Los Angeles vs San Francisco

[Interchange 0]

You're not the only person who's lived there, I have for the last 6 months, and I must say that I'm glad to get out, and I don't want to go back, and Sacramento isn't a great city at all, it has great suburbs, like Rocklin, Roseville, and Folsom, but the city itself is just bad, and it's getting way too sprawly, just look at Natomas. I read that thing on the new towers, and I'm surprised at how many people want those towers, SF has a unique skyline the way it is, and sticking something like that out would just ruin the whole concept and design of all those buildings that were designed to blend in but still be giant, like the Transamerica Pyramid, which you must admit was a great idea in order to accomodate the people who didn't want skyscrapers in their city.

EDIT: my 200th post, sorta

[skyliner22 16]

Oi your like those NIMBYs preventing SF from getting a more dramitc skyline, i say build those towers! Sactown is ok, i like old sac and the river but hate the sprawl. Also weird how Arco just stands there among nothing

Oh yea topcliff remember sactown wasnt always the state capital infact it move quite a lot and was once in Vallejo and Benicia! DT sactown is nice to say the least but beyond the river it feels like a desert, spread out homes and IMENSE heat!

[prkrsmth 0]

I am in love with San Francisco and would definitely choose it over LA man. It has beautiful surroundings and it isn't mega hot, sprawling, or as crime infested. LA has cool places like the beaches and Hollywood, but it's not enough to really convince me that it's a cool city by any means. San Francisco has the big progressiveness about it too, and i like that. Its architecture is very unique and beautiful too.

[threeswept 12]

Interesting topic...if we're talking city specific and not the entire metropolitan area, here are my thoughts:

San Francisco is quite European in feel, has uniquely Victorian and Edwardian architecture thanks to the Comstock that funneled money to SF during the 1800's, spectacular views in almost any season due to the constant ocean breeze that air conditions the City - most people in the 49 square mile city limits don't even have air conditioners since the temperature is very mild during the summer months. In 10-15 minutes one can cross the Golden Gate Bridge and be in complete wilderness. If one doesn't want to venture outside the City, one can visit Golden Gate Park and be completely cut off from people - it is larger than Central Park in NYY. The Financial District is compact, has centuries old architecture mixed with new and modern architecture and houses some of the best  theatre, music venues and museums. It also boasts one of the best transit systems in the US - behind and alongside NY, DC and Seattle. San Francisco is also always in the top two visited cities in the US - fighting the top spot with NYC.

LA on the other hand, built in a valley where once stood orchards and farmfield has turned into one of the most sprawling suburbs in the US. LA has great bungalow and deco architecture that was created during the boom of Hollywood. There are spectacular gems of Storybook Style architecture mixed in with cool 50's & 60's modern block architecture. The Basin has an extensive beach network which is awesome and has some of the best surfing. A few of the drawbacks is that the metro system is a little lacking and is most often used by less affluent (especially during non-peak commute times) and the pollution is horrible mostly Monday through Friday. You're lucky to see the Hollywood Hills most weekdays, let alone the whole San Gabriel mountains. The downtown area isn't that inventive, but does contain some great deco architecture. The weather can be downright hot in the summer, but cooler on the coast...at least you can wear shorts and t-shirts at night, unlike in San Francisco where you practically wear sweaters in the summer. Sightseeing in LA is pretty few and far between. Although, I have to say that I see a celebrity or two every time I visit. I love the way the news breaks into regular TV programming to show police chases.

Having said all this, my choice is clear since I live in San Francisco and chose it over LA for several reasons. Several of my friends live in LA, so I go down to visit all the time and know the region really well.

[JDRCRASH 53]

Pretty soon, it won't be long before Non-Angelenos won't think of Los Angeles as nothing more than a completely suburban megalopolis

The problem is....Non-Angelenos criticize L.A. if it trys to urbanize in any way.

Its almost as if they want the city to stay that way....

And the idea that these skyscrapers in Los Angeles came out of nowhere is FALSE...I repeat FALSE!

Los Angeles has always had an urban core, but the problem was that cititizens were encouraged by the freedom of the automobile and the idea of the oil companies to spread out into the suburbs.

I'm just getting started Skyliner!

