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 very provincial in its mindset. Jobs aren't as plentiful as L.A./O.C., and pay less, while still keeping the same COL. Also L.A. has much better TV than S.D.! Airport sucks--makes dysfunctional LAX modern.
O.C is the perfect middle between the two. All the advantages with L.A. and S.D. (like beautiful beaches, plentiful jobs, and better TV) without the disadvantages.
Nothing can compare in America to the Westside of L.A. Very aesthetically pleasing and good climate!
You'll get used to it. The usual transition time is quoted as 3 years.
Oh it has its disadvantages. Cost of living sucks royally. Los Angeles at least technically had cheaper parts (cruddier, but still). The suburban sea got old real fast. Victorian neighborhoods in Los Angeles are pretty endearing.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,594,858 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by littletraveller
SD is by all accounts the better place to live. The beaches are nicer, better Mexican food, housing on average is still cheaper, crime is lower and compared to LA they don't even have traffic.
Unless you are an actor, why LA?
I would choose LA because it has more job opportunities in my field, though I really like San Diego
I'd trade that four and a half minutes for 100X opportunities. Just me though.
Does anyone else find it odd that "could never live there because of the traffic" is never offered up as a strike against New York City when they have 25% longer average commutes than L.A.?
Just a thought.
Idk who those people are that only have 30.8 minute commutes. Most people I knew were commuting around 1 hour or more in LA. I personally never met those people on the other end of that average.
Because in NYC our commutes may be longer, but we're sitting on public transit. Those on commuter trains can do some work, have a comfy seat, check the news, drink their coffee, take a little nap, etc. Those on subways may be a bit more crammed into a car than commuter trains, but they're still not fighting through traffic and having to find parking when they arrive at work. To everyone I know in NYC, sitting/standing on a crowded subway a little longer is the better alternative than sitting in bumper to bumper traffic in LA. And the subways don't get overly packed until you're usually at the last few stops before Manhattan, or once you're in Manhattan and people are scrambling between Fulton St, Times Square, Penn Station, PABT, Union Square, or Grand Central.
I'd rather sit on a train for 45 minutes than sit in bumper to bumper traffic for 30 minutes where my full attention is needed and then I show up to work already using my brain a lot and then when I'm checked out for the day after work I gotta stay alert another 30+ minutes in traffic to get home. When I'm done with work now, I turn on music and just go on autopilot through my station. I play games on my phone. Check the news. Check social media. No brain function required.
I'd trade that four and a half minutes for 100X opportunities. Just me though.
Does anyone else find it odd that "could never live there because of the traffic" is never offered up as a strike against New York City when they have 25% longer average commutes than L.A.?
Just a thought.
Commute time is only one facet of a city’s traffic. You could have a 5 minute commute but that doesn’t mean it’ll won’t take you forever and a day to get across town. I know you won’t try to argue that going a similar distance will take the same time in LA vs SD?
But since you’re using commute time I’ll use your data to spin it another way. The 4.5 minute difference is each way. 9 minutes a day over the course of a year will come out to 35-40 hours, depending on vacation time and federal holidays off. I guess with your data one could say the average person in LA will spend an extra entire work week commuting over someone similar in San Diego.
Well, of course it is! Metro L.A. is 6 times the size of Metro San Diego.
Again, when was the last time you were there?
I was in San Diego about a year ago. San Diego just doesn't feel like a big city. It feels like a place to go when you retire. It's nice but more of a big town atmosphere. LA might be more expensive but not by much. I'll pay a little more to live in Los Angeles.
SD is by all accounts the better place to live. The beaches are nicer, better Mexican food, housing on average is still cheaper, crime is lower and compared to LA they don't even have traffic.
Unless you are an actor, why LA?
Metro San Diego is growing much faster than LA in population. You are right, why LA? Most people have the same question as you.
Jobs, nightlife, quicker to LAX to flights to Asia, food, diversity. I don't like LA, in fact I think I like SD a lot lot more, but I'd probably live in LA long before SD if I absolutely had to be in Southern California.
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.
