On another note, was San Diego ALWAYS expensive? I have a feeling that it was a lot "sleepier" and cheaper back in the day....and not just a LONG time ago.
-
Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.
Born and raised Venice Beach native here. Strictly speaking L.A., what one could consider the main cities of Los Angeles county will vary so drastically that I feel like you can be in a different place on the globe when comparing some of them. Depending on what you're looking for, you can either feel away from it all or in the heart of a city. As I spend a good portion of my time on the coast , I'll rate those ones in order of where I'd want to live. I've personally lived in a few of these already, surfed all their beaches, and have spent enough time in each of them to form enough of an opinion to decide on the following rankings;
Hermosa Beach > Manhattan Beach > Rancho Palos Verdes > Redondo Beach > Venice > El Segundo > Malibu > Santa Monica .
Basically, a lot of my decision in the rankings have to do with cleanliness, distance to what I'd consider the important places to get to (with traffic in mind as well) , and overall quality of life. For example, Malibu is nice but to far away from it all to deal with the commute. Santa Monica draws to much of the homeless population to it. El Segundo is in the heart of the water treatment plant. And so on and so forth. I chose Hermosa as my number 1 because it's close enough yet far enough away from everything to be the most ideal spot for overall cleanliness and convenience. Only issue is it's not exactly close to getting to a freeway, which is both a blessing and curse. Keeps a lot of people away, but could be a pain to get to when in a hurry. Manhattan , Hermosa, Redondo are so similar you can't really go wrong with any of them tbh. I honestly love Los Angeles because I feel like I have it all here. As far as big Cali cities go, there's nowhere as varied as L.A.
Hermosa Beach > Manhattan Beach > Rancho Palos Verdes > Redondo Beach > Venice > El Segundo > Malibu > Santa Monica .
Basically, a lot of my decision in the rankings have to do with cleanliness, distance to what I'd consider the important places to get to (with traffic in mind as well) , and overall quality of life. For example, Malibu is nice but to far away from it all to deal with the commute. Santa Monica draws to much of the homeless population to it. El Segundo is in the heart of the water treatment plant. And so on and so forth. I chose Hermosa as my number 1 because it's close enough yet far enough away from everything to be the most ideal spot for overall cleanliness and convenience. Only issue is it's not exactly close to getting to a freeway, which is both a blessing and curse. Keeps a lot of people away, but could be a pain to get to when in a hurry. Manhattan , Hermosa, Redondo are so similar you can't really go wrong with any of them tbh. I honestly love Los Angeles because I feel like I have it all here. As far as big Cali cities go, there's nowhere as varied as L.A.
Last edited:
Real shit thread right here
San Francisco - as stated earlier in the thread I do like my cities walkable and SF is the only one on here that fits the bill
Los Angeles - born and bred baby. pretty terrible tourist-wise but it's served me well for seeking out shit to do on weekends
Ventura/Oxnard - good stuff, a bit out of the way for me but I suppose if you lived there you'd be within striking distance of all the LA goodness
San Diego - haven't been terribly much but seems peaceful enough. any city anchored by a large urban park is okay in my book.
Central Coast - despite having been to maybe dozens of these I still have a hard time telling them apart, but anything along CA-1 is a winner for sure.
OC/Irvine - I'm fortunately Asian-American enough to not get racist'd out of Irvine. and I know a ton of people from these parts so it's home of a lot of fond memories. nothing particularly great there though, and definitely way too boring to live in
Oakland - my current neighbors. they seem chill but admittedly I don't visit often.
Anaheim - Disneyland aside this actually is a nice peaceful place to spend a lazy day, even with all the tourists
Sacramento - nothing really happening here to make it worth the trip up north but it's quaint. would be ranked higher if it weren't so far out of the way.
Inland Empire - smells like manure
Long Beach - probably too industrial to be any good but it's not bad I guess. only been in downtown Long Beach once and it wasn't anything special
San Jose - feels as unremarkable as any lame LA suburb, but with twice the cost of living. yikes.
