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.
San Diego is a much more urban place in terms of the built environment, etc. it has a metro system, which I'm not sure about in San Antonio or not. To put in real terms, San Antonio has around 6,000 people living in neighborhoods where WalkScore exceeds 80 (admittedly, I remember the riverwalk being really nice and walkable, at least, so this might be a little unfair). But, by comparison, San Diego has roughly 140,000 living in similar neighborhoods... so do with that what you will in terms of interesting/walkable historic areas. for that, so in that sense, San Antonio may be more livable and you may get better comparative value there
Another way to think of it is that San Diego has over 300k people living in neighborhoods with over 9000/ppsm and San Antonio has none. My historic neighborhood adjacent downtown yet primarily is composed of SFH is over 13k/ppsm. So though the city sizes are labeled similar in size, SD is much more urban. I believe though that San Antonio has amongst the best and most extensive historic neighborhoods in the state which makes it in my eyes a gem of a city there.
Another way to think of it is that San Diego has over 300k people living in neighborhoods with over 9000/ppsm and San Antonio has none. My historic neighborhood adjacent downtown yet primarily is composed of SFH is over 13k/ppsm. So though the city sizes are labeled similar in size, SD is much more urban. I believe though that San Antonio has amongst the best and most extensive historic neighborhoods in the state which makes it in my eyes a gem of a city there.
I'd agree with all of that. San Antonio I think is almost certainly the most visitor friendly city break in Texas, the Riverwalk really is a gem and a lot to see history and otherwise surrounding there. On some levels, on the historic offerings scale, San Antonio might have San Diego beat, though of course, the story changes once you leave the immediate core.
San Diego has more visual appeal and nicer weather. Economically, both actually are very similar in that each is major host of U.S. military installations and tourism is a material part of their revenue generation.
Second, as you can see regularly, California suffers from major drought, leading to wild fires. This has become much more prevalent the last 30 years for whatever reasons. San Antonio/Central Texas too has had drought but the scale/frequency is much less frequent.
Third, as someone said, San Antonio's central time zone location is a benefit for travel around the country. Moreover you are 3 hours from Houston, 80 miles from Austin, a little over 4 hours drive to Dallas/Fort Worth. If you live north of San Antonio, you can fly out of SA or drive an hour north and fly out of Austin. By plane, you are two hours to Phoenix and Denver, and 3 hours to California, Atlanta, Florida and much of the Midwest.
The downside, San Antonio is not high culture if that is what you enjoy. Its poorer, less educated, and likely has higher crime though not a city I consider highly dangerous given my experience there and people I know who have lived there for 15 years or more.
Fourth, COL can't be underestimated even when one has money. This AND the central location have been big reasons, there's been an exodus of companies/jobs from California specifically TO Texas.
San Diego has amazing visual appeal, gorgeous coastline, microclimates, gorgeous desert scapes nearby, and is a quick trip from neat resort towns in Baja. It also has some of the most unpleasant people I've dealt with anywhere in North America (seriously!), and I much prefer most of the rest of California; for example, nearby L.A. has 10x the things to do and actually nicer people.
San Antonio has rich history, a gorgeous river walk, and the beautiful Hill Country nearby. The people who live there also seem depressed, insular, and frankly miserable, if the typical customer service experiences I've had there are any indication. The city is honestly quite dull once you leave the immediate, tourist-friendly downtown area. I know Texans love their state to the Nth degree (I should know, I live near Houston), but just...no. No.
Therefore, between the OP's options, my choice is neither.
Why not consider Salt Lake City, Utah? Sure, the Mormon church has had a real influence in its development, but modern SLC is an amazing mix of people, ranging from hardcore Mormons to devout political progressives and every opinion in between. The foothills of the Wasatch Range are in the city limits, and world-class skiing in Park City is only a 30-minute drive away. Sunsets along Great Salt Lake are stunning. Wyoming is only an hour away, and feels in some ways like the last real frontier in the lower 48 states. SLC's airport can get you directly to California, Mexico, and western Europe. The people are nicer and more polite in Utah than in either Texas or California (as much as I love California for the most part), not to mention generally better-educated (California has a lot of idiots living amongst a lot of intelligent people). The cost of living isn't much higher there these days than in San Antonio, and is still much lower than in San Diego.
Or, if you actually want do be within a close drive from the border, why not consider Tucson, Arizona? Pleasant, safe and at a high elevation, with amazing desert scapes and great hiking in the metropolitan area. Educated local population (much better so than nearby Phoenix).
Both SLC and Tucson are safer than either SD or SA.
Last edited by AmericaBravoCharles; 10-17-2019 at 07:30 PM..
I like San Antonio a lot. I have never been to San Diego but have heard nothing but great things about it.
With that said, I couldn't vote for either since I haven't been to San Diego. My advice to you is, yes you should definitely take into consideration what advice others are giving you. However, DO NOT let a forum on the internet make his decision for you.
If possible, I would advise you to take 4-5 days in each city and act like you are living in them. Do not go to touristy places or explore the areas that typically attract visitors. Stay in a hotel, or hotels, in the neighborhood(s) that you are interested in and do things you would normally do in a city that you would live in. Drive during rush hour, morning and evening, to the areas you would most likely commute to and from. Eat at local restaurants and shop at local grocery stores. Watch the news every night and get a feel for the average headlines in the city. Visit parks and other activities that usually only locals would normally go visit. Speak with a police officer, realtor, or somebody else with knowledge of various neighborhoods and geographic areas of the city. Check typical airfares from each city to destinations you would most likely go to. Get a feel for each metro area.
I think you get the point. The decision is yours and yours only. The last thing you want to do is move to one city and wish you moved to the other, or even worse, regret considering either of them. Personally, I don't think you can go wrong either way. Good luck!
When considering San Diego, consider the fact that any remotely affordable real estate in a decent neighborhood will be further inland, where it gets significantly hotter than Downtown San Diego, La Jolla, i.e. the touristy part of San Diego. Maybe not as hot as San Antonio, but hotter than you'd think.
Sadly, I have never been to San Antonio. But as a resident of San Diego, I can tell you that there may be hills, but they're only green in the winter and early spring. The rest of the year they're covered in brown grass with some patchy groves of oak trees. The summers are completely rainless and boring, if interesting weather and greenery matter to you. Most creeks here in SoCal dry up completely during the summer.
One positive for San Diego is that it has much better traffic than L.A. and probably even Austin because San Diego isn't growing anywhere as fast as Austin and is nowhere as large as L.A.
SD hands down if money isn’t an issue. SD has hills, ocean, diverse food, big airport. SA has broken streets, ugly topography, and Only Mexican food after Mexican food. Hill country is nice tho topography wise, but still boring.
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.
