San Diego vs. San Francisco: Nicest people?

Because I am a life-long San Diego resident ...I feel we have the Best climate...But...............

Without a doubt, S.D wins hands down. Of course I am somewhat partial. I was raised there, at that time going WAY BACK and I dare not say how long ago, it was primarily a small "navy town." It is also close to Mexico. These things seemed to lend itself to being a "easy going, friendly" town. The town over the years, has outgrown that casual feel, but still remains the cleanest and friendliest town. S.F is somewhatmore cosmopolitan but I do not feel you would be bored in S.D I do love S.F but I never "left my heart there!" Truly, I am sure both would be a good choice!

Since the majority of people in most California cities are either 1st or 2nd generation to the state - asking which is friendliest is basically unanswerable. There are PLENTY of friendly people, rude people, midwesterners, southerners, foreigners, etc. in both places.

Except for having great locations on the water, SD and SF are totally different animals. I can't see one getting bored in either place though.

Hi, Oahu - Do you mean that you would actually live IN San Francisco? There is an enormous difference between the two lifestyles, if that is the case. There is no place like San Francisco - but the people are different and the climate is different.

If you are considering Bay Area suburbs, you could find more similarity in the climate and the people.

Surely you will do more research, and we will all have our suggestions.

Both cities are terrific, imho. San Diego is much more beach oriented, though. San Francisco is way more hip, more food oriented, busier.

Have you been to either or both yet? Will you have an opportunity to visit both before you move? That might help.


-Bill

Wow - world of difference between San Diego & SF. I'm a 58 YO married, no children, California native. Spent the first 28 years in Southern Cal. Last 4 years there (while married) in Laguna Beach and working in San Diego county. We were into the beach scene then, and spend most summer days at the beach. Winters got a little boring. Went skiing one time & it took us 6 hours to get back - not because of the snow, but because of the traffic. We were dependent on a car for almost everything. If we wanted a venu other than the beach, we had to drive for several hours just to get out of the SD, Orange Co, LA sprawl. You could find some open countryside to the east, but I never found it that interesting & scenic - especially compared to the countryside in the Bay area (Marin, Sonoma, Napa, Mendacino counties).

In '75 we moved to San Francisco, bought an old Victorian house in the Noe Valley and restored it. We lived in the City for 7 years, and we now live about 15 mins south. Both my wife and I agree that moving to SF was the most positive thing we ever have done in our lifetimes (other than getting married to each other). In the 30 years we've been here, we are still discovering new things to do in SF. My wife conducts walking tours of SF. In about 30 mins we are heading up to the Sonoma wine country to visit some frends and perhaps visit a winery or two. The town of Sonoma is quite cute.

The diversity of things to do & see in this region is much greater than the in the San Diego area - and dare I say much greater than anyplace in the US. The coastline here is much more scenic than in Southern Cal. In 1 hr from SF, you can be in the Napa or Sonoma wine country, 2 1/4 hrs to the Monterey peninsula & Carmel. There are very pretty redwood forests all around (3 redwood trees in my back yard), the coast is 20 mins from my home - where you will find the very nice village of Half Moon Bay, and the coast is quite pretty in this region also - quite wild and not built up at all. I can get to Tahoe in about 4 hrs, 5 hrs or so to Yosemite. Up north of here 4 hrs or so is some very scenic coastline with lots of cute villages, B&Bs, and also the giant redwoods. Pt Reyes - just 1 hr from SF is quite wild, and you can walk for hours in this area and see some fantastic wildlife and georgeous coastline.

Last night we went onto SF and dined at a fantastic Peruvian restaurant.

Downside - housing is very expensive here. More people want to live here than we have room for.

Stu Dudley

Are friendly people really high on the deciding factors for you?

For me, great weather, ease of commute and housing would be closer to the top for me. I have found that with any area, there are going to be friendly and unfriendly people.

Also - do you want to live where you are more like the local people? Or would you prefer to stand out more?

Does politics factor in your decision? Because, obviously, SD is considered more conservative/Republican and SF is more liberal/Democrat. Of course, there are always "pockets" of the opposite, but we're talking just the majority here.