Fresno - I stayed at a hotel in Fresno and it listed Starbucks as a tourist attraction
Bakersfield - somehow even worse than Fresno
San Francisco - as stated earlier in the thread I do like my cities walkable and SF is the only one on here that fits the bill
Los Angeles - born and bred baby. pretty terrible tourist-wise but it's served me well for seeking out shit to do on weekends
Ventura/Oxnard - good stuff, a bit out of the way for me but I suppose if you lived there you'd be within striking distance of all the LA goodness
San Diego - haven't been terribly much but seems peaceful enough. any city anchored by a large urban park is okay in my book.
Central Coast - despite having been to maybe dozens of these I still have a hard time telling them apart, but anything along CA-1 is a winner for sure.
OC/Irvine - I'm fortunately Asian-American enough to not get racist'd out of Irvine. and I know a ton of people from these parts so it's home of a lot of fond memories. nothing particularly great there though, and definitely way too boring to live in
Oakland - my current neighbors. they seem chill but admittedly I don't visit often.
Anaheim - Disneyland aside this actually is a nice peaceful place to spend a lazy day, even with all the tourists
Sacramento - nothing really happening here to make it worth the trip up north but it's quaint. would be ranked higher if it weren't so far out of the way.
Inland Empire - smells like manure
Long Beach - probably too industrial to be any good but it's not bad I guess. only been in downtown Long Beach once and it wasn't anything special
San Jose - feels as unremarkable as any lame LA suburb, but with twice the cost of living. yikes.
Fresno - I stayed at a hotel in Fresno and it listed Starbucks as a tourist attraction
Bakersfield - somehow even worse than Fresno
Last edited:
Meh, a large portion of the violent crimes happen in a very small portion of the city. Like every city Oakland has places tourists and others shouldn't be going. Oakland is a great city and I never feel unsafe.
Honestly, I live in SF and a lot of the neighborhoods I frequent are way more sketch than the majority of Oakland. At least the scariest thing in my neighborhood is jogging moms with big wheel strollers š
Someone's never been to Fresno...
Edit: And are people really calling Irvine diverse? WTF is this?
SD .>,>> LA > SF
My top three with San Deigo by far my favorite. Love SF and LA too, though for different reasons.
My top three with San Deigo by far my favorite. Love SF and LA too, though for different reasons.
There's well off white people and Asian people! Irvine is very nice and mind numbingly boring. Diverse it is not.
SF is my top simply because it's walkable and has the best food scene in California. It's drivable to Marin, Berkeley, Oakland, and the Valley, so that opens up a ton of options as well. Downside is that it's dirty and inequality, but, I mean, all of the decent cities have that problem so...
A close second is Oakland because it's got many of the upsides of SF, an incredible history, but its climate is slightly less desirable. I imagine posters who think Oakland is 'dangerous' are people who've lived in suburbia/small cities their entire life. There are concentrated pockets of poverty in Oakland though, and the mass transit situation is less good, so that brings it down a notch.
The third is gotta be San Deigo, food culture is incredible there too and it's smaller, but has a great history and cool beaches. It's also warmer there, so if you prefer hot weather, then San Diego is nice. It's also the most reasonable of the LA/SF/SD trio, so it gets points for it's' affordability.
Fourth is gonna be a distant LA. LA has great food and culture but is held back by a substandard transit situation even by US standards. It's cheaper than SF but not SD.
SJ is fifth. It's close enough to SF and Oakland that you get some residual benefit, but not really distinct on it's own. It's also pretty much SF prices to live there too, although I guess it's a little cheaper.
After that comes the myriad of 2nd tier cities in California which don't need to be individually ranked but can be distinguished by some qualities. Access to sand and good food makes cities like Santa Cruz and SLO rise above the rest of the pack. Irvine has good eats. Berkeley is expensive but has good food.
3rd tier are cities in the middle of nowhere such as Sacramento. Sac rates above the rest because it's proximity to the Bay Area and it's clean looking downtown. Then you've got towns like Fresno, Bakersfield, Eurkea, and other cities, which offer access to cheap housing stock.
