Since SF is Manhattan of the West (Los Angeles, San Diego: rent, transfer) - San Francisco - Oakland - California (CA) - City-Data Forum

Kansoku · 08-31-2009, 02:16 PM

You don't need car and can just walk or ride a bike to your grocery store and library? No need for bus most of the time?

Is this the case in SD or LA as well? I don't like traveling too long for my groceries.

wgzinthecity · 08-31-2009, 05:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kansoku

You don't need car and can just walk or ride a bike to your grocery store and library? No need for bus most of the time?

Is this the case in SD or LA as well? I don't like traveling too long for my groceries.

It depends. I wouldn't say that SF is like Manhattan at all - it's more low key. LOL!

I live in LA and I think that SF is more accessible with their public transportation & the city is compact that you can walk & ride your bike throughout the city with access to whatever you need. The BART is pricey, but the buses & MUNI trains are cheap - $2; you can use the tickets as transfers up to a certain time.

LA is bigger & more spread out, so having a car makes it easier to get around. There is access to metro lines & buses, but the metro rail only stops at certain areas. I'm hoping that LA can provide PT like SF in the future. We have a lot of commuters that travel up to 4 hours to work each day.

There are many neighborhoods that you can walk to your local coffee shop, grocery store, library, etc, - it just depends on what your prefer in a neighborhood. Downtown LA is building up a lot with restaurants, bars & clubs and I've seen plenty of people walking around late at night. When I first moved to LA, downtown was literally a ghost town at night.

San Diego's PT I'm not sure about. It is spread out as well & most residents depend on their car too, but it is walkable depending on the area you want to live.

If you don't own a car or want to drive a lot, the Bay Area is the place to be.

matt345 · 08-31-2009, 07:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wgzinthecity

If you don't own a car or want to drive a lot, the Bay Area is the place to be.

Agreed. The Bay Area (really just the city of San Francisco) is the only place west of Chicago that I would even consider living in without a car.

uptown_urbanist · 08-31-2009, 11:41 PM

Depends where you live. I lived in LA for three years (in two different locations) without driving. It depends on where you live and where you work. Parts of LA are better served by public transportation than are parts of SF. I usually walked to get my groceries, but sometimes got lazy and hopped on a bus to get back. In both places I lived within easy walking distance of stores, library, restaurants, doctors, and everything else I needed for daily life.

Most parts of the city of SF are very easy to live in without a car (although some areas are less walkable than some parts of LA), but that's not necessarily true of the entire Bay Area.

I can't speak for San Diego , although I have friends who live there and who do very little driving. I think if you live in the right place you'd be able to live a carfree life pretty easily.

In all cases, whether SF, LA, or SD, the trick will be picking the right neighborhood. You can find nice, walkable neighborhoods in all three cities.

Chava61 · 09-01-2009, 05:49 AM

You can live in SF without a car assuming that you live & work in the city. The difference between SF & NYC are the hills. If you live outside of SF (meaning in the Bay Area) you might need a car.
In L.A. it is possible to live without a car if you live near a major street served public transportation and there is a supermarket/pharmacy, etc. within walking distance. But in general to get around L.A. without a car can be problematic.

grapico · 09-01-2009, 11:45 AM

Having lived in paris, chicago... I don't think SF has the same pt options you might be used to if you are coming from that perspective. I would use a mix preferably... have a car for the area, but u can use public transportation easily for a lot of things as well. It is still good to have one, unlike NYC it is a hassle and expense to have it. If you are limiting yourself to JUST sf...yeah you can get around, but I wouldn't... The Bay area has a lot of stuff to explore in comparison to other metros where u probably want a car, and I think that is why a lot of people choose the area (certainly not just for SF)
My overall advice, get a cheap car, use public trans when u can. If you are couple I think you can easily get by with just having one car, and not two like many other places.
If you are in SF I don't think u will have to go very far to anything though, walkable in almost any time of year.
Don't go there expecting it is Manhattan though, definitely urban and a city, but, not Manhattan.

sonarrat · 09-01-2009, 12:29 PM

Seattle is the Manhattan of the West. San Francisco is a beast all its own.

Danoliafoya · 09-01-2009, 03:10 PM

Quote:

Seattle is the Manhattan of the West.

First time I've ever heard that said. And I disagree.

San Francisco is a mini-Manhattan on the West Coast. I wouldn't call it a "beast" in any regards save natural scenery, aesthetics, and computer technology (in some of its peripheral communities).

Los Angeles is a big, powerful city, heavily populated, and teeming with the dynamics and opportunities to "make it big" of a Manhattan, though spread across a vast basin -- the antithesis of compact.

Seattle is a sparkling gem of its own, even on its rainy days, nearly every day.

L.A. is a global alpha city, like Manhattan. SF is not far off being one. Seattle is the next tier down altogether.

matt345 · 09-01-2009, 09:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by grapico

My overall advice, get a cheap car, use public trans when u can. If you are couple I think you can easily get by with just having one car, and not two like many other places.
If you are in SF I don't think u will have to go very far to anything though, walkable in almost any time of year.
Don't go there expecting it is Manhattan though, definitely urban and a city, but, not Manhattan.

I'm moving to San Francisco in a few months and I plan on keeping my car. However, my biggest concern is parking. I most likely won't be able to afford a place that comes with a dedicated parking spot (at least in the city) so how is street parking in SF? I've heard some say that it's not so bad, while others say it's impossible. I'm purposely looking at the Sunset and Richmond districts because street parking seems easier in these places. But is it? What about car owners who live in more densely packed areas like Nob Hill or North Beach? Do they rent garage space?

uptown_urbanist · 09-02-2009, 10:48 AM

The Sunset and the Richmond may be "easier" for parking, but that's all relative. I can only speak for the Inner and Central Richmond, but you'll be spending a lot of time cruising for parking if you live in those areas. Not to say that there aren't spots, but let's just say that the spots in front of our place remain empty for about 10 seconds, max. You can rent garage spaces, though.

I think there are quieter areas of the Richmond and Sunset where parking is a bit easier, and yes, my Richmond-based friends who have lived elsewhere in the city do say that it's easier in the Richmond compared to many neighborhoods.