Having lived in LA/OC for 20 years and visited both areas north and south many times, I would probably pick SD for the more affordable housing and its proximity to LA. SF is a great CITY, but I don't think I would have as much fun living there as I would in SD near the beaches and having access to the metropolis that LA is.

Good luck in your decision!

I LOVE living in SD.

I live and own a business by the beach and don't think I could handle living more than a mile from the coast.

One thing is for sure: It is expensive to live here! Housing in my neck of SD starts around 1 million and this is for a dump. I rent a great 1950's house that is the 6th house from the beach with ocean views and the rent is less than half of what it would cost to own it. This is just fine for me at this stage of my life.

I don't commute either. If I had to commute I don't know if I would love it here like I do.

Sometimes I feel as if I live on an island. I rarely travel inland for anything, and a trip to downtown, only 15 minutes away almost seems like a road trip. A trip to Costco which is only 2.5 miles inland from my house seems a long way away. I have all that I need for my daily life within a 2 or three mile radius from work and home.

Downtown is wonderful with over 200 restaurants, galleries, original stores, theaters, plays, outdoor malls... it is a small but wonderful downtown on the water.

Another great perk: the airport is only 15 minutes away from where I live. Great if you travel frequently, which I do.

But most wonderful is our weather. I have seen days of 75 in November. I recall having had Thanksgiving dinner at the beach in a tank top and carving Halloween pumpkins in shorts!! The summers are mild and winters are amazing!!

I find the people to be genuine and kind 98% of the time...

I guess if you can afford it and you don't have to commute it is a great place to plant yourself... but if you have to struggle to make ends-meet, commute to work for hours each day, you will wish you had chosen another place to live.

You're looking at two VERY expensive areas to live--have you bought local papers to look at housing prices?

If you're a true metrophile I think San Francisco would suit you better than San Diego. SD has a lot going for it--we have good friends there and have spent a lot of time in the vicinity--but San Francisco is a true city. And I was born and grew up near Chicago.

4th generation Californian who has lived in both places. I would say San Francisco. My best friend, who's also got long time roots and has lived in both places would say San Diego. It would depend completely on what you are looking for.

San Francisco is much more culturally diverse and is a City. San Diego is much more recreationally oriented and is a sprawl with a city center.

SF is more liberal than SD. And there are more things to do up there than here. SD still feels pretty insular.

Stu - Did you and your wife eat at Limon, by any chance? SO fun.

Oahu - we could all go on and on about the vast differences. Reading the other posts and considering that you are asking about the people - are they nice? - way too subjective a question - But - the huge difference in the mentalities of the cities might help you choose between them. If you find yourself in an environment of people who share your basic mentality - within the broad frames of conservative/liberal or intellectual/(fill in the blank) - that might make you feel that the people are nice! Such very, very different cities!

Definitely San Diego. If you feel a need to spend time in a larger metropolis, LA isn't that far away.

Can you afford to live actually *in* San Francisco? Or would you live in a suburb and commute to the city?

Coming from (and loving) Chicago I think San Francisco would be closest suited for a "true metrophile".

Here's a question for you:
Why is it that a lot more residence of San Diego eagerly and happily visit San Francisco than the other way around?

>>Stu - Did you and your wife eat at Limon, by any chance? SO fun.<<

Yep - great food, very noisy (typical for the Mission - the noise I mean)

Stu Dudley

Several people mentioned that if you live in San Diego & want to visit a metropolitan area - you could drive to LA. Isn't that a 2 1/2 hr drive??? Even more if you do it on a work day.

Stu Dudley

This is dumb.

Everyone knows the nicest people are in Washington, D.C. They ruin the country! I mean run. They run the country.

I told you this is dumb.

For someone who is used to a big city such as Chicago, I would say that San Diego wold be the place for you. San Diego (1.2 million) is a significant;y bigger city than San Francisco (700,000). Also, the weather in San Diego is far better than San Francisco. In terms of being bored, San Diego itself has plenty to offer as well as the suburbs (ie: La Jolla) and the nearby coastline. LA is about 2 hours away and you can take the San Diego trolley to Tijuana for an interesting daytrip.

Hann is entitled to prefer San Diego to San Francisco, and those of us who have read him through the years know that if the discussion were between San Diego and San Jose, he would be championing San Jose as the much more attractive place.

