Why woud someone choose SF over LA?

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

I didn't bring up the nightlife or EDM scene again, you did. But I do still find the EDM scene lacking there. No, it's not a way to measure a city's livability for everyone, but as this is an opinion, I stated mine. My opinion is that SF is not the greatest city in the world and the smaller EDM scene and subpar nightlife is one reasoning. How many times can you possibly bring up that I dislike urban living? It's a complete lie and I've told you time after time after time. Disliking the dirtiness, the homelessness, and the drug culture of parts of SF has nothing to do with disliking urban living. A reason I've moved out of LA is because of the lack of urbanity there. I want to live in an urban, walkable city such as Madrid, London, Rome, Budapest, London, NYC, Chicago, Buenos Aires, Tel Aviv, etc. I've simply never seen the level of filth in those cities as I experienced in SF. I don't like driving everywhere or needing taxis to get everywhere. I want a metro and walkability. You really are just a troll as you can't understand these two simple things I've been telling you for quite some time now.

1. I use the EDM/nightlife scene as a measurement of MY satisfaction of SF. I dislike it, and since it's my opinion, you may gladly disagree. It was a reason in a thread about why SF is disliked.
2. I use the girls in all the same green jackets for a similar reason. I think the jackets are not stylish at all, yet again showing my opinion as to why I dislike SF. Nearly every girl I know owns that same exact jacket. It's unattractive and contradictory to San Franciscans' beliefs that they are all "unique" since so many of them have it.
3. Just because I don't like my cities covered in human excretement, used needles, and general other filth doesn't mean I dislike urban living. In fact, I strongly dislike suburban living and would do anything in my power to live in Madrid, London, or Chicago, all of which are insanely more urban than SF, much cleaner, have better nightlife, better style, friendlier people, and much better subway systems.

I like Chicago too, and agree that it's cleaner in most parts. To me, it doesn't quite have the character and sense of place that San Francisco has. And in a lot of ways, it reminds me a lot of LA, but with a much larger skyline and more dense urban core. I could live there happily, but would miss SF dramatically--same as I feel about moving to LA.

As for your coming to SF in search of the urban living you were missing, where you walk everywhere and don't have to take cabs--you failed by choosing The Richmond. That's like picking Evanston, when you want River North.

BTW-- you brought up the EDM subject when you referenced that old post for, as you suggested, the purpose of showing the other opinions within it. Also, I believe it's against forum rules to call me a troll. Referring to a troll post is another matter, but name-calling is beneath us both, don't you think?

[dalparadise]

Originally Posted by L.A.-Mex

downtown Chicago is more urban than SF downtown. SF city is more urban than chicago, and bay area is more urban than chicagoland.

Agreed. If all anybody wants is "the most urban" place, it isn't in either of the two cities, nor is it in most of the ones listed by the Louisville poster, save NYC, I suppose. So, why not just go there?

LA and SF both have a Californian identity that put them in a league of their own. There are the obvious outdoors, foodie, political, and other lifestyle/cultural aspects that distinguish them both. Then, there are the urban elements that blend seamlessly into these California settings. To me, SF wins that game by a good margin over LA, which is a bit more suburban in its build. That's SF's edge.

For my money--and lots of it--SF edges out even NYC as a place for living, despite not approaching its level of urban environment. LA similarly edges out Chicago. All four are well above the rest of the country for me as places to live, work, wear green jackets, and dance to EDM.

[L.A.-Mex]

Originally Posted by dalparadise

Agreed. If all anybody wants is "the most urban" place, it isn't in either of the two cities, nor is it in most of the ones listed by the Louisville poster, save NYC, I suppose. So, why not just go there?

LA and SF both have a Californian identity that put them in a league of their own. There are the obvious outdoors, foodie, political, and other lifestyle/cultural aspects that distinguish them both. Then, there are the urban elements that blend seamlessly into these California settings. To me, SF wins that game by a good margin over LA, which is a bit more suburban in its build. That's SF's edge.

For my money--and lots of it--SF edges out even NYC as a place for living, despite not approaching its level of urban environment. LA similarly edges out Chicago. All four are well above the rest of the country for me as places to live, work, wear green jackets, and dance to EDM.

its a tough race, but i think LA inches up SF in urbanity. given LA Metro's sheer size vs the Bay area, then LA Metro being the most dense urban area in all of North America (excluding mexican cities). also the suburbs in LA seem to be more built up with pockets of highrises all over the Metro area, and high density neighborhoods. its close though

[04kL4nD]

Chicago's weather is TERRIBLE. That alone crosses it off any potential list of places to live.

[jade408]

Originally Posted by jessemh431

Actually, having all white friends here has been a culture shock for me. I don't plan on staying here long-term, I'm just saying it does have its positives. Like I said, I'm hopefully moving to Chicago if I stay in the U.S. That is definitely not homogeneous and I love it for that.

If you are looking for diverse circles of friends, Chicago is not the place for that. It is super segregated there.