A close second is Oakland because it's got many of the upsides of SF, an incredible history, but its climate is slightly less desirable. I imagine posters who think Oakland is 'dangerous' are people who've lived in suburbia/small cities their entire life. There are concentrated pockets of poverty in Oakland though, and the mass transit situation is less good, so that brings it down a notch.
The third is gotta be San Deigo, food culture is incredible there too and it's smaller, but has a great history and cool beaches. It's also warmer there, so if you prefer hot weather, then San Diego is nice. It's also the most reasonable of the LA/SF/SD trio, so it gets points for it's' affordability.
Fourth is gonna be a distant LA. LA has great food and culture but is held back by a substandard transit situation even by US standards. It's cheaper than SF but not SD.
SJ is fifth. It's close enough to SF and Oakland that you get some residual benefit, but not really distinct on it's own. It's also pretty much SF prices to live there too, although I guess it's a little cheaper.
After that comes the myriad of 2nd tier cities in California which don't need to be individually ranked but can be distinguished by some qualities. Access to sand and good food makes cities like Santa Cruz and SLO rise above the rest of the pack. Irvine has good eats. Berkeley is expensive but has good food.
3rd tier are cities in the middle of nowhere such as Sacramento. Sac rates above the rest because it's proximity to the Bay Area and it's clean looking downtown. Then you've got towns like Fresno, Bakersfield, Eurkea, and other cities, which offer access to cheap housing stock.
In the interest of being entertained I'd love to hear more opinions on the IE (I live near Rancho).
If we're comparing cities, please define what LA city is..LA county which it seems like most people here are talking about should not be compared with any other city due to its size an ridiculous sprawl. A more apt comparison with LA county would be the Bay Area rather than just SF itself
SF for walk-ability plus proximity to so many types of nature POIs. LA next but totally depends what part. There is no real one part of LA I imagine when people say LA. If you made me live in Hollywood I would rank it much lower. Somewhere like Playa Vista, Eagle Rock, HP, Loz Feliz etc... then it's 2nd.
Third would probably be SD. 4th maybe Central coast somewhere like Monterey or Carmel. Bako and Fontana tied for last.
Third would probably be SD. 4th maybe Central coast somewhere like Monterey or Carmel. Bako and Fontana tied for last.
I've lived in fresno my whole life.
I had no idea we had a meth problem until I saw that vice doc.
4h from SF and LA. Decent price of housing. Theaters, bars etc. Much more to do these days than back in the day.
Just gets stupid damn hot (dry heat) but we got plenty of tacos/taco trucks to make up for it I figure.
Edit: I lived in oc for a year going to school but I'd rather live in cencal (maybe not so much Stockton, but I've been there plenty visiting family, it's not THAT bad).
I'm not a fan of SF at all. Much prefer visiting LA over SF any day.
Although shout outs to Brodericks in Sacramento. Best burger I've had the pleasure to eat.
I had no idea we had a meth problem until I saw that vice doc.
4h from SF and LA. Decent price of housing. Theaters, bars etc. Much more to do these days than back in the day.
Just gets stupid damn hot (dry heat) but we got plenty of tacos/taco trucks to make up for it I figure.
Edit: I lived in oc for a year going to school but I'd rather live in cencal (maybe not so much Stockton, but I've been there plenty visiting family, it's not THAT bad).
I'm not a fan of SF at all. Much prefer visiting LA over SF any day.
Although shout outs to Brodericks in Sacramento. Best burger I've had the pleasure to eat.
Fresno not only has a meth problem but its the drunkest city in the country. Highest rate of DUIs per capita.
Yeah wild, I knew the drunk part but I tend to venture in not the best areas sometimes and legit had no idea fresno had a meth issue like that.
That doc was super selective (as most docs are). The bad parts they showed are like one block or smaller area downtown.
No where near the homeless or bad problems it felt like I saw when I visit SF or LA.
I hate almost everything about Fresno, my grandma lives there so she's the only reason for me to visit that place.
If Bakersfield wasn't dangerous, I'd be OK with living there.
