Los Angeles vs San Francisco

[Ninja12 3]

You must be serious L.A is getting massacred with all the buildings we're going to get in SF

[Velino 0]

I would go for LA. Just because there's no other city that is so much loved and hated at the same time. I haven't read that somone didn't liked Frisco even when they prefered LA. Be honest, we love to hate LA and we sure hate to love LA, but we ain't got no choice.

btw those two cities can't compete, US powerhouses, CalifornI.A. baby!!!

[thepianist 0]

In my opinion, San Francisco is a much more beautiful place to be. There's the Crystal Springs Res., the Golden Gate Bridge/Park...etc.

Can't wait to see what the new skyline would look like.

[panthersimcity4 162]

I love San Francisco because it was built for people, and LA was built for cars. It's really easy to walk around S.F. and admire buildings but in LA you have to drive a car all the way across the city to get to a specific place and then drive another hour to another place.

SF feels more European because it's easy to walk around and there's alot of culture.

Plus I absolutely LOVE the architecture there. Somedays I wish I lived in one of those beautiful townhouses. I will admit though that I like the 50's bungalows in L.A., very Americanish.

[simworld2 4]

I say LA wins Hands Down.

[JDRCRASH 53]

@Ninja12: L.A. getting massacred? HAH! LMFAO! It's the total opposite! I can even give you a list of the high-rises in the pipeline for Los Angeles.

[TV-VCR 15]

I'm going to say San Francisco. I've been to both cities. In Los Angeles, the whole time you feel like your life is in danger (and it is), insanity, pollution, out of control urban sprawl, horrid traffic, etc. etc. In San Fransisco, it's fairly calm, you can actually navigate the roads, the whole city feels friendly, and also there's a lot more variety there (culture and architecture speaking). Not to mention, you can go out and have fun. In L.A. there's not much you can do (at least from my experience).

[Stitcher 0]

Can I just vote for Seattle? <g>

[doubleno7 0]

I personally choose San Francisco. Sprawl is a major problem in LA and San Francisco just feels like a better place.

In terms of skyline, LA has larger, taller buildings but there farther apart and the skyline isnt really filled in. San Francisco's skyline is more dense and kinda gives a more "big city look".

[WillG_75 19]

Hmmmmmm, LA or San Francisco. That's honestly a tough choice. San Francisco has some amazing architecture and hills, and is famous for all the car chases in the 70's . But LA seems to have much more to do, like activities and more stuff seems to be accessible in LA. I love both cities, but would have to give LA the slimmest edge here sense it's more modern.

[Avanine-Commuter 0]

BTW the O.C. is not even the same county as L.A., let alone the cities (plural, cities) in the O.C. and L.A.

I live in West Covina, a suburb of L.A., and I never consider myself living in L.A. It's completely different, like living in a suburb outside of San Fran. You have to DRIVE or take the metro or BART to get into the city, so it's much different than living in a loft or apartment or house IN the city.

BTW, what's so wrong with driving? I love sitting in my car, having a good conversation while on my way to L.A., and listening to music or whatever. Walking is great sometimes, but during hot days, cold days, rainy days, etc. it's tedious and tiring, and very limiting. In San Fran, when I went to visit, we walked a lot and it was FREEZING cold, even with two sweaters and a wind breaker (mainly because I wasn't used to the SUPER HIGH winds during winter time). It made it very unenjoyable to walk. L.A., although it gets pretty hot in the summer, has the perfect weather, which is why so many people want to move here. Also, we have the best: ski in the mountains, clubbing in the city, surfing by the beach. All within a day's reach if you're committed enough. The weather is fantastic, and I happen to love driving my prius so I don't mind the suburbs.

[wir3d 2]

I hate San Freako. Edited for blatant stupidity. Mr. C. . La is a lot better in that way. In traffic not so much.

                                                                 

[skyliner22 16]

Geez what the hell is your problem? I am a San Franciscan and sure there are lots of gays here not like its a bad thing but the city has way more to offer. If your a homophobic then thats your problem but dont go off talking like that on these forums.

[cwhast 0]

hear hear... yay San Fran baby!!

[Ninja12 3]

Originally posted by: wir3d I hate San Freako. edited. Mr. C.  La is a lot better in that way. In traffic not so much.

                                                                 

quote>

Stereotyping at its best so are you saying that everyone or the majority are freaks and gays. So do you like me to say that LA  are a bunch of drug addicts, bums, and other undesirables. I don't think so unless you fall into one of those categories. I'm a San Franciscan no I'm not a homosexual,pothead,tree-hugger,liberal. So If I was you I would get my stuff together rather then talk spit on another town.

The San Freako

Ninja12

[Ninja12 3]

Pelli Design for the transbay terminal

[ilikehotdogsalot 311]

Originally posted by: wir3d I hate San Freako. Edited. Mr. C. . La is a lot better in that way. In traffic not so much.

                                                                 

quote>

This kind of attitude will offend many people.

[Avanine-Commuter 0]

Why should the height of the building matter so much? Both cities are in a building boom now, as with many many other cities (New York, Chicago, Las Vegas especially!) While San Francisco does have more under construction and approved, L.A. is not far behind. Of course, L.A. has smaller projects such as the lofts/apartments/condos because of the demand for inner-city residences, and less skyscraper offices such as San Fran's transbay terminal. L.A. right now is focusing more on building a work live environment than "let's build big buildings", so their projects are concentrated on  residential lofts + low rise luxury apartments.