But the assertion that SD is a larger, more metropolitan urban area than SF due to the larger central city population reminds me of the classic book "How to Lie With Statistics."

Both these areas are large conglomerations of cities and towns running into, and often indistinguishable from, each other, but with a clear focus in the central city. It happens that the city of San Francisco proper is surrounded on three sides by water and on the fourth by a mountain range. The area was built up longer ago and suburban cities were established early on the other sides of these barriers.

On the other hand, the city of San Diego was able to expand, as it grew later, easily, without such formidable geographic barriers, into relatively unpopulated areas to the west amd south.

So it happens that only about 20% of the metropolitan area of SF is within the central city limits, while about 60% of the SD metro area is within the limits of its central city. These city/suburb distinctions are important politically, but are not very noticeable in daily life.

In actuality SF is the center of a metropolitan area of nearly four million, while SD is the center of one with a population of a little more than two million. And in comparing these two populations, all the territory I'm including is within about 45 minutes (non-rush-hour) driveof the center city downtown. I don't think it meaningful to lump together areas further apart than that in the same metro area, so I don't consider SD and LA to be in the same metro area nor, Hann, do I include San Jose in the San Francisco area.

In terms of which of the two between SF and SD shares more of the amenities and the feel of a "world class" city with Chicago--for all SD's many worthy urban and scenic attractions, and its much more nearly Oahu-like weather, SF runs away with the competition.

Those of us who have read him over the years also know that Hann and Guarto are the same person, who is not secure enough in his opinions to let them stand on his own, but has invented a little group of mythical people who pop up on the same thread "agreeing" with each other.

A bit of evidence for those unfamiliar with him who may be skeptical of my assertions--compare my prediction that Hann would champion San Jose over San Diego if those were the two cities being compared, with Guarto's assertion that San Jose is the true center of what he claims should be called not the San Francisco Bay Area, but the San Jose Bay Area.

After much controversy over several months in late 2003 and early 2004, and many complaints to the Fodor's editors from those of us who find this practice of one person posing as multiple people on the same thread an abuse of the forum, this person and his group of screen names abruptly vanished in mid 2004 and has been banned or otherwise absent for more than a year, but now has made a sudden reappearance.

Us SF's are definately the "coolest"!
seriously, out of my 4* years, all but 2 of them were spent in the SF bay area.
The most horrid 2 were the remaining 2 in the LA area. Make your own decision.
I also seem to remember No Ca people are cuter...where did I read that..?

With the addition of Abi, that's three names used by the same person on this thread. Those in doubt should note the thread "San Jose Troll" in the Fodor's News and Announcements forum.

Everyone should be entitled to their views, but I don't think the practice of bringing in nonexistent, invented "peop;e" to agree with one is honest or should be tolerated.

JBC411: Actually we are currently up to FIVE of the SJ Troll's old names active again.

Franklinn, Robinsen,
Guarto, Hann and Abi. This has been brought to the Editors attention on News and Announcements -- but so far no action or response. (maybe they are too worried about helpful posters who maybe made mistakes in judgement, instead of ridding the site of a REAL troll who does REAL damage and is dishonest)

I haven't been following this thread, but peaked in this morning. What caught my eye was what Abi posted: Greater San Jose Bay Area, what the heck as that? I've lived my entire life in either Santa Cruz or San Francisco and have never heard some one say "Greater San Jose Bay Area".

I believe that's the troll icon? Here's a one-time-only poster with a question that could easily provoke a brawl -- which fortunately, has not really arisen here except by suggestion.

At least with a question like "which costs less?" there's a way to answer it meaningfully.

This has more to do with the relocator than the new location, for sure.

Franklinn, Robinsen, Guarto, Hann, Abi and now Lake. Before too much longer he will have resurected all of his old personnae and do most of the work for the Fodors editors (if they care)

For any newbies or those unfamiliar w/ northern California -- Franklinn, Robinsen, Guarto, Hann, Abi and Lake are ALL THE SAME person. Fodors editors finally got a handle on this last November and he was banished - but he's back -- must be celebrating his anniversary or something.

Next step is he will come on here and say everyone that disagrees with his is the same person - and off we go into never never land.

BTW - If anyone has any questions about various posters, their identy or posting history - just click on their name.