[MaverickSimCity 0]

hmmm.....i live kinda near LA, i live in Ventura County (the county to the immediate west) in the City of Thousand Oaks (which one could call a "suburb" of the san fernando valley which is a suburb of LA) I've been to both cities (obviously more to LA) and even though SF has cooler weather, its all happening down in LA. Where can you live where you can go to the beach, hike in the coastal mountains or inland mountains, go skiing, go camping, go to the desert and ride quads and such, go to lots of sports, and have good weather? Oh, and did i mention all these places are within 3 hours of where I live (with skiing & snow being the furthest) Its definitely LA for me!!!

Architectural I think SF has more diversity and is more interesting, while of course LA was planned poorly. But hey, lots more people live here than in SF so I guess its not that bad after all

[paperboy15 4]

If I had to choose, I'd go with San Fran. Car traffic is horrible in both areas. Mass transit is semi-useful in the bay rather than awful in LA. In the end it comes down to this for me: I don't choke on smog in the bay.

In response to an earlier post, I consider both these cities very liberal. And then crime...have you heard of East Oakland? Sure, you could say it's an entirely different city, but then so is Compton. But that's my opinion...

[kurtvedder 4]

San Fran is closer to Seattle and has a similar environment. The problem with San Fran is that the actual city is almost completely isolated from the rest of the bay area.

[GMT 389]

hm...

I simply love LA for several reasons.

I know it has loads of ugly, negative things but still I do.

SF is a beautiful city in every way. Unique skyline (as mentioned above), beautiful scenary all over the place (which includes the city as well)...

but still I'd go for LA.

It's just like ... if I could affort it, I'd move there. It's just like Maverick said above, you have literally everything within 3 hours from home.

ok, you might need a scuba-gear so you don't die from asphyxiation, but that's a different story

EDIT: oh, and don't judge LA from what you see in the tv shows.

I read the oc mentioned on page one.

cmon, they claim to be in Newport Beach... Im a die-hard fan of the oc, and I can tell, the only thing you see in the show that's actually Newport Beach is Pelican Point... the red-roofed houses in the opener where the main characters "live"... In fact, everything... literally everything you see is from Santa Monica to Long Beach (speaking of scenes with water). Not even Chino is the real Chino in the OC...

[hnbmilk 0]

I've lived in both and SF wins. It isn't even close TBH...

[saltandsauce 0]

Los Angeles is too collagen smile and plastic face

San Francisco is too hippified

i choose neither too hot far me the whole state

[godjcjk12 0]

Both cities are nice. I've been to SF before and most of the time it just seems to liberal and wild considering the things I saw people do on local city streets. L.A. on the other hand is easy to get use to and it has lots of variety. San Francisco has no ski runs nearby or the desert or any other form of diversity. Traffic us bad but oh well. I'd say its getting better. I'd pick Los Angeles.

[allez l'om 1]

I prefer L.A because there are better skyscrapers than in S.F and my favorite serie 24 takes place in this big city!!!!!!!!!!

[topcliff 1]

I say neither still, but if I must choose, I say their equal. Come on, we can't truly compare cities like this! We'd have to look over every single detail in the entire city's present and past. Even then, it comes down to personal preference. I can't/won't choose between the two, so I'll simply list each aspect I like about both.

1. San Francisco's famous fog.

2. Its numerous hot dog stands.

3. North Beach and Telegraph Hill.

4. The various bridges.

1. The great weather, albeit somewhat dry.

2. The great diversity of the land.

3. The great surf spots.

4. Los Angeles seems more "American" to me. SF has always seemed European to me because of all the Victorian and Italianate architecture.

[eve860 0]

i never been to any of two places(i live in hartford ct) BUT this is my thinking of two places.(sorry for my grammar i am not american just try to understand it)

LA: i think LA is what america is big highway, big box store,suburb, and big getto surrrounding the city. polution. but it have beaches.

SF: liberal place good skyline.

so if i hace money i would live in SF

[hikariyuugi 0]

Right now I am living in the San Francisco Bay Area. I love the public transportation, I ride the BART almost everyday to school. San Francisco has a very beautiful skyline in my opinion and the weather is always nice for me. San Francisco Bay Area is also really spread out with so many suburbs. Some people can end up living in a really boring area like Fremont or Concord. In my opinion it is very similar to many of the other metropolitan areas in the United States just that the scenery is beautiful. LA is fun but I think I would prefer SF.

