San Fran ror LA?
 

Where is better to go, San Francisco or LA?

What do you want or like to do? When will you be traveling? Provide details and this forum will give you tons of advice.

I'll just be sight-seeing around the city for a few days. Not too interested in activities.

i'd take san fran any day over my old stomping grounds of la. weatherwise it's so much nicer. san fran is more self contained, as la you'd be in the car all the time.

To me it's no contest: San Francisco. Both have their merits, but San Francisco has scenic beauty, great neighborhoods, you can get around by walking or public transportation, fantastic restaurants. LA isn't nearly as pretty, it's really spread out and you have to drive everyplace, and feels like there's no "there" there. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed visiting LA, but I could go back to San Francisco again and again.

SAN FRANCISCO!!!!!!!!!

Apples and oranges--a bit like asking London or Paris. Start by reading a general travel book about California and see where your interests are.

If you're more interested in seeing than doing, SF wins hands down. Many pretty and walkable neighborhoods and sights, compact and easy to get around. As others have noted, LA is spread out and more work to get from place to place, esp. if you're looking for good sightseeing. IMO, LA is a better destination for a trip arranged around activities, while SF is great for either or both.

San Francisco !!! L.A. a toilet.

This local SoCal guy votes for SF. Susan, Lisa & Caitlin's postings sum it up very well!

San Francisco it is then, thanks for the help.

Both cities are great in their own way. Don't get me wrong, I really like SF, but love LA. I prefer the weather and beaches in LA. The Southern California lifestyle just appeals to me and I love to visit and see all of the neighborhoods.

Got a brain with functioning cerebral cortex? Then go to SF. <BR>Have minimal function above brainstem level? LA's for you.

If LA is so bad, why are there so many people living in this wonderful place? Most people who move away, wind up right back here. You can't beat the weather and all of the options of things to do and see. Great museums, plenty of sports teams and a wide variety of super restaurants.

San Francisco is simply New York, West Coast style -- and who the hell needs that?!? If you don't care for L.A., I would certainly choose a quaint and charming place like Santa Barbara any day over SF!!

Why do people try to compare cities like this. New York is not SF, very different. Neither are like LA. I'd take NY for museums, shopping and broadway, SF for food except pizza(NY wins hands down for that), LA, well I have only been there once and didn't like it. It was a smoggy day and I couldn't breath. But I'm sure it has its good points. Just for the record I have lived in both NY and SF.

If your question, "why compare cities", is legitimate, the simple answer is that it's one way to put 2 places into perspective. If you know you like NYC for theater/museums/food/great hotels and parks (but that you don't need beaches/sunshine for a satisfying vacation), and you're trying to decide whether to visit Paris vs Capri for the first time, the comparisons are very relevant. <BR>Of course no two cities are quite the same. But putting two beside one another for comparison helps make the differences and similarities stand out. <BR> <BR>And in that sense, on the "New York Scale", SF rates much higher than LA. <BR>On the "Miami scale", LA is much higher than SF.

....and on the "Haiti scale", LA rates much higher than SF.