are world-class, numerous and incomparable in this state. Then you have natural history museums and science museums and every other museum you can think of that you can’t find in SF, endless number of sports arenas/teams/music venues. More diversity of everything in LA.
Sounds like your friend hasn't been to San Diego since the 1970s
Curious as to what makes LA more interesting than SF.
LA is a nightmare to get around by transit or by car. All trips take ridiculously long amounts of time and they are unpleasant experiences. It's definitely the most stressful place to travel around.
When I go to L.A., my interests are museums, particularly LACMA on Wilshire, which will be accessible soon by subway, and the museums in DTLA, all the other distant attractions are not attractive to me, so need for a car. And I can spend hours in the Last Bookstore in DTLA. And I generally stay at the Red Pagoda Inn in Chinatown.
Santa Monica! Oh please! Doesn't appeal to me at all!
Of the 22 years I spent in Las Vegas, I flew to San Diego 82 times and every time the thought entered my head as to staying in San Diego some night, but it never happened. B-o-r-I-n-g! And, I always ended up at the Villa Zargosa motel in Tijuana. And if you still wish to see Tijuana Au Naturel, you better hurry as there's 2 high rise condo buildings going up on Revolution, which is going to upscale Revolution. I knew that was coming!
Location: Midwesterner living in California (previously East Coast)
296 posts, read 438,060 times
Reputation: 598
Quote:
Originally Posted by cavsfan137
Based upon a previous thread in which San Diego is compared with Fort Lauderdale, a question of which of these is better for a visitor overall, because while San Diego isn't in the same league of cities as LA, I get the sense that many may actually find it more appealing, perhaps at least for a short term visit/long weekend.
1. LA is just bigger, so has more variety
2. LA. see explanation in #1
3. LA. see explanation in #1.
4. SD is a super safe big city
5. SD is less congested
6. LA. Closer to Santa Barbara, and SoCal Mountain towns (Big Bear, Wrightwood, etc). Both SD and LA are equidistant to the desert.
7. Balboa Park (SD) is way better than Griffith Park (LA). However, both SD and LA are very scenic. Slight advantage to LA with the massive (often snow-capped) San Gabriel Mountains serving as a backdrop to the city skyline
8. LA and it's not even close.
9. SD to visit as a tourist. LA to live.
From a tourist's perspective, SD is the better option to visit over a long weekend, because it's easier to do.
The city is geographically smaller and has significantly less people as well. As a tourist, you just want to get in, hit the hot spots quickly/efficiently, and then get out. I love how conveniently located the airport is in SD (relative to the core of the city).
From a residential living perspective, I would say this:
You can live a San Diego lifestyle in LA, but you can't live an LA lifestyle in San Diego.
LA has so many places that "feel" like SD. Manhattan Beach, Hermosa, Redondo, Palos Verdes, etc.
SD does not have many places that feel like LA hotspots such as WeHo, Ktown, Beverly Hills. Even the San Gabriel Valley doesn't have an equivalent in SD.
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.
