Los Angeles or San Francisco
 

hey guys, I'm trying to choose a 4 day trip between LA & SF. Which one do you suggest & why?

I would go with LA. LA has much better weather than SF. LA has the typical weather that most people associate with California. SF tends to be fogged in for most of the day, with only about 3 or 4 hrs. of sun. The beaches along the coast are much nicer than near SF. The water off the coast of SF is way too cold for swimming. Also, LA has a superior culinary and cultural scene when compared to SF, which is a much smaller city. Of course, in LA you can't forget the typical tourist area of Hollwood, Beverly Hills, Santa Monica Pier, etc. If you prefer more of a big city atmosphere, LA is the way to go. On the other hand SF is good for those who prefer the slower pace of a smaller city.

It really depends on what you want and when you are going because they are very different places. <BR><BR>LA is very large and spread out, is where a lot of the California stereo-types came from of surfers and kids on the beach all day. There is hollywood, Disneyland, Santa Monica, Beverly Hills. You can sit on the beach, do a little swiming if you're here in the summer time. You would definitely need a car and would probably do a lot of driving through traffic to get from place to place. <BR><BR>SF is a lot smaller geographically and with regard to population. You wouldn't need a car and would probably be better without one since parking is a chore and there are plenty of buses and light rail. SF has the Golden Gate, the bay, Alcatraz, bunches of little neighborhoods, more fog than sunshine, lots of history. Because of the bay and the wind, there isn't a smog problem. It is also close to other areas you could visit - wine country, Monterey/Santa Cruz, the redwoods. <BR><BR>Really, it depends on what you're interested in.

Tough choice because these two cities offer two completely different experiences, apples and oranges. Perhaps you should do a little webbing and decide which you want? I'm an LA guy, and I generally admire San Fran more than my home city because of the great asthetics. It is beautiful, perhaps the most European-type city in the States, great old architecture, vibrant street life, great public transit, lots of cultural diversity. Actually, both cities have immense cultural diversity but in SF there is much more of a commingling of it as opposed to the well spaced ethnic neighborhoods in LA.<BR><BR>LA is a city with zero appreciation for classic architecture, in LA the newer the better. There is no history in LA, well there is, but I would call it token at best. There is nothing picturesque about LA, except maybe the beaches which in my opinion are surprisingly clean given the mass of humanity that uses them, and the views from the hills. The SF area does have beaches, but they are not the social hot spots that they are in LA because they are too cold for swimming. The LA area is harder to navigate, and is just on a much bigger scale than is SF. You would need a car to do anything. LA generally has nicer weather during the course of the year, except late summer when it can get a bit hot and smoggy. Because of SF's geography, it has a northwestern-type climate, good coffee drinking weather if you are into that thing.<BR><BR>There is nightlife in both cities, but I think that LA's is superior as it offers more choices, and the opportunity for alfresco entertainment most of the year round. SF probably has more unique and "real" touristy stuff to do, LA's tourism scene is pretty much of the canned and packaged variety, nothing really unique about it except maybe for Disneyland, the Getty Museum, and Farmers Market. Everything else is chain-style entertainment that could easly be franchised into any other American city. LA does have some one-stop-shopping foot-friendly tourist areas that are great, like Santa Monica, but even that is a somewhat "packaged" and plastic-feeling environment and frankly that's the best LA has to offer.<BR><BR>Don't get me wrong, I really like LA, but it is more of a lifestyle issue that it is a particular draw that I could point to in this posting. 4 days here would give you 4 days of great weather (probably), the beach (rollerblading, sunbathing, pick-up volleyball, body watching, etc), some good shopping areas, some great restaurants, very cool nightlife.... but most of all the best part of the experience here would be just walking around, taking in the people, and savoring the diversity in what is around you.<BR><BR>In SF, there is actually stuff you can DO, like go to Alcatraz or ride the cable car or hit up the wineries. SF is romantic, great place to go with your lady (or guy if you hit from that side of the plate). In fact, let me close up this monstrosity of a posting, since there are obvious pros and cons to both cities.... to respond to your question, I say let your relationship status be the deciding factor here. If you are with someone special, hit SF. If you are traveling alone, hit LA. Perfect!<BR><BR>The End

I've lived in both cities and think S.F. is a much better place. You can even get around on public transportation and it's much prettier. L.A. does have slightly better weather, but it's difficult to breathe.

I would go with LA. SF is way overrated. The culture and restaurants don't even compare with LA. And the weather in LA is far better than in SF.

Jack - I think the opinions are split right down the middle. Both places have pros and cons - it's just a matter of what you are looking for in a city.

I like LA better because LA is more into gas. Then again, SF is usually breezier which helps with the dispersion.

Jack, can you tell us when you intend on going and what type of things interest you? It would be a big help.

Jack (nice name by the way). Your answer is calling you. "ehlaaaaa, eeeeehlaaaaay, LA!!!"