L.A. :

Construction:

Ritz Carlton/ Marriott Convention Center

717 Flower

Concerto

Hanover Tower

Evo

LAPD Headquarters

LA Live

5 lofts/apartments/condominiums

Approved:

LA Central

Grand Avenue project

Herald Examiner

Glass Tower

plus 29 proposed skyscrapers

10 recently completed buildings/residences.

San Francisco:

Construction:

Millennium Tower at 301 Mission

One Rincon Hill I and II

555 Mission

300 Spear Street I and II

InterContinental Hotel

690 Market Street

1160 Mission Street

631 Folsom Street

Argenta

Symphony Towers I

Approved:

45 Lansing Street

350 Fremont Street

The Californian At Rincon Hill

201 Folsom Street I and II

535 Mission Street

10th and Market

524 Howard

Exchange Place

One Hawthorne

Trinity Project

48 Tahama Street

325 Fremont Street

Signature Mission bay

plus 19 proposals

San Fran has less buildings recently built/construction/approved/proposed overall, but L.A. has smaller buildings being built. There it is.

[Ninja12 3]

^ Yes I agree with Avanine-Commuter. L.A is doing a good job converting all of it's old and unused buildings into lofts and condos THEN focus on ground up buildings. It would be a waste if it was the other way around, overall downtown would be stunning but it takes time.

SF-Needs to build up cause of lack of space

LA-Focusing on reconstruction of neighborhoods rather than building up

**Deleted the last post but still left the Pelli Design. I rather not spend my time arguing over stupid ish and spending more time playing SC4

[JDRCRASH 53]

No way, I live in West Covina, too!

According to Villaragoisa, over 100 high-rises are in the pipeline.

[skyliner22 16]

The Manhattanization of LA? Very interesting... I shall await this so called future skyline!

[JDRCRASH 53]

We are trying to revive the old theatres of Broadway, so that should help stimulate interest in the Revitalization effort.

[Ninja12 3]

yeah LA deserves a better skyline it is the second biggest city in america

[818omfgitskyle818 0]

For people choosing LA over SF, have you even BEEN to LA? I live here, and personally, besides maybe 10 areas (in the ENTIRE metro area) the city SUCKS. Its 90% ghetto, the roads are all terrible, the city spends most of its budget on turism and doesnt give a rats ass about the education system, has a failing transportation system, and the sprawl is as easy to navigate as an Old European City.

so San Franciso all the way.

[Wrightguy0 40]

L.A and San Fran are both beautiful in their own ways, L.A. has it's City hall the, great tracts of pre war housing, two FLW gems, the great mansions that once housed the biggest movie stars and lots of great art deco. San Francisco has it's classic Victorian homes, the senic hills, Civic Center, The Golden Gate Bridge, Goldengate Park, Lombard street, and not to mention the numerous parks, cafes', boutiques, hotels and resturants.

[Avanine-Commuter 0]

As I said before, I live in L.A. and I don't think it's that bad most of the time.

BTW if you consider all the suburbs as part of L.A., then we have quite a few good schools-- San Marino High School is top-tier public school, Troy High School, Diamond Bar High School, Walnut High School, etc. The education system is better than A LOT of other cities, and we also have great colleges here (UCLA, USC, Claremont Colleges, Pomona College, Mt. Sac, many Cal States, etc.).

Even though the traffic is bad (because of a combination of some stupid exchanges, lack of alternative transportation and sheer volume), navigation is HELLA simple. I don't understand what is so hard about navigating the freeway-- I've had to travel to different cities all the time and I only got lost once (because a section was under construction and I had to take a long detour). The layout is so simple.

[jesusnavidad 0]

Well considering everything said before me in this thread, and the history of both the cities, starting from the beginnings of both cities, Los Angeles wins because the population movements of the people that have happened over the last 200 years. If Los Angeles was really a bad place to live, don't you think that San Francisco would have a much larger population by this time? There is a reason Los Angeles is larger than San Francisco by now, considering that in 1870 SF was the 10th largest city in the US, and LA was founded in 1871 and now is the 2nd largest city in the US. Whether its because of some reason or another, LA is not bigger than SF for fun, its because people choose to live there because they think its better for their lives or for various reasons. So if you ask them, Los Angeles is better to be in, because more people choose to live in places where they think they will be better off.

[goldeneye13 0]

i like San Francisco better, not just because i live there, but because its liberal and cleaner. LA is dirty and there isn't many good parts of it. So there's earthquakes in SF who cares? Most of the hippies are gone anyway. So i like San Francisco better.

[Avanine-Commuter 0]

Los Angeles Pros:

Beautiful Beaches

Beautiful People

Beautiful Areas

UCLA/USC

World-Famous Landmarks

Huge variety of entertainment (Hollywood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica, OC, Downtown (it's getting there!))

Knotts/Disney/Universal Studios all nearby

Almost perfect weather

San Fran Pros:

Clean air!

Density

Beautiful areas

Beautiful views

Walkable city

Great transportation system

Famous landmarks

UC Berkeley/Stanford (well, kinda near, not really)

Los Angeles Cons:

Traffic

Smog

Huge sprawl

Lack of density

San Fran Cons:

Weather can get iffy (freezing in winter, always foggy, rainy)

Tight on space

Hilly city, sometimes can be a real pain.

More earthquake prone than L.A. (hills, fault line, right by the coast, old buildings)

I hope I am pretty accurate. Tell me if I'm missin/messin.

[newyorkrunaway1 110]

i prefer la's downtown skyline, but sf is really nice too