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.
Natural scenic perspective, LA. Its cliffs and mountains from the sea to the desert are far more vast and monumental with steep canyons and ridges extending literally right into downtown and the ocean. San Diego has all of that, it’s just less monumental and within a much smaller region, San Diego County does have better rural farmlands, hills and deserts than LA though
The fact that the region generally gets about 50% more rainfall than San Diego also helps the greening of said mountains.
Pound for pound San Diego. The coastline overall is more scenic, a lot of LA/OC beaches are wide, flat and pretty meh. The mountains are more dramatic and beautiful in LA but where most people actually live is flat, sprawly, and not very scenic at all. So many residential areas in San Diego sit atop mesa's separated by undeveloped canyons. It way easier and more affordable to get a home overlooking a canyon in SD than LA. There is just way more green space (parks and undeveloped canyons) dispersed throughout San Diego than LA on a per capita basis. Your average neighborhood in SD is going to be nicer looking/more scenic than your average LA neighborhood imo. SD was partly designed with the City Beautiful Movement in mind, I don't think LA was at all.
No offense to San Diego, but Greater LA has everything Greater San Diego has, and more.
Greater LA has both the Mojave and the Sonoran Deserts. Greater LA has ten thousand foot plus mountains and ski resorts, although said ski resorts are puny and the snow quality is usually questionable.
Orange County receives a couple inches more rain than San Diego County. I find Orange County to be slightly more green than SD county, and Saddleback Mountain is just much closer to suburban OC than Mt Cuyamaca or Mt Palomar is to the SD suburbs. It's absolutely dramatic at how suddenly you exit suburban OC into uninhabited, pristine Santa Ana Mtn wilderness, how much Saddleback Mtn dominates the South OC landscape, and how nicely planned and terraformed the South OC suburbs are laid out on the San Joaquin Hills that plunge right into the Pacific.
The beach in Dana Point is easily the most scenic on the West Coast and outstrips even La Jolla.
Hard to pick between them, I think California is by far the best state for natural scenery.
Also depends where you are within each area. Torrance is not Malibu, San Ysidro is not La Jolla.
I think California may have some of the most variety for natural scenery because it is such a vast state, but I'd say that the DC Area's lush vegetation appeals to me more than SoCal natural scenery, not that SoCal is bad. New Orleans during the summer is amazing for its natural scenery, too. If you're talking about the sheer size.and impressive urban spread of LA or the architectural landmarks, then there is a case for LA. But I think by scenery we mean natural scenery.
Pound for pound San Diego. The coastline overall is more scenic, a lot of LA/OC beaches are wide, flat and pretty meh. The mountains are more dramatic and beautiful in LA but where most people actually live is flat, sprawly, and not very scenic at all. So many residential areas in San Diego sit atop mesa's separated by undeveloped canyons. It way easier and more affordable to get a home overlooking a canyon in SD than LA. There is just way more green space (parks and undeveloped canyons) dispersed throughout San Diego than LA on a per capita basis. Your average neighborhood in SD is going to be nicer looking/more scenic than your average LA neighborhood imo. SD was partly designed with the City Beautiful Movement in mind, I don't think LA was at all.
True, LA basin is a big part of LA and while it enjoys the scenery of the not so distant mountains (if not obscured by smog) being actually down in it is far less inspiring. There really is no San Diego basin, the topography here is more or less constantly varying. I live on the edge of a wild canyon/ parkland with peek views of the ocean and mountains and am easy walking distance to downtown - and I’m not wealthy. That’s much harder to achieve in LA.
Pound for pound San Diego. The coastline overall is more scenic, a lot of LA/OC beaches are wide, flat and pretty meh. The mountains are more dramatic and beautiful in LA but where most people actually live is flat, sprawly, and not very scenic at all. So many residential areas in San Diego sit atop mesa's separated by undeveloped canyons. It way easier and more affordable to get a home overlooking a canyon in SD than LA. There is just way more green space (parks and undeveloped canyons) dispersed throughout San Diego than LA on a per capita basis. Your average neighborhood in SD is going to be nicer looking/more scenic than your average LA neighborhood imo. SD was partly designed with the City Beautiful Movement in mind, I don't think LA was at all.
Spot on. I think LA gets the automatic victory because of its mountains. I get it, we bought our place in them 2 hours from our house in San Diego vs 1 hour away for our local mountains (that get snow too, just not covered all winter) for that reason, but why is everyone overlooking that most of Los Angeles and north OC is a huge relatively flat basin. It’s not even a comparison between the two when it comes to topography within the city and most it’s neighborhoods/suburbs.
Los Angeles doesn’t have anything to compare to San Diego Bay either. You could probably split hairs on this one if you want, and LA does have a lot of nice beaches, but it’s pretty much accepted that San Diego wins in this department.
Something else another poster touched on was the farmland in San Diego County. Just outside the last developed areas, both north and east of the city, you’ll find everything from horse properties on a few acres, to good sized avocado farms. All found on undeveloped hillsides and valleys San Diego County is top ten in the nation for privately owned farms, and top twenty for economic output in agriculture.
LA has an advantage of the Channel Islands, both from looking at from shore and a recreational standpoint. But San Diego does have the Coronados in Mexico that are visible from shore, and actually are much closer for sailing around. You just can’t go on them. And in all honesty it probably wouldn’t take someone much longer to get to Dana Point from San Diego as it would for someone in the valley to get to Long Beach if they wanted to go to Avalon for the weekend. But I’ll still give this one to LA.
And while the air quality has gotten a lot better since I was a kid, you do have to consider this when factoring in overall beauty.
Even though there are only 120~ miles separating these two SoCal heavyweights, both cities/metros have tons of natural scenery unique to themselves.
From a purely scenic perspective, which of these cities would you consider to have more natural beauty?
They are very comparable. LA can offer all scenery that SD has, but not the other way around.
That being said, I prefer San Diego's scenery because it is dispersed throughout the region whereas LA has huge swaths of flat valleys/basins that have little scenery due to intense urbanization. I appreciate SD's nature being more accessible (canyons, ridges, mountains, foothills, valleys, etc.)
I wouldn't call LA more "naturally beautiful" simply because much of the region is paved over with development. It's not natural and it's not beautiful.
I would say that Los Angeles has some impressive features at a macro level, but the odds are that a randomly chosen neighborhood in San Diego will have more attractive scenery and better access to some semblance of nature. I was raised in an area between both cities and never cared for the "concrete jungle" environment of much of central and southeast Los Angeles County, and northern Orange County in particular. San Diego County's topography is pretty rugged all over which has prevented quite as much continuous high density development, even if it's thickly populated by the standards of much of the US.
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.
