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 was having this debate with someone the other day about this topic. I'm sure these two cities have been compared heavily on CD before many times. I didn't find a thread asking this question so I figured I'd start one to see the varying opinions of these two areas.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,485 posts, read 6,673,119 times
Reputation: 6805
Bay Area...more green more months of the year, more bridges and water surrounding various areas (not just ocean). Mt Tamalpais and Marin to the East Bay and South Bay were fantastic. I had the best commute ever taking the ferry from Tiburon and passing Angel Island, Alcatraz, Golden Gate Bridge, SF skyline and Bay Bridge ending at the Ferry Building on the way to and from work for my first job. Commute and views were great, too bad that first job sucked.
Bay Area...more green more months of the year, more bridges and water surrounding various areas (not just ocean). Mt Tamalpais and Marin to the East Bay and South Bay were fantastic. I had the best commute ever taking the ferry from Tiburon and passing Angel Island, Alcatraz, Golden Gate Bridge, SF skyline and Bay Bridge ending at the Ferry Building on the way to and from work for my first job. Commute and views were great, too bad that first job sucked.
I can get the more green part--after all, you do have redwoods on the Peninsula--but also keep in mind that you have Oakland/East Bay hills with oak savannas that look pretty dry and brown like SoCal hills.
And "more bridges" in SF Bay Area--agreed, and bridges ARE impressive, but I thought we were talking about natural scenery? I think bridges are built by man. As was Alcatraz, the SF Skyline, and the Ferry Building. All architecturally impressive, but all built by man. None of those add points for the Bay Area having better natural scenery. Those add points for the Bay Area having a more impressive BUILT environment, though.
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,485 posts, read 6,673,119 times
Reputation: 6805
True, though the City of SF is built on hills and Angel Island and Alcatraz are part of natural islands...not to mention more trees (which I forgot to include—and not just Muir Woods) throughout the area along with the bay that not only encompasses good portions of SF but extends up north (Marin) East (Oakland) and south (South Bay)...though beach is far less prominent in SF Pacifica, Half Moon Bay and Stinson Beach are nice...Inverness / Pt Reyes.. Mt Tamalpais, Mt Diablo, Twin Peaks....AND Napa and Sonoma (with their rolling hills and Lake Berryessa) are two of nine counties that are part of the Bay Area—I prefer that to desert...I even had deer come up to me when I went for morning runs in Marin.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MrJester
I can get the more green part--after all, you do have redwoods on the Peninsula--but also keep in mind that you have Oakland/East Bay hills with oak savannas that look pretty dry and brown like SoCal hills.
And "more bridges" in SF Bay Area--agreed, and bridges ARE impressive, but I thought we were talking about natural scenery? I think bridges are built by man. As was Alcatraz, the SF Skyline, and the Ferry Building. All architecturally impressive, but all built by man. None of those add points for the Bay Area having better natural scenery. Those add points for the Bay Area having a more impressive BUILT environment, though.
Last edited by elchevere; 06-13-2020 at 01:57 PM..
Reason: T
True, though the City of SF is built on hills and Angel Island and Alcatraz are part of natural islands...not to mention more trees (which I forgot to include—and not just Muir Woods) throughout the area along with the bay that not only encompasses good portions of SF but extends up north (Marin) East (Oakland) and south (South Bay)...though beach is far less prominent in SF, Pacifica and Stinson Beach are nice.
Sure, the hills of SF and Angel Island and Alcatraz (islands themselves) are nice and they are natural scenery, but you mentioned the bridges, the SF skyline as being impressive scenery...but they're manmade, and we're talking about natural scenery.
Here's a much better test: Time travel back to 1750, when both the Bay Area and the LA Basin were very sparsely populated and entirely rural. Which has better scenery?
Location: Miami (prev. NY, Atlanta, SF, OC and San Diego)
7,485 posts, read 6,673,119 times
Reputation: 6805
Sf
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrjester
sure, the hills of sf and angel island and alcatraz (islands themselves) are nice and they are natural scenery, but you mentioned the bridges, the sf skyline as being impressive scenery...but they're manmade, and we're talking about natural scenery.
here's a much better test: Time travel back to 1750, when both the bay area and the la basin were very sparsely populated and entirely rural. Which has better scenery?
And I certainly respect your opinion. I can see why--the redwoods, the enormous Bay right in the middle, the very hilly peninsula vs. the mostly flat LA Basin.
I'd actually say LA, because LA has striking desert landscapes, bigger Mountains with snow, and South Orange County, with sandier, finer beaches than SF CSA. And you do get plenty of dramatic hills in South Orange County. Not as steep as SF hills, but I actually think the gentler hills of South OC are easier and more pleasing to the eyes, especially against the rugged backdrop of the Santa Ana mountains.
It is all preference isnt it. I really appreciate mountain scenery, coastal and desert scenery. The bay area does have more dramatic coastal scenery, but Greater LA has better mountain and desert.
The bay area's tallest mountain is under 5000 feet. While the tallest in Greater LA is over 11,000 ft in San Bernardino, and even Orange county with the tallest at near 6000 ft. The lower elevations, the eastern bay areas are as equally as brown as LA's area but the bay's coastal areas are very lush while LA's area is still brown.
The desert areas make up most of Greater LA and mostly undeveloped. joshua tree is amazing but I get it most people dont like deserts.
Born and raised in LA but have been to SF enough times, I think this is really like comparing apples to oranges
LA has Griffith Park, SF has Golden Gate Park
LA has Griffith Park Observatory, SF has Twin Peaks
LA has SGV Mountains, SF (Marin County) has Muir Woods National Monument
LA has Venice Beach, SF has Golden Gate Bridge
LA has Hollywood Blvd, SF has Lombard Street(even though both are heavily touristy areas)
LA has Malibu/Beverly Hills/Santa Monica, SF has Presidio/Sausalito/North Beach
LA is big and humongous, SF is delicate and pristine
Last edited by SnobbishDude; 06-13-2020 at 02:14 PM..
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.
