Would LA be a better fit than the Bay Area? (Los Angeles: crime, how much)

[rjca]

I live out here, so I can only go by that. This is most definitely a car culture, there is no public transportation of value worth speaking of. If you want to go somewhere you drive. Seems like you really got offended at a benign post of mine. I am expressing my opinion as someone who has lived in LA area for over 20 years.

"I think you're right that there is a lot going on all over LA. There's not one "city" in the same way, but rather a series of independent cities (and some suburbs) like Long Beach, Santa Monica, Pasadena, etc, each with their own art scene, museums, etc."

Very true. And to get to one from the other requires hours in a car. Unless you can give me another way to get to Santa Monica from Long Beach, which has got to be at least an hour and a half drive.

[Faville]

There are plenty of artists and musicians in the Bay Area, but you're not likely to find them in the 'burbs. San Francisco, Berkeley, and Oakland are where you should be. If you can't move, then maybe you'd have better luck in LA, I don't know...

[rjca]

Bottom line is it's expensive to live in a "City" that everyone else likes too. If you can't afford that, you live in a burb. The advantage the Bay Area has is public transportation to get you from your burb to the City where stuff happens. If you want to live in any of the desirable parts of Los Angeles where things are "happening", it's going to be the same thing: either come up with a lot of $$$ (Santa Monica ain't cheap) or live in the more "indie" places that are made up of young people who have no money but a lot of heart. Out here it's SilverLake, Echo park, lots of art but dirty as hell and scary as hell, up north it's the Mission and Tenderloin, same thing. Not to diss either, because every place has its bright spots. But the reality is starving artists gravitate to other starving artists, and established artists gravitate to the more $$ places where their contemporaries live. The people in between do a lot of traveling.

Basically, if you can't afford to live in SF proper, don't expect LA to be that much different. You'll still be far away from where you want to be. Advantage: Bay Area--public transportation---UNLESS you are fine with spending many hours in congested freeway traffic. If that does not bother you, you could be made for LA.

[uptown_urbanist]

I won't go into the "car culture" thing, but I've lived in both, too, and can say that the "there's no public transportation of value" thing is completely wrong. Maybe true in some areas, but very much not true in others. Take it from someone who has lived in both cities without driving. (and LA's rail options continually expanding) That doesn't matter, though, if the OP doesn't intend on depending on public transportation (or regularly commuting between distant locations); it would, however, be misleading to suggest that they would have to give up any hope of a walkable, urban neighborhood (if that's what they want) if they choose to live in LA. And yes, I do get offended when I see people constantly belittle the public transportation options that do exist in LA or not acknowledge that they exist. Or make the assumption that people are constantly driving from one end of the metro area to the other. Most people don't do that in SF (or maybe it's just the people I know who don't?); why assume they'll do it in LA? The point is that with all those independent cities in the LA area you don't have to feel like you always have to travel into the city in the same way as it sounds like is the case where they are in the Bay Area. The options are still there when they want them (and many areas are indeed relatively easily connected by rail or by bus). I think it would be easier to just move into the city of SF rather than deal with a job search and move to LA, though, if they can afford to do it.

[matt345]

To the OP: I can completely understand where you're coming from. For as great and exciting as San Francisco is, the areas outside of the City are just as bland and boring. Oakland, Berkeley, and Sausalito are the only real exceptions IMO. Other than that, what do you have? Walnut Creek? Pleasanton? Livermore? I'm falling asleep right now just thinking about them!

You're right that in the Bay Area, most of that creative energy is concentrated in San Francisco itself, with the suburbs serving mainly as bedroom communities. I've lived in LA and down there, it's more of a collection of small cities scattered all over the place.

That has its advantages and disadvantages of course. It makes for a much more dynamic and varied creative scene; Venice Beach, Silverlake, West Hollywood, and Culver City are totally different places, look nothing alike, are nowhere near each other, yet all fall under the LA umbrella. However, since everything is so scattered all over the place, no part of LA has that same "big city, center-of-it-all" feel that you get in San Francisco. It's a trade-off and really depends on what you prefer.

[majoun]

Originally Posted by rjca

Bottom line is it's expensive to live in a "City" that everyone else likes too. If you can't afford that, you live in a burb. The advantage the Bay Area has is public transportation to get you from your burb to the City where stuff happens. If you want to live in any of the desirable parts of Los Angeles where things are "happening", it's going to be the same thing: either come up with a lot of $$$ (Santa Monica ain't cheap) or live in the more "indie" places that are made up of young people who have no money but a lot of heart. Out here it's SilverLake, Echo park, lots of art but dirty as hell and scary as hell, up north it's the Mission and Tenderloin, same thing. Not to diss either, because every place has its bright spots. But the reality is starving artists gravitate to other starving artists, and established artists gravitate to the more $$ places where their contemporaries live. The people in between do a lot of traveling.

Basically, if you can't afford to live in SF proper, don't expect LA to be that much different. You'll still be far away from where you want to be. Advantage: Bay Area--public transportation---UNLESS you are fine with spending many hours in congested freeway traffic. If that does not bother you, you could be made for LA.

Silver Lake isn't exactly "scary as hell"....it's equivalent to the Haight.

Echo Park and East Hollywood could be compared to the Mission but I don't find them "scary as hell" either. Definitely less scary than the Tenderloin....

[BayDude]

Walnut Creek? Pleasanton? Livermore? I'm falling asleep right now just thinking about them!

Pleasanton actually has a wonderful downtown with lots of great restaurants and shopping. Its very "pleasant". Not sure about the other cities you mentioned.

[Joe_Ryder]

What you'll find in any city in America is that real estate prices are directly proportional to the quality of the schools.

[rjca]

Uptown Urbanist, I can't speak for the people who "constantly" rail against LA public transportation. I rarely post here, I am expressing my OWN, unique opinion about traffic in Los Angeles, so don't lump me in with other people as if my posts are supposed to magically gel with what you think is an appropriate comment on Los Angeles, ok? If you keep hearing the same thing over and over, maybe there's some truth to it?

What I know is that I DO live in the Los Angeles area, and you "have lived". I'm going to go out on a limb and say me living in the area for 20 years has a bit of validity to it. That's 20 years of real world, every day getting around, having to be places across vast distances by certain times, etc. etc. Thanks for reading.

[cabombina]

Thanks for all the great replies and insight. I almost can't believe that I'm questioning this??? Maybe I'm being a bit Hard on the Bay Area?

I've been here on the Peninsula for 6 months and I've yet to take public transportation because it's such an easy drive into the city. Dare I say too easy? Now parking in the city is another matter!

The east bay (Oakland and Berkeley) are not going to work due to the fact that my spouse works on the Peninsula. Yeah, the schools are great here but I think it's the Peninsula that I'm having a problem with. It's really nice, safe, attractive, and all but there isn't a creative class to speak of (unless it's in the IT field). The further south toward San Jose I go, the more creeped out I get. It just feels wrong. Maybe I should move into the city. Although it might be out of my price range.

I've spent a great deal of time in the city dragging my family there 3-4 times a week to comb every inch that we can (well, almost every inch) and I have to say I love it! I also love the wine country, proximity to Santa Cruz, the beautiful coast, etc... But the city feels more like a vacation than anything.

I guess I moved all the way out here to be an artist so I want to make sure that I'm in the right place before I get in too deep. For some reason it seems like LA is the place where people go. Oh I suppose I should mention that the weather is also important as I moved out here from the midwest and I really don't want to be cold if I don't have to.