I lived in Visalia for most of my life and I'd say Fresno is a lot better than the surrounding small towns.
Is that why houses are comparatively cheap in Bakersfield? That and well..it's farmland?
As someone who's lived in Tokyo for over a decade and has spent plenty of time in London, Paris, Hong Kong, and Seoul, I would never put Los Angeles in the same class as San Francisco as far as quality of life is concerned. And that's how I choose my cities; I have a preference for places that are walkable and have strong public transportation. LA fails in those regards. Therefore, I pick San Francisco at the top.
If we need to be broader, I would say my favorite places in Calfornia are:
1. The Peninsula (basically everywhere between SF and SJ)
2. San Francisco proper
3. Orange County (Anaheim)
4. Santa Monica
5. Hollywood
6. DTLA
7. Long Beach
Haven't been to San Diego or Sacramento in nearly 20 years.
If we need to be broader, I would say my favorite places in Calfornia are:
1. The Peninsula (basically everywhere between SF and SJ)
2. San Francisco proper
3. Orange County (Anaheim)
4. Santa Monica
5. Hollywood
6. DTLA
7. Long Beach
Haven't been to San Diego or Sacramento in nearly 20 years.
Working from home or getting a car that drives itself would really help counter this. Working from home being the top thing.
I'm one of those few who hated this. I went insane from lack of human contact and gained a shit ton of weight.
yMMV
OK this is the second time I've seen it insinuated that SD is smaller than SF. SD is significantly larger in both footprint and population. Heck, just SD proper (not county) has more people than SF and Oakland combined. lol
Nothing against SF, but I've always found if interesting how the city seems to have a reputation that it's much larger than it actually is.
Last edited:
Lol at anyone putting Sacramento at or near the top. It's a 105 degrees in the summer so miserable unless indoors or the pool or river.
I think people lump in the Greater Bay Area when describing SF often, to include the Valley/Oakland/San Jose. Kind of a Manhattan plus Queens/Bronx/Brooklyn. We're in downtown SF and love it here because of the walkability and proximity to a ton of diverse things to do.
Only been to LA recently, lived in San Francisco for 5 years. Most of LA felt like what would happen if you took the idea of the suburbs and tried to make a city using the idea. Why are there 8 lane roads in the middle of your downtown areas?
LA > West Hollywood > SF > Santa Monica > Oakland > everything else
It wasn't too long ago that SD, SF, and LA were reasonable. Late '90s.
You must have a different definition of reasonable than I do. lol
I definitely miss the LA social scene the most. You always have plans. People ask you what you're up to and if you're free next week or maybe the week after. Your calendar is full of events and things that you're looking forward to. You always have plans lined up and sometimes conflicts arise where you have two things, but have to cancel the other one.
Sigh. Miss it.
I need to go back to a city life. :(
I loved it. I would work 9-6. Stop. Directly hit up my friends and make LA my playhouse. It was lovely.
Sigh. Miss it.
I need to go back to a city life. :(
My parents were able to afford a house (yeah, not the best neighborhood) in LA in 97 on mostly a single income. Now that house is like 2.3x more expensive -- I reduced some money that they also put into it, otherwise it would be 3.8x.
Obviously you would go out after WFH. :P
I loved it. I would work 9-6. Stop. Directly hit up my friends and make LA my playhouse. It was lovely.
Last edited:
Probably, not sure. It's just pretty isolated and doesn't have all the amenities that make places like San Diego so expensive.
I'm surprised to see that San Diego used to be a sort of small town, at least until the 70s or so.
If you swapped the housing prices, from 2009 and 2019 for SD, right this moment, you'd see a massive MASSIVE amount of people moving there, within a year.
San Diego ten years ago, was straight up a steal.
Well yeah, you're comparing the prices to peak recession prices. haha
This is true. It feels more like Nebraska than California.
I'll take the suburb in the Silicon Valley I'm in any day over S.F. or any of the other big cities in California. I can drive to S.F. whenever I want but not be stuck with day to day life there.
If big city was the only choice I'd take S.F. Or San Diego by miles over LA or Sacramento (last by far).