[City2TheMax 3]

San Francisco, definetely. LA is poorly planned, not much historical culture (although it definetely has modern pop culture, think Hollywood). I've been to both cities, and to me LA is plain ugly. Constant smog, tons of ghettos, high crime, gangs, etc. San Francisco does not have to deal with all that too much (don't get me wrong, it has its bad districts too). It also has very neat local districts, a very neat sea-breeze, and overall it's a beautiful city.

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Originally posted by: topcliff I say neither still, but if I must choose, I say their equal. Come on, we can't truly compare cities like this! We'd have to look over every single detail in the entire city's present and past. Even then, it comes down to personal preference. I can't/won't choose between the two, so I'll simply list each aspect I like about both.

1. San Francisco's famous fog.

2. Its numerous hot dog stands.

3. North Beach and Telegraph Hill.

4. The various bridges.

1. The great weather, albeit somewhat dry.

2. The great diversity of the land.

3. The great surf spots.

4. Los Angeles seems more "American" to me. SF has always seemed European to me because of all the Victorian and Italianate architecture.quote>

that's it. san francisco wins it again!

[Flann 1,709]

I went to California and I loved SF. There is just so much to see and do. The architecture is great, the trolley is a nice charm. I loved all the distinct districts, like the Mission district, chinatown, the Haight, etc. Plus that beautiful bridge and bay.

[JDRCRASH 53]

In less than 25 years guys...believe me, you WILL choose Los Angeles!

[crazyyaya 4]

I wise man once said,"There are only three sophicicated cities in North Amerca, San Francisco, New York and Montreal.

Although in some aspects LA is improving, I always saw it as a urban wasteland. I always saw San Fran as a beutiful, histroic city. San Francisco is just so much more distinctive.

[DuskTrooper 316]

Definitely San Francisco. It is much cleaner, less autocentric, has a higher density, more attractive (and seemingly lusher) landscape/terrain, more authentic and historically significant architecture, more fine arts related culture, and other cultural institutions and such. Furthermore, the skyline of SF may have more subtle architecture, but that prevents it from being too overly dated, like LA's overly Early 90's/late 80's PoMo and international skyscraper style (just a box) mishmash.

[harlem123 0]

SF beats LA in every category. I mean honestly the Skyline of L.A. consist only of a few Blocks rising to the sky. SF skyline fits perfect in the landscape of the SF-Bay.

[Godzillaman 21]

Obviously San Fransisco wins...

[memnoch 1]

I've lived in both places and can say they are both fantastic cities. It's hard to compare them, since each has its own style. However, it seems more people in SF are very critical of people who don't live there, especially those from LA. Almost to the point of being snobs about it, SF people will go out of their way to badmouth LA and talk trash about it. I think that one Southpark episode nailed it. Sure LA has its negative aspects like any other large metropoils, but the plastic faces and riches of Beverly Hills and Hollywood are only a small part of the Southland and it's not fair to judge it based on what you see on TV. 

SF's transit is far better developed, albeit it has far less area to cover than LA. I like those plans to expand with that new subway and BRT on Geary and Van Ness. LA has a bigger opportunity to grow out its Metro if they can get over the hurdles of money and NIMBYs. The Expo Line that just started construction is liable to both those problems, so hopefully it will done by 2010 on time.

What's even cooler (cooler if you're a transit fan, at least) is the prospect of the Calif High Speed Rail Authority (CAHSR) bringing a bullet train between the two cities. It is definitely a long way off because of budget problems, but at least it's still kept alive.

[JDRCRASH 53]

^ ^ ^

You said it!

Unfortunately the Governor has cut funding.

[pyrochickin 0]

I would choose La because i am from there and i really like it there.

On the other hand I like Sf to because some of the people i met there are really nice.

[Callbat 8]

Hmm...Ive been up to LA many times for youth orchestra things and The last time I went was probably a wednesday morning and it was a ghost town! There seems to be no commercial activity except for the chinese/mexican/korean owned shops that sell pirated merchandise....there is a lot of movement there......I nearly got my instrument stolen there once...man that was a scary moment so  since I have bad memories  of  LA , it is not a top player in my book.

Sna Fransisco, ive never been there but since I am a big, big fan of victorian architecture  and I like golden gate bridge and I think their CBD looks nice but im a next to hardcore conservative so...I dont think I choose San Fransisco either......

To summarize it all: I choose neither, I like it right here in San Diego.

[TheJackalope 0]

The Best parts of LA, Santa Monica and Venice aren't in LA...

[godjcjk12 0]

Los Angeles is really the best.